matryoshkas

thought we should have something russian-themed today!:

StarWarsRussiandolls1

17 Comments

  1. That reminds me, I’ve always wanted to know how American “big box” stores work. Do people also buy various sizes of smaller boxes to fit inside them, Like Russian dolls? Why does your nation need lots of boxes anyway?

    Reply

  2. @dearieme – “Why does your nation need lots of boxes anyway?”

    yes, we need the big boxes to store all the little boxes. otherwise we’d be positively…boxed in! (~_^)

    Reply

  3. Well, i think i will study english to comment better here and in other blogs or i can to use ”minimalistic english” to be more comprehensive to you. Definitely i can’t continue to write larger comments ”words soup”, is not fair and empathetic.
    But, thanks for it. I to choice the minimalistic english, now for example, i’m using this ”language”.
    You are getting the message??

    Reply

  4. Enter your comment here…I made this comment on the article linked to above, taking issue with the argument for why eugenics will always fail:

    “A very interesting argument. I find it in many ways persuasive but would like to make a couple of points, and ask a question. First the question: Is it certain that more genetic diversity is necessarily good for a species that relies mainly on culture to deal with a changing environment? I can see why in the case of resistance to new diseases, but not sure about other kinds of environmental shifts: changes in climate, food supply, etc..

    As for the most desirable qualities one might like to select for, I question whether higher intelligence is necessarily one of them, or even the most important. Granted, there are certain human populations — Haiti for example — that seem to have such a deficit in human capital (partly because of selective emigration) that a modest increase in average iq would be helpful. Immigration would be a quicker and better solution however if one could overcome the natural human resistance to foreigners coming in and moving into influential positions in society, even positions as modest as government clerks who know how to read and write, add and subtract. I jest not.

    I think there are many other traits besides intelligence that are more desirable, in terms of frequency. Honesty, diligence, even a sense of humor come to mind.

    Lastly, let me suggest that the most practical as well as the most likely form of selective breeding is of the voluntary, self-selective kind. We see this not only in associative mating but also in larger-scaled emigrations and immigrations, the Puritans settling New England being an outstanding (maybe the only?) example. I can see more stuff like that happening in the future. It may not be “eugenics” from the point of the species as a whole but it would be in terms of certain sub-populations within that species. And, of course, it is the differential fitness of various subpopulations, in terms of future offspring who are able to meet the challenges of future changes in environment, that will shape the gene frequencies of future humanity. You might not want to call that eugenics, but I would.”

    Reply

  5. Luke Lea,
    i believe that during the process of evolution two principal mechanisms happens, the reduction of genetic diversity (colective transcendence, to adapt, the non adaptatives are eliminated. but see the non-human species adapt only to short term environmental conditions) and improve of intelligence. The species ”sophisticate” by selection, your specific ability to survive in a specific conditions. More intelligence. Us, the humans, are the only animals who can think in future. The process of selection reduce the diversity and probabilities to survive in a different places in different contexts.
    The best answer is, always in a (somewhere) middle of the spectrum of possibles answers.
    Finish of the disgenic process is a moral imperactive today.
    But is not good to be like a exotic plant.

    Well, eugenics is not only about human evolution but we can see in your everyday. When you choice to the better apple than spoiled apple you be practise eugenics.
    We can be more didactic with average people. They rarely understand this larger systems of events and statistical correlations. Don’t understand and don’t want.

    Reply

  6. Dear Gottlieb, I question whether extremely high intelligence increases fitness for the individual as well as whether social groups composed of persons of uniform very high intelligence are more fit for long-term survival.

    For evidence of the former Google the Promethian Society or various IQ prodigies in the intelligence literature. For the latter, well, there’s China: a lot of ’em but not clear how well adapted they are for the modern world. Hbd*chick can shed a lot of light on why!

    Reply

  7. One further point, Gottlieb: if intelligence were all that important wouldn’t we be a lot smarter than we are. Brain size has been slowly decreasing for homo sapiens since the end of the Paleolithic. The Ice Man was something else!

    Reply

  8. The beauty of human culture is that a true genius, however rare (and however hard to live with! look at Sheldon), can enrich the entire species. We see this in technology, we see it in the arts.

    Reply

  9. I should have said the beauty of human culture ‘in historical times, since the rise of civilization …” In hunting and gathering days and before writing this was maybe less true.

    Reply

  10. sorry io9.com: my vote is for truncation – sterilize everyone in prison.
    truncation is much less messy than eugenics/breeding :)

    Reply

  11. ”One further point, Gottlieb: if intelligence were all that important wouldn’t we be a lot smarter than we are. Brain size has been slowly decreasing for homo sapiens since the end of the Paleolithic. The Ice Man was something else!”

    Wow, only now i visualise the comment directed to me, sorry Luke Lea!!
    Yes, i think higher intelligence is like autism, neurodiversities and some others ATAVIC components wich are selected out. ”Evolution” is like a elimination of ”dangerous” (non-conformist) traits and selection cause domestication OR transcendence to a specific context. Both, specially domestication, are terrible, i love dogs and cats but i think how they are extremely dependents to humans, so sad for them. In fact the eugenics actually deserve be analysed with extreme caution, but i think also is urgently important eliminate or domesticate the full psychopathy and sociopathy, but there some psycho-types who are self controled and different-empathetic, like US,hihihihi

    Reply

  12. I will explain,
    in my first comment i say ” selection result in more intelligence”. Yes, but in collective sense, like bees or other complex bio-structures.
    …. and in my last comment i say (to seems) exactly the opposite. Yes, selection is good for a collective but is bad for a individuals, is good for contextual proposes but is bad for biological species fitness. Specially when people who believe in hippie jewish homossexual like Jesus how ”son of Daddy”. In the final we are a type of collective schizophrenia, we have the very interesting but today impossible thinking
    ”if i see, so it exist”
    triunph of will??
    I see is possible in the future, today is not.
    Maybe, autism (neurodiverses) and specially the high functioning types was these types very smart, cognitive specialist who was very important to development of humankind in the early times.
    Well, what people who you know have ”low iq” but have bigger brains, more neurons than the modern ones?

    Reply

  13. ”Dear Gottlieb, I question whether extremely high intelligence increases fitness for the individual as well as whether social groups composed of persons of uniform very high intelligence are more fit for long-term survival.

    For evidence of the former Google the Promethian Society or various IQ prodigies in the intelligence literature. For the latter, well, there’s China: a lot of ‘em but not clear how well adapted they are for the modern world. Hbd*chick can shed a lot of light on why!”

    Dear Luke Lea,
    i believe extremely in ”iq measure quantitavely intelligence and contextual and technical-general traits”. Intelligence is a phenotype and divided in many sub-phenotypes, inclusive in ”higher intelligence” types. There people who are ”higher technical smart and poor qualitative smart”, example, engineers, many them, they can do many math counts and thinking spatially but to ”intelectual and abstract” thinking many them could be stupid. My father,hihihi.
    There ”smart intelectuals or abstract and poorer technical”, me.
    There poorer technical and intelectuals (quintesssencial dumb), there smart intelectuals AND poorer.
    Maybe, is more complex than digits.
    Very smart people never will adapt to types of societies, because these societies are not perfects. When a really smart people think any everyday action they think in ALL possibilities that could happen and it cause fear among them. This people will adapt only in these perfect societies.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s