4chan archive /sci/ (index)
similar threads
2013-06-03 11:07 5808456 Anonymous (1335915947738s.jpg 251x215 7kB)
I came to remind you that vaccines and welfare are killing our species by overpopulating it with the lowest common denominator. You can't be in favor of vaccines and mass welfare and at the same time accept natural selection to be the most efficient mechanism for survival.

17 min later 5808488 Anonymous
>>5808456 >Not giving welfare to everyone on /sci/ and people with IQ's over 120.

18 min later 5808490 Anonymous
Woohoo anarchy

27 min later 5808509 Anonymous
>Mass welfare no >Vaccines yes, vaccines are cheap and allow the human population to grow, and a bigger gene pool equals more intelligent human-beings being born. It's like saying "You can't be in favor of harvesting mass amounts of crops as now the genetic rejects who would die in the wild eating berries are allowed to breed.". Only the people with genetic diseases that aren't easily curable should be neutered or let to die, but even then searching for cures and treatments to their diseases progresses humanity in a way too.

31 min later 5808515 Anonymous
Might as well say the same thing about glasses and clothes.

42 min later 5808546 Anonymous
>>>/pol/

48 min later 5808554 Anonymous
>>5808509 yes, vaccines are cheap and allow the human population to grow, and a bigger gene pool equals more intelligent human-beings being born. This is verified by looking at species whose numbers have dwindled. They have not become "better", in fact they have simply become shittier. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strongest, but of the species that as a whole can adapt. By having more population, you increase chances that when a huge catastrophe or climatic change occurs there'll be survivors of the same species.

54 min later 5808570 Anonymous
>>5808456 >welfare Are you high? >Vaccines I agree on this note but the way the market functions I have no idea how to fight it. In the worst case scenario we're looking at a system that optimizes for maximal disease and medicine.

1 hours later 5808659 Anonymous
Don't worry, OP. Famines and diseases are coming, as a natural consequence of over-population. Natural Selection will not be cheated.

1 hours later 5808665 Anonymous
>>5808659 >natural selection >only wealthy retarded pop culture people survive

1 hours later 5808666 Anonymous
>>5808456 >accept natural selection to be the most efficient mechanism for survival. Why would anyone ever do this?

1 hours later 5808673 Anonymous
>>5808666 because it's like a really sophisticated machine learning algorithm. At best we could match it.

1 hours later 5808686 Anonymous
>"our specie" It will become 2, superiors and dumbs, that is all.

1 hours later 5808690 Anonymous
>>5808673 You don't just go "Well fuck that's good, clearly its the best at what it does and nothing could conceivably be better" just because you can't come up with a better solution.

1 hours later 5808705 Anonymous
>>5808456 Darwinism is a well-fitting explanation for our origins. Darwinistic societies are generally unpleasant to live in. Don't think you should apply the principles of natural selection to modern policymaking, just because they were able to raise intelligence out of life.

1 hours later 5808718 Anonymous (Dog.jpg 227x222 5kB)
>>5808705 Are you saying we've... >evolved ... beyond Darwinism?

2 hours later 5808771 Anonymous
>>5808690 No man, you gotta compare it to shit like machine learning algorithms. Natural selection processes an absurd amount of variables all incredibly efficiently. It does have problems like over and undertraining but anything we develop would also have them.

2 hours later 5808780 Anonymous
>>5808771 How are you gonna compare it to machine learning algorithms that are going to be developed rather than those made in the past? How do you know we cant overcome these problems? Finding upper bounds on future innovation is not a trivial task.

2 hours later 5808782 Anonymous
>by overpopulating it with the lowest common denominator. >overpopulating Sorry, this simply isn't the case. Having more people, smart or dumb, is a good thing because it results in a larger economy, more industry, and more resources to allocate toward those that are most capable. A lowly farmer with low competence isn't a drain on the most capable by virtue of his mere existence any more than a lowly ant is a drain on human resources, and Earth has not reached its human population's carrying capacity. Secondly, overpopulation is a symptom oF poverty, not the cause of it. Even the most developed parts of the world with the lowest birth rates today once had much higher birth rates. The difference is that more children is a means of hedging one's bets when one has no access to social security. The means to curb overpopulation is either to prevent access for people to basic resources like food and water, or to provide a financial safety net and material quality of life that discourages wanting to have a large family, coupled with obvious measures like access to contraception and education. Humans don't need vaccines and welfare to reproduce rapidly. That's not the problem, and you'll only be perpetuating unnecessary cruelty.

2 hours later 5808790 Anonymous
>>5808780 All machine learning algorithms are essentially the same. They only vary in how fast they learn, but after lots of data they all perform more or less the same. It's kind of a saying with machine learning, the one who's mined the most data wins. The only reason it's still somewhat competitive is because machine learning is one of those things that's very easy to get wrong, so you can still compete with a company that has many times more data than you if the people who implement their algorithms are retarded.

2 hours later 5808804 Anonymous
>>5808782 poster here. I'd also like to add that be eliminating welfare and vaccines altogether you going to be reducing valuable human biodiversity and selecting for relatively trivial traits with respect to what be benefits civilization most. There's no reason someone needs to die from lack of medical attention when they're otherwise potentially valuable to industry because they've talents.

2 hours later 5808807 Anonymous
>>5808456 You're on 4chan, you have no room to judge.

2 hours later 5808819 Anonymous
>>5808771 No man, you don't fucking understand. You can compare it to whatever the fuck you like, that doesn't make it the best. What you're doing is equivalent to proof by example - all numbers are integers, since for example, 1 is, and so is 2.

