Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • “Our enemies are animals, combating them isnt cruelty. It is an act of love and

    “Our enemies are animals, combating them isnt cruelty. It is an act of love and absolute devotion to humanity” — Aaron Catlin Styles.

    Human?

    My definition of human is someone with whom I can cooperate with for reciprocal benefit. My definition of livestock is one that I must manage or maintain – a slave. My definition of animal is one whom I cannot cooperate with nor manage, nor maintain – a resource, a pest, a parasite, or a predator.

    One acts as a Human, Livestock, or Animal. What one looks like, or speaks is immaterial. I cannot cooperate with an ape, I may not be able to domesticate it without incurring a net loss. So it remains a resource at best and a pest or parasite or predator under other conditions.

    If we cannot cooperate or domesticate a creature it is not human: someone with whom we can cooperate with in the production of goods, services, and information, family, and generations, commons and defense.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 10:37:00 UTC

  • (My father was an abusive puritanical tyrant. And like many boys whose self, mot

    (My father was an abusive puritanical tyrant. And like many boys whose self, mothers and sisters were under threat, I grew up with a hate of conflict, feeling of responsibility, and drive to defeat tyranny. Add a dose of autism, and a childhood memory of the 60’s and 70’s, and you get someone who wants a meritocratic order where our only possible venue for action is the market, and political change by any other means is not only unavailable due to monarchy, but impossible to exercise through the outlawing of political organizations. it’s not complicated. Monarchy and a market for dispute resolution, a market for commons, and a market for goods, services, and information, and a market for reproduction were far better than the central control of each.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 10:02:00 UTC

  • “The adaptation – excessive resistance to killing other humans – is that humans

    —“The adaptation – excessive resistance to killing other humans – is that humans are dangerous predators that retaliate at high cost to themselves, whereas other creatures do not retaliate at high cost to themselves, they simply avoid taking the risk again. So we evolved for rational reasons, to both retaliate and to avoid retaliation. So it is retaliation humans fear regarding each other, and not regarding beasts. Most creatures flee losses, but humans and chimps reinforce losses purely for defensive reasons.”— Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:36:00 UTC

  • (My sister is a school teacher. Patient. Methodical. Creative. Watching her work

    (My sister is a school teacher. Patient. Methodical. Creative. Watching her work I see the similarity in cognitive processing. She works pretty continuously. She searches for new ideas. Does her research. Thinks them through. Tests them against experience. And never considers learning ‘done’. Which is something I think separates persistent people from those who are too desirous of outcomes rather than processes of continuous improvement. Family members are good tools for learning about yourself. Anyway, the difference between us is just one of scale. The process is the same. And I can’t say that for everyone. There is something different about people who think ‘what don’t I know’ from those who think in terms of ‘what I know’. Maybe it’s some sort of insecurity or paranoia at first. Or maybe it comes from being younger than your peers, or surrounded by adults. But there is definitely a difference in how some of us exercise our minds. What can I do, versus what can’t I do and why? What do I know versus what don’t I know and what can I do about it? Why do you think that, and why do i think this, and what can I do to decide? This is the essence of ‘seek to understand’. Most people seek something rather short term by comparison. Like whether they like it or approve of it, whether it’s useful or not, whether they agree or not, whether they understand or not, whether they want to pay the cost of it or not. But there is a group of us who just remain confident that we don’t ‘know’ anything so to speak so much as that we’re continuously learning what does and doesn’t work. And that this learning is our ‘entertainment’. So that we simply experience far more hours of thought on any subject than others do. And really, whether you’re terribly bright or not is not quite as important (except on the margins) as whether you just stick with something long enough to become an expert in it to such a degree that there are very few others with your level of expertise. we are rewarded in life for the number of masteries we accumulate. mastery is valuable. But it takes lots of time.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 13:36:00 UTC

  • Morals Reflect Genetic Distance

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.

  • Morals Reflect Genetic Distance

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.

  • Yes. He provided the relationship between moral intuitions and political biases.

    Yes. He provided the relationship between moral intuitions and political biases. https://goo.gl/cRGTqB I added property.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:40:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787317287032352768

    Reply addressees: @danielcraigb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787116258990911489

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787116258990911489

  • MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly po

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE

    We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true.

    But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict.

    We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict.

    That means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges for matters of conflict.

    It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition.

    We may not like this. But then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances.

    We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on.

    The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability.

    But those differences remain decidable.

    Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:29:00 UTC

  • LEFTISM AND SH_T FAMILIES. I understand. If you have a sh_t family, you want to

    LEFTISM AND SH_T FAMILIES.

    I understand. If you have a sh_t family, you want to join a sh_t genetics organization (the state), and that if you have a great family, you want to preserve your genetic organization(your kin). This makes sense. The question is why people with good and great families should cooperate with bad and sh-t families. It’s because consumers are cheaper and more productive than serfs and slaves. That’s the only reason. So if consumerism isn’t sufficient we can always restore serfdom and slavery.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 14:48:00 UTC

  • WE REALLY WANT ALLIES NOT EQUALITY We all think human equality of some kind is g

    WE REALLY WANT ALLIES NOT EQUALITY

    We all think human equality of some kind is good. What we really mean is that allies in our evolutionary strategy are good for us. We just desire that everyone adopt our strategy.

    —“The Elite seek allies with equality, the Masses seek control through equality. The Meritocratic seek equality under law.”—Delian Valeriani

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 13:35:00 UTC