Oct 312015
 

The Fermi Paradox is the question, “where are the aliens?”  Even if only a fraction of starts have planets and only a fraction of those planets have life and a fraction of planets with life develop intelligent life, there still should be lots of aliens out there.  Theoretically, there should 1 billion Earth like planets and 100,000 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy alone.  The sun is relatively young as stars go so many of those alien civilizations should be older and more technologically advanced than us.  This also means that at least one of these alien civilizations should have spread across our galaxy and be on our doorstep.  Even if something like Star Trek’s warp drive is impossible, in the worst case scenario it would only take several million years to colonize the whole galaxy.  Even if a technologically advanced alien species decided to never leave their star system, as long as a small fraction disagreed, that small fraction would over time colonize the galaxy.

So knowing this, where are the aliens?  A possibility is that something either prevents aliens for engaging in space exploration or something that prevents aliens from even developing the intelligence and technology where they would even be in a position to consider space exploration.  And who is a big group opposed to space exploration on our planet?  Feminists working on behalf of women and the female imperative.  If aliens are sexually dimorphic like us, then intelligent aliens may have their own equivalent to women directly or indirectly preventing space exploration.  It could be via alien equivalents to feminists who agitate against space exploration.  Or it could be that alien equivalents to women are preventing technological development in general via having the non-women aliens fight over the women aliens so much that aliens never even make it to the industrial revolution or past the stone age.  Even if aliens have more than two sexes whichever sex controls the more scarcer reproductive resource could still be a logjam preventing technological development.

And that assumes that aliens even develop intelligence.  Take peacocks, for example.  Male peacocks have to spend so much evolutionary resources developing plumage to impress female peacocks that the chances of peacocks ever evolving to intelligence on their own is zero.  It’s possible that aliens are stuck in this peacock trap.

Eventually all these aliens will become extinct.  It has been pointed out that the dinosaurs are extinct because they didn’t have a space program.  That’s because the only way an intelligent species can guarantee long term survival is to become an interplanetary species.  Men like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson understand this and are putting their money towards making sure humanity has a future.  Feminists are doing the opposite by opposing space exploration.  If we follow the feminists, we are guaranteeing our own extinction.

There may be aliens in every corner of the universe, but we will never hear from them since they can’t advance due to the sex of their species that controls the scarcer reproductive resource.  They may never get to the point where space exploration is a possibility for them.  And that’s if they develop intelligence.  Many alien species that could have developed intelligence may never do it because their evolutionary resources are spent impressing their equivalent of women.  In either case, they will eventually go extinct.  Humanity may be the most intelligent and most technologically advanced species that has ever existed and may be the only species capable of preventing its own extinction.

There is no guarantee yet that humanity will become an interplanetary species and prevent our extinction.  We’re close, but we’re not there yet.  The only reason we are this close is because the US both publicly and privately is willing to commit as much as it has to space exploration.  (Richard Branson isn’t American but Virgin Galactic had to be based in the US.)  The US is the only country that has sent probes to every planet in the solar system completing the initial reconnaissance of the solar system.  Without the US, humanity might have been just another species to go extinct that happened to have an unusually high degree of technological advancement.  If this solution to the Fermi Paradox is correct, there will not be aliens to save us from extinction.  We will have to do it ourselves.  Then, we may have to consider a Marshall Plan for aliens to save them from extinction because we are the only ones that can help them.

  60 Responses to “A Possible Answer To The Fermi Paradox”

  1. lol the fermi paradox is horseshit
    Intelligent life other then humans is highly probable & most probably already exists

    All life forming planets, similar to earth, are born in dwarf stars, not around solar suns

    Guess what over 80% of all planets in any given galaxy or even our own universe, are classified as?

    Dwarf stars …

    • So you think Alien life is common, OK then where are they? That is Fermi’s Paradox.

      • Rmax has no clue. Remember that dwarf stars are the most numerous type (including the nearest star, Proxima Centauri), hence if they had a lot of ETs around them, SETI would have found them. Rmax does not address why SETI’s system of detecting intelligent radio data would somehow exclude those from civilizations around dwarf stars.

        No one implied that yellow G-type stars (such as the Sun) are where the search was exclusively being conducted.

