Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What Defines ‘human’?

    October 27th, 2018 11:41 AM WHAT DEFINES ‘HUMAN’?

    —“Is it possible that you have too high a standard for what qualifies as human?”– Joel Harvey

    [W]ell, that begs the question standard for what purpose? 1 – For cooperating commercially (trade on means) – yes. 2 – For socializing (exchanging information – on ends) – no. 3 – For political organization (cooperating on ends and means) – absolutely not. One does not let wild animals, domesticated animals, domesticated pets, children, or insufficiently domesticated and trained humans to influence that which they lack the agency to decide without harm to others.

  • Definancialization

    October 27th, 2018 12:05 PM

    —“Almost every conflict that we could name can be traced back to financial institutions, And they have all been centered around the control of others resources,”—

    [I]f you want to argue that we evolved: from normative governance > to religious governance > to legal governance > to credit governance > (and are moving into digital reputation governance as we have seen in China and the UK) …then yes. If you want to argue that we must definancialize the economy and polity such that we are once again under rule of law instead of credit and digital reputation; and that doing so will end the extraction of rates of reproduction and quality of life from the middle classes in order to increase the reproduction of the lower classes, and payment of the upper classes for doing so, then yes I am in agreement. If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. if you want to argue that redistribution without constraint on reproduction is a good thing then you are engaging in moralizing in a misguided attempt to devolve civilization, standard of living, and replace democracy markets and rule of law with authoritarian central management and it’s deterministic consequences: dysgenia, and consequential impoverishment. Nature isn’t kind, people aren’t equal at all, and the difference in standards of living is little more than the difference in the sizes of the underclasses – those more successful at soft eugenics (suppressing underclass reproduction and upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class), produced the highest standard of living for the simple reason that rate of raining increases rapidly below the upper thirty percent ( of the west) which is why india cannot become a china for example. But if you want to engage in feminine gossiping, rallying, shaming and ridicule, rather than argument you’re just perpetuating the problem. I know how to definnacialize the economy. I know how to redistribute standard of living from the financial, political, and entertainment classes to the middle productive classes. But are you willint to limit reproduction of the underclasses to one child in return? Economics in everything. It’s just physics for humans.

  • Very few of us are yet human

    October 27th, 2018 11:10 AM WHO IS AND ISN’T HUMAN?

    —“Curt, Who isn’t currently human?”—Joel Harvey

    [I]s the line of demarcation between human and animal: 1) Morphology? 2) Sentience? (Reaction to stimuli) 3) Awareness? (Sympathy-intent/Empathy-experience/Imitation-action) 4) Speech? 5) Reason? (Agency) As far as I know, it is reason and agency which separates us from the animals. That means very few of us are yet human. The rest are in different stages of domesticated animal. And I suspect that number (percentage) corresponds to the pareto minimum. Yes, really. Our process of self domestication is far from complete. It is merely sufficient for west and to a lesser degree, east, to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, filth, poverty, starvation, disease, plagues, suffering, child mortality, early death, continuous violence, and the vicissitudes of nature. |HUMAN| The gods we aspire to be < Trained Humans < untrained humans < trained animals < untrained animals < untrainable animals. We domesticated plants, those animals we could domesticate, and those humans we could domesticate. We just left the job unfinished.

  • What Defines ‘human’?

    October 27th, 2018 11:41 AM WHAT DEFINES ‘HUMAN’?

    —“Is it possible that you have too high a standard for what qualifies as human?”– Joel Harvey

    [W]ell, that begs the question standard for what purpose? 1 – For cooperating commercially (trade on means) – yes. 2 – For socializing (exchanging information – on ends) – no. 3 – For political organization (cooperating on ends and means) – absolutely not. One does not let wild animals, domesticated animals, domesticated pets, children, or insufficiently domesticated and trained humans to influence that which they lack the agency to decide without harm to others.

