Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Yes Eugenics Works. Period. So Do Many Things We Don’t Do.

    YES EUGENICS WORKS. PERIOD. SO DO MANY THINGS WE DON”T DO.

    —“No he’s not, he’s offering support to eugenics. It’s not scientifically, ethically, or socially valid AT ALL. Go read some bioethics.”—Dr Julie Blommaert @drjulie_b

    Julie you are a typical product of the feminist postmodern pseudoscience movement. (a) Eugenics would work. (b) So would many other things we don’t do. Even genocide works – it’s the most effective historical means of evolutionary competition. We don’t do it. SO STOP LYING. We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs. So go read bio-ethics yourself. Not propaganda. Not marxist, feminist, postmodernist pseudoscience and sophistry. What is the human cost of reversing thousands of years of soft eugenics by taxation and credit expansion in the middle to profit the top and expand the bottom? Economics (in the Beckerian tradition) should be required to get any degree and any pretense of conception of what ‘ethics’ means. People like you are a cancer for mankind.

  • Yes Eugenics Works. Period. So Do Many Things We Don’t Do.

    YES EUGENICS WORKS. PERIOD. SO DO MANY THINGS WE DON”T DO.

    —“No he’s not, he’s offering support to eugenics. It’s not scientifically, ethically, or socially valid AT ALL. Go read some bioethics.”—Dr Julie Blommaert @drjulie_b

    Julie you are a typical product of the feminist postmodern pseudoscience movement. (a) Eugenics would work. (b) So would many other things we don’t do. Even genocide works – it’s the most effective historical means of evolutionary competition. We don’t do it. SO STOP LYING. We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs. So go read bio-ethics yourself. Not propaganda. Not marxist, feminist, postmodernist pseudoscience and sophistry. What is the human cost of reversing thousands of years of soft eugenics by taxation and credit expansion in the middle to profit the top and expand the bottom? Economics (in the Beckerian tradition) should be required to get any degree and any pretense of conception of what ‘ethics’ means. People like you are a cancer for mankind.

  • Yes Ethics (Interpersonal) Morality (Extrapersonal) Is a Scientific Law

    Yes Ethics (Interpersonal) Morality (Extrapersonal) Is a Scientific Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/17/yes-ethics-interpersonal-morality-extrapersonal-is-a-scientific-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 01:42:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229219620843855873

  • Yes Ethics (Interpersonal) Morality (Extrapersonal) Is a Scientific Law

    (core) [S]cience absolutely positively can tell you about ethics and morality. And it has. Morality, including the moral instincts, consist in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, where reciprocity consists of limiting our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer( trade, consumption, harm, destruction, loss) of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs upon demonstrated interests of others by externality. That’s morality. It’s got to be or evolution (physics) wouldn’t tolerate our existence as a species. There is no difference between physics (involuntary change), economics (productive cooperation), and morality (social cooperation), except we have memory so can invest in and borrow from one another across time (. All that varies is the level of immorality tolerated given the stage of development in the current military, political, and economic circumstances. So yes, science has told us what manners, ethics, morals, consist of. They cannot tell you what those range of actions will be in three years any more than economics can tell you that, because what constitutes reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, varies with the structure of production of polities, commons, goods, services, and information. So we absolutely positively know what the physical and natural laws consist of – because they’re the same – we can judge borrow from one another or invest in one another and punish one another for violating those investments and borrowings (thefts, parasitism, free riding), and we do so by moral intuition we call “altruistic punishment’ – the payment of high personal costs of punishment of others to preserve the high value of trust in cooperation (borrowing, investing) in one another, because of the impossible-to-replace returns on cooperation – wherever cooperation is reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, transfers, and free of negative externality. And good luck refuting that scientific claim – because you will not be able to without violating it. It’s a physical law of conscious, cooperative, species beyond which no conscious cooperative species can survive. Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good Quod erat demonstrandum Thus endeth the lesson. fin.