  2. lol I love the fact, PMAFT is against conspiracy theories, but creates a conspiracy theory on feminists preventing space aliens from contacting earth …

    Pretty soon PMAFT will create a conspiracy theory, on how feminists are preventing the illuminati from recruiting his blog readers …

    Lmao …

    • Do you know what the term conspire means retard?

      • Do you know what a conspiracy theory is? lmao

        • Do you know what the term conspire means you mentally ill reject? Where did PMAFT ever say that women conspired to keep me from the stars?

        • You dont need to conspire to create a conspiracy theory, you half wit … lmao

          Again, this is a hilarious conspiracy theory cooked up by pmaft

          If he seriously thinks feminists are preventing space aliens from contacting earth, he’s crazier then the illuminati reptillians & moon landing freakshows

          This is some seriously hilariously shit … lmao

    • There’s no way you actually read this article.

    • He argues that feminism is a threat to survival, which is almost self-evident because they fuck up sex. He then conjectures that this might provide a solution
      to the Fermi Paradox, some kind of evolutionary conundrum preventing further development in a species. I think this is an interesting idea because I believe
      this is happening right now to our species.
      Neither of those are conspiracy theories unless you look at the world with the warped view of feminist reversed psychology that cannot understand
      what a conspiracy theory actually is because that would lead them to contradicting their own philosophy.
      For the record, I don’t think that aliens exist (but I would like to be proved wrong on this) because I think that modern science greatly overestimates the
      chance of the appearance of life in our universe. I think the chance is close to zero, which would also provide a solution to the Fermi Paradox.
      I also don’t believe in FTL travel because it always ends up violating causality. Which means it is probably impossible.

  3. When an ant colony needs to reproduce, they start producing males. At one point, the queen flies off and the males are unleashed. Only one of them mates,
    all the others die. And when they try to fly back into the nest, they’ll get killed by the workers. It’s a tough life being an ant!
    Let’s say someone wants to improve the conditions for those poor ants and comes up with a solution where all the males have an equal chance, or some
    other measure to tone down inequality between ants. If such an experiment would be performed, what would be the result? Would the living
    conditions in an ant colony improve? No. What you get is that after a couple of generations, all you have left is incompetent ants that aren’t
    even capable of building a nest in the first place. They’ll go extinct, in other words.
    Why then is humanity perceived as different in this regard? Would not the rigorous implementation of egalitarianism as is done today cause a degeneration
    process endangering the survival of the species? Of course it would, and that’s exactly what’s happening.
    Egalitarianism itself is the greatest threat to survival. It is the extermination of the exceptional, the strong. And because of this mankind will soon no longer
    be able to maintain its present state of technological development.
    Maybe it’s natural for a species to go extinct after they built their ‘enlightened’, egalitarian society and exterminate themselves because of it. Maybe
    that’s what happened to the aliens. Maybe they also ran into this inevitable conundrum of egalitarianism and evolution.

    • No. What you get is that after a couple of generations, all you have left is incompetent ants that aren’t,even capable of building a nest in the first place. They’ll go extinct, in other words.

      Since you haven’t bothered to experimentally verify this, how do you know?

      Why then is humanity perceived as different in this regard?

      We’re sentient primates. Ants are eusocial invertebrates with an infinitesmal fraction of our brainpower. So comparing us to them isn’t very enlightening.

      Would not the rigorous implementation of egalitarianism as is done today cause a degeneration process endangering the survival of the species?

      I would judge measures that have reduced male-male competition to have been beneficial overall to humans. Compare the success of Western European cultures, which discouraged polygamy, with those that allowed it, such as many African societies.

      • ‘Since you haven’t bothered to experimentally verify this, how do you know?’

        It’s called a thought experiment. No authority can be derived from it, but it’s a helpful step towards understanding a phenomenon. Just ask Einstein.

        ‘We’re sentient primates. Ants are eusocial invertebrates with an infinitesmal fraction of our brainpower. So comparing us to them isn’t very enlightening.’

        I have always found social insect societies fascinating precisely because of the many similarities to human societies. This well known fact has also
        been used throughout literature. It’s fascinating to see that we’re not that different, despite our ‘superior’ intellect. I think that’s an especially
        enlightening and humbling observation.
        Besides, I’m talking about a compromise of natural selection. Are humans not governed by the same law of survival of the fittest by natural selection?