  • Arguing with The Left (feminine-Cognitive Process) Male

    October 27th, 2018 10:58 AM ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE

    —“I knew it, A veritable scream, I would play organ music and do bongs whilst you chanted in the corner, Ya crack stinks fella, Keep it snappy, 5-second attention span when looking at anything that doesn’t flash, squelch or explode.”— Damien Woodgate

    [A]gain. A statement of psychologism, the feminine substitute for argument, by use of “disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, reputation destruction, and straw manning”, where the “straw manning” most commonly consists of mirroring the feminine emotional overwhelming of any semblance of agency or reason. Statement of fact. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to me or mine. You cannot use the tactics of females because you do not have sex, affection, care, reproduction, or ally-negotiation to trade. You must produce some form of value to trade with me and mine, and demonstrate your fitness to trade with me and mine, BEFORE you have any value, and therefore BEFORE your attempted threat of non-cooperation, undermining, reputation destruction has any persuasive value. There is a reason for paternalism: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, rule of law, and markets in everything – so that we domesticate the animals-that-speak, into the humans through training, education, and controlling their breeding. We domesticated the animal man. We have unfortunately left the job incomplete – as only some of us are currently human.

  • Very few of us are yet human

    October 27th, 2018 11:10 AM WHO IS AND ISN’T HUMAN?

    —“Curt, Who isn’t currently human?”—Joel Harvey

    [I]s the line of demarcation between human and animal: 1) Morphology? 2) Sentience? (Reaction to stimuli) 3) Awareness? (Sympathy-intent/Empathy-experience/Imitation-action) 4) Speech? 5) Reason? (Agency) As far as I know, it is reason and agency which separates us from the animals. That means very few of us are yet human. The rest are in different stages of domesticated animal. And I suspect that number (percentage) corresponds to the pareto minimum. Yes, really. Our process of self domestication is far from complete. It is merely sufficient for west and to a lesser degree, east, to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, filth, poverty, starvation, disease, plagues, suffering, child mortality, early death, continuous violence, and the vicissitudes of nature. |HUMAN| The gods we aspire to be < Trained Humans < untrained humans < trained animals < untrained animals < untrainable animals. We domesticated plants, those animals we could domesticate, and those humans we could domesticate. We just left the job unfinished.

  • Someday…

    October 27th, 2018 10:24 AM SOMEDAY … [S]omeday, I have fairly high confidence, nearly everyone will understand my work on the grammars, from measurements to fictionalisms, and what sounds ‘odd’ in my categorization of prose is as normal as enumerating logic, math, physics, chemistry, biology, and ecology. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. And that is why the Vitruvianist, Testimonialist and Propertarian revolution will be as impactful in the social and political sciences as the empirical revolution in the physical sciences.

  • Arguing with The Left (feminine-Cognitive Process) Male

    October 27th, 2018 10:58 AM ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE

    —“I knew it, A veritable scream, I would play organ music and do bongs whilst you chanted in the corner, Ya crack stinks fella, Keep it snappy, 5-second attention span when looking at anything that doesn’t flash, squelch or explode.”— Damien Woodgate

    [A]gain. A statement of psychologism, the feminine substitute for argument, by use of “disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, reputation destruction, and straw manning”, where the “straw manning” most commonly consists of mirroring the feminine emotional overwhelming of any semblance of agency or reason. Statement of fact. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to me or mine. You cannot use the tactics of females because you do not have sex, affection, care, reproduction, or ally-negotiation to trade. You must produce some form of value to trade with me and mine, and demonstrate your fitness to trade with me and mine, BEFORE you have any value, and therefore BEFORE your attempted threat of non-cooperation, undermining, reputation destruction has any persuasive value. There is a reason for paternalism: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, rule of law, and markets in everything – so that we domesticate the animals-that-speak, into the humans through training, education, and controlling their breeding. We domesticated the animal man. We have unfortunately left the job incomplete – as only some of us are currently human.

  • The State of The Argument in Climate Science and Pseudoscience

    October 27th, 2018 10:19 AM THE STATE OF THE ARGUMENT IN CLIMATE SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE (worth repeating) https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/

  • Someday…

    October 27th, 2018 10:24 AM SOMEDAY … [S]omeday, I have fairly high confidence, nearly everyone will understand my work on the grammars, from measurements to fictionalisms, and what sounds ‘odd’ in my categorization of prose is as normal as enumerating logic, math, physics, chemistry, biology, and ecology. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. And that is why the Vitruvianist, Testimonialist and Propertarian revolution will be as impactful in the social and political sciences as the empirical revolution in the physical sciences.