3 hours later 5808875 Anonymous
>welfare The poorest countries (i.e. with no welfare) are the ones with the fastest growing populations. >vaccines The only natural selection vaccines eliminate is immunity to those specific diseases. Is not being immune to polio = "the lowest common denominator?" tl;dr you're dumb

6 hours later 5809251 Anonymous
>>5808819 No dude I'm saying that what we do with machine learning is essentially try to do the same type of shit that natural selection does except in a much less efficient way. It is the perfection we strive for.

7 hours later 5809271 Anonymous (cave-man[1].jpg 450x600 150kB)
I came to remind you that pointy sticks are killing our species by overpopulating it with the lowest common denominator. You can't be in favor of pointy sticks and at the same time accept natural selection to be the most efficient mechanism for survival.

8 hours later 5809356 Anonymous
>>5808456 Just because natural selection is the most efficient mechanism for survival of a given species doesn't mean it is the most desirable.

8 hours later 5809368 Anonymous
>>5808488 >2013 >still thinking IQ tests are a reliable metric of `intelligence' choose one

8 hours later 5809370 Anonymous
>>5808456 babby's first time watching idiocracy? get out. see >>5808509

16 hours later 5810026 Anonymous
>>5808790 >>5809251 Natural selection wouldn't output an agent that cooperates on anonymous single-iteration Prisoner's Dillemas, unless the agent gains enough intelligence to make himself do it. Natural selection is slower at designing, say, entities capable of motion than human engineers are and still hasn't produced one that drives on wheels. Who is to say that it must be no worse than any merely deterministic designer?

16 hours later 5810073 Anonymous
>>5809271 Are you comparing a tool that a human being must actively use himself to enrich his life, to an institution like welfare that must be maintained on the behalf of others? >>5808705 Unpleasant for who?

17 hours later 5810091 Anonymous
>>5810073 *whom Unpleasant for the average human. When you designed the policies you wanted to have the world live by, how did you know which body you would end up in?

17 hours later 5810100 Anonymous
Natural Selection is still in effect, moron. You don't think welfare and vaccines are agents of natural selection? You do understand that Natural Selection does not mean nature always selects for the biggest and strongest, right?

17 hours later 5810101 Anonymous
>>5810091 Are you actually suggesting a philosophy of inaction because it could interfere with unreal eventualities of prior probabilities? How on Earth do you operate in this world? The phenomenon of "designing policies" implicates already being in possession of a body; it does not occur prior.

25 hours later 5811241 Anonymous
>>5810100 >what is artificial selection

25 hours later 5811253 Anonymous
>>5810100 Natural selection is predicated on the fact that organisms compete for resources and need to attract mates. Those with traits better suited to gathering essential resources (food, etc.) and reproducing are more likely to reproduce and propagate their genes whereas those with traits poorly suiting to these purposes won't reproduce and won't pass their traits on to offspring. Welfare provides resources to people who, left to their own devices, do not possess traits that are situated to attain said resources. It very much goes against survival of the fittest.

26 hours later 5811296 Anonymous
>>5810073 It does seem absurd to use the pointy stick to provide welfare by defense and food for the herd. God damn, cavemen were stupid.

34 hours later 5812111 Anonymous
>>5810026 If wheels were better or more difficult then feet then we wouldn't have any interest in making walking robots and it would also not be as difficult as it has been.

34 hours later 5812114 Anonymous (1370309187370.jpg 720x540 54kB)
So, eugenics.

34 hours later 5812120 Anonymous
>>5812114 It would actually be less efficient.

34 hours later 5812126 Anonymous
>>5812120 Can chemical sterilisation be administered in a single pill? You could offer cash incentives for people in booming population centres like India and Asia to take it. No coercion so the libertarians are happy. No contraception (as such) so the religious element is happy. Cash incentive so the participant is happy. Reduced population growth so the world is happy. Am I evil or good?

34 hours later 5812128 Anonymous
I believe India, or maybe it was Pakistan already provides a cash incentive to it's people in the lower class. The result was that couples would have a lot of children at once before getting sterilised, and their financial situation would be worsened as a result of raising so many children simultaneously.

34 hours later 5812136 Anonymous
>>5812126 No, I meant in terms of converging on optimal adaptation, natural selection and eugenics fundamentally work very differently. One works from the front end and the other from the back end. In one you're throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. On the other one you're attempting to make predictions about the future and applying them ahead of time. The first is wreckless and can become moot once everything starts sticking (changes the preconceptions of 'optimal' pretty much) and the other is worse it overspecializes from the get go and effectively eliminates the 'new discovery' processes. You'll constrain mankind to a single preselected template and never allow it to grow in new and interesting ways.

34 hours later 5812139 Anonymous (1329126456264.png 400x400 10kB)
>>5808456 'cos smart people don't get sick at all. Only dumb people get sick.

34 hours later 5812145 Anonymous
>implying man-made evolution is slower than natural selection. faggots all the way down.

34 hours later 5812166 Anonymous
>>5812139 I japan we say: idiots dont get sick =^_^=

34 hours later 5812170 Anonymous (1334551028633.jpg 800x544 76kB)
>>5812166 BAKA GAIJIN ~DESU

34 hours later 5812172 Anonymous
natural selection is the most efficient natural method for survival we're humans we don't play by nature anymore we can bend it to our desires and will do it sage for being an unintelligent tool and looking at things from an archaic point of view

36 hours later 5812325 Anonymous (starfish_hitler.jpg 480x640 82kB)
>>5812166 Japanese people sometimes are too attached to their old traditions...

1.746 0.101