        ‘I would judge measures that have reduced male-male competition to have been beneficial overall to humans.
        Compare the success of Western European cultures, which discouraged polygamy, with those that allowed it, such as many African societies.’

        I would judge that while egalitarianism seems ideal, especially in our time in history, in the end it IS a violation of natural selection, which
        forms the very basis of evolution. Degeneration is inevitable, unless you deny the primacy of natural selection. You’d have to argue that
        evolution is not based on reproduction and natural selection. Are you willing to defend such a theory?

        • It’s called a thought experiment. No authority can be derived from it,

          Well there you go. Medieval scholars evolved whole theoretical systems that were elaborately thought out and completely wrong.

          but it’s a helpful step towards understanding a phenomenon. Just ask Einstein.

          Even he required validation of his theory from experimental sources.

          (about eusocial insects):
          It’s fascinating to see that we’re not that different, despite our ‘superior’ intellect.

          The primate species came up with the Industrial revolution and has interstellar probes in a matter of centuries. Eusocial insects have been doing things for millions of years with little or no change Seems different enough to me.

          Besides, I’m talking about a compromise of natural selection. Are humans not governed by the same law of survival of the fittest by natural selection?

          Humans have come to the point where the effects of their culture and artifacts of their intellect trump all others. So what can happen is far less predictable than with insects.

        • I would judge that while egalitarianism seems ideal, especially in our time in history, in the end it IS a violation of natural selection,

          Less harsh natural selection may paradoxically be beneficial for evolution by reducing the chances of favorable gene combinations being eliminated due to chance. It would be far better that someone like Einstein have his intellect nurtured than be forced to perish due to famine or a useless war.

  4. The scarcer reproductive resource is the one that is slower to evolve.
    Hence, it becomes the one that obstructs technological progress when technology starts to become pervasive enough.
    Despite this, the civilization continues to hail the slower-to-evolve resource as the ‘more evolved’ resource, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

    The only civilizations that truly expand beyond their own world are :
    1) Ones that always stay as a single sex, up to the point of space travel.
    2) Ones that have three or more reproductive components, so that the ‘imperative’ of the scarcest never becomes so dominant.
    3) Ones where AI emerges become the scarcer resource eradicates the innovation that could create the AI.

    3) is the only path we could take to go to the next level. It is either that, or nothing…. Yes, we may be the first to have gotten this far.

  5. 1) Ones that always stay as a single sex, up to the point of space travel.

    Single sex can only work for single-celled organisms. The only way to add variation in a controlled manner in a multi-cellular organism is to have
    variation on both the cellular (sperm and eggs, mutation, crossing over etc.) and multi-cellular levels (selection of mates by determining fitness).
    Only then can you have controlled variation and evolution can do its thing for multi-cellular organisms.

    Thus, evolution can only make sense for multi-cellular organisms as a process involving both sexes. It doesn’t make sense to talk about
    evolution when only referring to one sex. One sex alone cannot evolve in the biological sense of the word since it cannot reproduce. Evolution doesn’t
    apply, then.
    But there might be something wrong with the reproductive process, a disease might negatively affect it, which is what I’m arguing.

    2) Ones that have three or more reproductive components, so that the ‘imperative’ of the scarcest never becomes so dominant.

    From the above it should be clear that two sexes is all you need to guaranty controlled variation/selection. And for single cells, only one
    is required because mutation/crossing over etc. is enough. Three would be redundant, overly complicated and therefore would have a much lower chance
    of reproducing successfully. Thus it’s highly improbable that such organisms would survive or even emerge in the first place.

    3) Ones where AI emerges become the scarcer resource eradicates the innovation that could create the AI.

    AI is religion, until someone can show me the stack trace of the algorithm that causes the free will delusion. Otherwise, it’s just vacuous neurobabble.

    • Not a programmer. What’s a “stack trace of the algorithm”?

      • In layman’s terms a stack trace is a method of reporting what’s happening during the steps of a program execution. An algorithm is a recipe of step by step operations needed to solve a problem.

    • AI is religion

      But machine learning, genetic algorithms, and self-driving cars aren’t.
      AI is revolutionizing technological progress as we speak and will continue to do so in the 21st century. And it doesn’t have to be humanlike to do so.

      until someone can show me the stack trace of the algorithm that causes the free will delusion.