  • Yes Ethics (Interpersonal) Morality (Extrapersonal) Is a Scientific Law

    (core) [S]cience absolutely positively can tell you about ethics and morality. And it has. Morality, including the moral instincts, consist in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, where reciprocity consists of limiting our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer( trade, consumption, harm, destruction, loss) of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs upon demonstrated interests of others by externality. That’s morality. It’s got to be or evolution (physics) wouldn’t tolerate our existence as a species. There is no difference between physics (involuntary change), economics (productive cooperation), and morality (social cooperation), except we have memory so can invest in and borrow from one another across time (. All that varies is the level of immorality tolerated given the stage of development in the current military, political, and economic circumstances. So yes, science has told us what manners, ethics, morals, consist of. They cannot tell you what those range of actions will be in three years any more than economics can tell you that, because what constitutes reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, varies with the structure of production of polities, commons, goods, services, and information. So we absolutely positively know what the physical and natural laws consist of – because they’re the same – we can judge borrow from one another or invest in one another and punish one another for violating those investments and borrowings (thefts, parasitism, free riding), and we do so by moral intuition we call “altruistic punishment’ – the payment of high personal costs of punishment of others to preserve the high value of trust in cooperation (borrowing, investing) in one another, because of the impossible-to-replace returns on cooperation – wherever cooperation is reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, transfers, and free of negative externality. And good luck refuting that scientific claim – because you will not be able to without violating it. It’s a physical law of conscious, cooperative, species beyond which no conscious cooperative species can survive. Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good Quod erat demonstrandum Thus endeth the lesson. fin.

  • The Law of God if There Is One Is ‘Win’.

    THE LAW OF GOD IF THERE IS ONE IS ‘WIN’. [I]f there is a god, his only law was entropy (dissipation) The only law of biochemistry is accumulation of information to defeat entropy (memory) The only law of life is accumulation of information to defeat of entropy and reproduce (reproduction) The only law of organisms is accumulation of information to defeat entropy and compete with other organisms (evolution) The only law of sentient organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy and other organisms by cooperation (reciprocity). The only law of conscious organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy, organisms, and their production, by calculation (instrumentation). The only law of calculating organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat evolution (eugenics) The only law of eugenic organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat entropy and transcend into gods. Defeat of entropy but accumulating information until transcendence into gods.

  • The Law of God if There Is One Is ‘Win’.

    THE LAW OF GOD IF THERE IS ONE IS ‘WIN’. [I]f there is a god, his only law was entropy (dissipation) The only law of biochemistry is accumulation of information to defeat entropy (memory) The only law of life is accumulation of information to defeat of entropy and reproduce (reproduction) The only law of organisms is accumulation of information to defeat entropy and compete with other organisms (evolution) The only law of sentient organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy and other organisms by cooperation (reciprocity). The only law of conscious organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy, organisms, and their production, by calculation (instrumentation). The only law of calculating organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat evolution (eugenics) The only law of eugenic organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat entropy and transcend into gods. Defeat of entropy but accumulating information until transcendence into gods.

  • No, that’s just science and the data. You can lie if you want to because thats w

    No, that’s just science and the data. You can lie if you want to because thats what marxist, postmodernist, feminists, denialists, and abrahamists do to resist science.

    No more lies. The century of pseudoscience is over.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 23:45:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229190054846791682

    Reply addressees: @EgSophie

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229185650026516480

  • “those things aren’t wholly separate they kinda have a lot to do with each other

    —-“those things aren’t wholly separate they kinda have a lot to do with each other!”—

    No. The truth of a scientific statement and whether or not we make use of a scientific statement are two different issues. She denied the truth of it. Not the ethics of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 21:25:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229154892742348803

    Reply addressees: @nathan_a_tanner

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229154451623174145

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @nathan_a_tanner Especially when they’re published by NPR. 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1229154451623174145

  • I’m pretty sure I know more about the demarcation between science, non-science,

    I’m pretty sure I know more about the demarcation between science, non-science, pseudoscience, and sophistry than anyone living. And that includes the criteria for making scientific (testimonial) claims.

    So no.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 20:24:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229139590725935109

    Reply addressees: @nathan_a_tanner

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229121360024293379