      Techniques such as neural net training and genetic programming can
      sidestep the need for a detailed algorithmic breakdown of how an AI works. In other words, we may simply develop the means to ‘evolve’ it.

      Otherwise, it’s just vacuous neurobabble.

      AI winter was over 20 years ago and the world has moved on.

      • ‘But machine learning, genetic algorithms, and self-driving cars aren’t.’

        And using Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Ignored’ we can delude ourselves into thinking we know EVERYTHING!

        ‘AI is revolutionizing technological progress as we speak and will continue to do so in the 21st century. And it doesn’t have to be humanlike to do so.’

        Bring on the hyperbolic radiant image of the future! Our Brave New World! Though it looks more Orwellian to me … all the doublethink it needs …

        ‘Techniques such as neural net training and genetic programming can sidestep the need for a detailed algorithmic breakdown of how an AI works.
        In other words, we may simply develop the means to ‘evolve’ it.’

        Interesting, that was the prevailing idea 20 years ago (really!) when I was studying AI at a university. No such ‘evolution’ ever occurred and the techniques
        you mention have been well researched for decades. It’s therefore time to see the security on this claim. No more apologies, no more ‘complexity’ or ‘evolution’
        or some other means to sidestep the real issue. No more excuses, otherwise I call pseudoscience on your neurobabble.

        ‘AI winter was over 20 years ago and the world has moved on.’

        AI winter never went away. It was just ignored, Dennett-style.

        • And using Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Ignored’ we can delude ourselves into thinking we know EVERYTHING!

          Has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, which is about hard results, not theorizing (which may or may not be experimentally verified eventually).

          Interesting, that was the prevailing idea 20 years ago (really!) when I was studying AI at a university. No such ‘evolution’ ever occurred and the techniques
          you mention have been well researched for decades.

          So are you saying that AI research and applications is at a standstill? Did we have Google translate 20 years ago? Or self-driving cars? Or widely available image recognition software?

          http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-09/08/google-research-object-recognition

          AI winter never went away. It was just ignored, Dennett-style.

          Nah, AI has simply continued in its fine tradition of being a receding target. Meaning that as soon as a problem has been solved by it, it gets classified as ‘not AI’ by the naysayers.

          We now have AI tools available that can do things that were impossible or impractical 20 years ago. Deal with it.

        • Whenever AI succeeds at something new, that becomes an entirely new field, and is no longer considered part of the AI umbrella. Notice how self-driving cars are no longer called AI, just because the technology is getting pretty near.

          This fools the people who think ‘AI is not advancing’…

  6. ‘Even he required validation of his theory from experimental sources.’

    I don’t claim otherwise. In fact, I was using Einstein as an example of someone who used thought experiment a lot to develop his theory, which then
    got verified by experiment, to show that thought experiments are usually a part of the process we call science, especially when it’s not yet clear
    what experiment we need to perform or how. Those experiments need to be thought out, designed, you know! Science is a messy process.

    ‘The primate species came up with the Industrial revolution and has interstellar probes in a matter of centuries.
    Eusocial insects have been doing things for millions of years with little or no change Seems different enough to me.’

    We’re both protoplasmic multi-cellular shit crawling around on a ball of mud, but we have mobile phones! Reminds me of this :

    ‘For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel,
    New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.
    But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.’ — Douglas Adams

    ‘Humans have come to the point where the effects of their culture and artifacts of their intellect trump all others.
    So what can happen is far less predictable than with insects.’

    I’m reminded of the time I sat in the university cafeteria while enjoying a meal when one of my peers claimed exactly the same thing : That humans
    are beyond evolutionary law. While EATING. That’s when I realized common sense had disappeared from academic science completely.

    ‘Less harsh natural selection may paradoxically be beneficial for evolution by reducing the chances of favorable gene combinations being eliminated due to chance.
    It would be far better that someone like Einstein have his intellect nurtured than be forced to perish due to famine or a useless war.’

    Evolution already has optimization algorithms aplenty. One of them is called Love.

    • That humans are beyond evolutionary law. While EATING.

      So, do you expect the presence or absence of food to be a major driver in future human evolution?

      Evolution already has optimization algorithms aplenty.

      Well, okey dokey. But advanced Western technology and culture is a very recent arrival, which works against your “we’ve seen it all before” viewpoint.

  7. That reproduction monopoly is taken care of with the artificial womb. If you are bad enough to fly to another part of the galaxy I’m sure that problem can be solved. The Europeans with savvy may take that route after the fiasco with the immigrant thing.
    PMAFT”s thought process is easily observed right before our eyes now so it is not that far off.

    • That reproduction monopoly is taken care of with the artificial womb.

      And the sexual monopoly is taken care of with VR sex/sexbots. The commoditization of reproduction and sex is what will prevent the scarce reproductive resource from holding humanity back.

      • And the sexual monopoly is taken care of with VR sex/sexbots.

        There’s another way to take care of that 😉

        • Also, it should be obvious to see that if sex robots are the way of the future, there isn’t going to be a future. How’s mankind going to survive?
          Artificial insemination? Guys fuck sex robots in sperm donor clinics? No more interaction between men and women accept through the
          intermediate figure of the sex robot? If there’s something wrong with sex, there’s a danger to the survival of the species. Sex robots are not going to help
          with that.
          I think Big Gay Al is right. Human beings want to be with other human beings, not with soulless things, which is the reason modern women
          don’t fit the requirement, and neither do sex robots. Men seeking comfort with other men remains as the only option for true affection, unless you
          want to settle for soullessness only. Soullessness that is a consequence of the AI/Neuro/Geno religion because this denies free will, turning all of us
          into robot/insect like things. This is the reason modern women are so horrible. They weren’t always like this.

        • Big Gay Al said:
          (the sexual monopoly of women)
          There’s another way to take care of that

          And what way would that be?

        • And what way would that be?

          I’ll give you 3 guesses :)

        • it should be obvious to see that if sex robots are the way of the future, there isn’t going to be a future. How’s mankind going to survive?

          Technically speaking, we already have ‘sex robots’. Most of them are aimed at women (dildos, vibrators, etc). Of course, that’s going to change real soon now.

          The ‘sex robot’ of the near future (for men) will be a VR porn setup, not a fully autonomous entity (that will come later).

          If there’s something wrong with sex, there’s a danger to the survival of the species. Sex robots are not going to help
          with that.

          All sex substitutes will do is commoditize access to sex and further decouple it from reproduction. Reproduction is also on the road to commoditization. So women’s sex and reproductive capabilities will go from a scarce, inelastic resource to one that’s cheap and easily scalable.

          I think Big Gay Al is right. Human beings want to be with other human beings, not with soulless things,

          Sometimes they do, sometimes soulless things do just fine. There’s nothing that I’m saying here that is going to stop human beings from associating with other human beings if they want to.

          Men seeking comfort with other men remains as the only option for true affection

          Adam and Steve personally doesn’t cut it for me since I’m a flaming heterosexual. I realize that Big Gay Al will be disappointed, but that’s life.

          Soullessness that is a consequence of the AI/Neuro/Geno religion because this denies free will, turning all of us
          into robot/insect like things.

          Yawn. I’ve heard it all before.

        • Big Gay Al says:
          I’ll give you 3 guesses :)

          Sorry, replied without looking at your trollish name.
          No offense big guy, but I’m interested in my own sexual gratification, not yours.

          Anyway, if going gay is such a great solution, why are gays so eager to recruit? Their clamoring for access to teen boys tells me there’s a significant gap between supply and demand.

          http://www.fredoneverything.net/HomoScoutiens.shtml

  8. ‘So are you saying that AI research and applications is at a standstill? Did we have Google translate 20 years ago? Or self-driving cars?
    Or widely available image recognition software?’

    You’re not listening. I’m talking about the hard problem of consciousness, the illusion of free will etc. No progress has been made on that. AI researchers
    just come up with the same age-old excuses I’ve heard a million times before. And then they just list a bunch of tech as if that’s a counterargument.
    No. Not to this question. Please understand the question first.
    AI brought us a lot of great things. I’m a programmer, I’m using them daily. But no solution to the fundamental philosophical issue has been found.
    Some are honest about this, as scientists should, but most start ranting on about progress and tech and evolution and complexity and blah blah blah.
    All that is is just a giant excuse to hide the fact that on that particular issue, only vacuousness exists. Nothing nothing NOTHING concrete whatsoever.

    ‘So, do you expect the presence or absence of food to be a major driver in future human evolution?’

    Food. energy. entropy. physical law. common sense … not there. Answer : Yes, unless we can find a way to bypass the laws of physics itself
    and we somehow manage to not need energy any more. Seriously, if you question the need for food, you’re insane.

  9. You’re not listening. I’m talking about the hard problem of consciousness,

    I’ll take that as a ‘no’ answer to my question, which means you concede that AI is _not_ at a standstill.

    No progress has been made on that.

    And no progress was made in space travel in the first half of the 20th century. But the groundwork was being laid for Sputnik,

    AI researchers
    just come up with the same age-old excuses I’ve heard a million times before.

    Here’s a simple ‘excuse’ for you – technological and scientific advances are usually modest, incremental, and the effects accumulate over time. They also need to be preceded by enabling technologies. For example, Watson and Crick could not have come up with their DNA double helix model without the presence of X-ray crystallography.

    (about food being a major driver in future human evolution)
    Answer : Yes, unless we can find a way to bypass the laws of physics itself

    We don’t need to ‘bypass the laws of physics’ to make sure everyone has enough to eat – it’s an economic issue. If you know as much about evolution as you say you do, you should understand that scarcity is what tends to drive it. So it’s hard to understand how a commoditized resource would play a significant role in future human evolution.

  10. ‘I’ll take that as a ‘no’ answer to my question, which means you concede that AI is _not_ at a standstill.’

    Only if you apply consciousness ignored. Only if you want to detach AI from the philosophical question of consciousness/existence then, well, the tech
    has been evolving, sure.

    ‘And no progress was made in space travel in the first half of the 20th century. But the groundwork was being laid for Sputnik.’

    This sentence is self-contradictory. If the groundwork was being laid for Sputnik, That’s actual, real, progress. And they would be able to show it to
    me in a laboratory. But if for decades, all they came up with are excuses, and no rocket, you can legitimately question their ‘progress’. You can hide behind
    ‘but it’s slow, incremental etc.’ only for so long. And AI’s time is running out.

    ‘We don’t need to ‘bypass the laws of physics’ to make sure everyone has enough to eat – it’s an economic issue.
    If you know as much about evolution as you say you do, you should understand that scarcity is what tends to drive it.
    So it’s hard to understand how a commoditized resource would play a significant role in future human evolution.’

    Scarcity is the consequence of the laws of thermodynamics : Entropy. Every resource is scarce, no matter what.
    Evolution is driven by reproduction and natural selection, after a molecule started copying itself. As far as we know now, by pure chance.
    Since Entropy just destroys everything, a development of self-copying, and self-preserving (though that must have a lower priority) molecules
    can actually become better and better at it, due to natural selection. That’s what drives evolution.
    You seem to confuse economy, physics and evolution and I find it hard to decipher what you actually mean but I guess you’re arguing some
    post-scarcity situation where everybody has enough to eat always. Post scarcity is conjecture, and HAS TO bypass the laws of physics because of the
    problem of Entropy, which is the reason for scarcity in the first place. And never never NEVER in history has there EVER been a situation where
    everybody had enough to eat anyway.
    I’ll repeat this again, if you deny the importance of food, some serious mental gymnastics are required to remove the absurdities and you get confused
    stories intermingling different subjects etc. Denying the importance of food is absurd. And from absurdity, everything follows …

  11. Scarcity is the consequence of the laws of thermodynamics : Entropy. Every resource is scarce, no matter what.

    If so, why am I typing from my laptop with a full stomach and have no desire to stuff myself for a lean day?

    You seem to confuse economy, physics and evolution

    Certainly there’s someone that’s confused, but don’t think its me. Let the readers of this blog judge.

    guess you’re arguing some
    post-scarcity situation where everybody has enough to eat always. Post scarcity is conjecture

    Conjecture that seems reasonable enough to me. In 1900 38% of Americans were farmers. Now it’s about 2% and will likely drop further.

    And never never NEVER in history has there EVER been a situation where
    everybody had enough to eat anyway.

    That used to be because sometimes there just wasn’t enough to go around. Now it’s a political and resource allocation issue, not primarily a technological issue.

    I’ll repeat this again, if you deny the importance of food,

    No one is denying the importance of food, just that it’s a commoditized resource for most people. Commoditization means that scarcity will not be a primary driver in human affairs; other factors will become more important.

    https://www.wfp.org/stories/10-hunger-facts-2014

    The same will be true for commoditization of sex for men. Once that happens sex will be greatly reduced in its ability to drive male behavior. We can safely predict that the market for diamonds, Gucci handbags, and McMansions will be reduced accordingly.

  12. ‘If so, why am I typing from my laptop with a full stomach and have no desire to stuff myself for a lean day?’

    This sentence implies scarcity : ‘for a lean day’. Your full stomach doesn’t last forever.

    ‘Certainly there’s someone that’s confused, but don’t think its me. Let the readers of this blog judge.’

    Agree.

    ‘Conjecture that seems reasonable enough to me. In 1900 38% of Americans were farmers. Now it’s about 2% and will likely drop further.’

    If it means violating the laws of Entropy, I consider it unreasonable. If it means mankind is going to get their act together and solve world hunger,
    I consider it less unreasonable than a violation of physics law, but still unlikely looking at the history of the world.
    I think we’re facing a new holocaust, an egalitarian one that seeks to exterminate the strong. The very inverse of evolutionary law.
    My theory is that there must be something wrong with the current model of the mind, the neurological model, since it denies free will which I conjecture
    is the one principle which actually does violate physics law and as a consequence always manifests itself as a contradiction in physical research.
    This is the reason the mind-sciences like psychology are all moving towards absurdity; That’s what’s going to proof this conjecture.
    A hidden, true, contradiction like this is called a dialetheism. But time will tell …

    • This sentence implies scarcity : ‘for a lean day’.
      Your full stomach doesn’t last forever.

      It can be refilled easily, at a very modest cost. The chances that I will succumb to death by starvation in the US are remote, to say the least.

      At this point you seem to be arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

      If it means violating the laws of Entropy, I consider it unreasonable.

      Here’s the Wikipedia article on entropy:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

      In summary, entropy is a measure of disorder in a closed system. Since our planet is not a closed system (for example, incredible amounts of energy radiate from the sun), local reversals of disorder (such as technological progress that greatly improves the human condition) are entirely possible.

      If it means mankind is going to get their act together and solve world hunger, I consider it less unreasonable than a violation of physics law, but still unlikely looking at the history of the world.

      The url I gave shows a marked decline in world hunger over the past quarter century. This ‘unlikely occurrence’ is unfolding right under your nose but you refuse to acknowledge it. Interesting.

    • I think we’re facing a new holocaust, an egalitarian one that seeks to exterminate the strong.

      As in the silliness of SJWs (social justice warriors)? It can’t last. Organizations that put the weak, stupid, and incompetent in charge are at a competitive disadvantage to those that don’t.

      The very inverse of evolutionary law.

      Again, it can’t last. In economics (economics is a special case of evolution in the human realm) “bubbles” are fairly common where the price of an entity is grossly misaligned to its actual value. But eventually market forces reassert themselves and the price returns to its correct valuation.

      TFH (The Fifth Horseman) has an excellent article called “The Misandry Bubble” where he shows that the market value for female sexuality is greatly overpriced and will be deflated rapidly in the next few years due to a confluence of technological and social changes. I recommend that you read it.

      http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

  13. ‘At this point you seem to be arguing simply for the sake of arguing.’

    Reductio ad absurdum has occurred, effectively proving my point, as far as can be, so further discussion is indeed useless. Then it can be nothing but
    degeneration into absurdity. And if I first need to explain basic logic and physics, I can’t communicate.

    • Reductio ad absurdum has occurred,

      Speak for yourself.

      effectively proving my point,

      If your point is that you’re a gasbag I would concede that your mission has been accomplished.

      <em.And if I first need to explain basic logic and physics,

      Well, what specific statement(s) have I made that contradicts basic logic and physics? Technological progress and improvements in the human condition do not contradict the laws of entropy, which is what you seemed to be implying.

      • ‘In summary, entropy is a measure of disorder in a closed system. Since our planet is not a closed system (for example, incredible amounts of energy radiate from the sun),
        local reversals of disorder (such as technological progress that greatly improves the human condition) are entirely possible.’

        Closed systems don’t exist. And whether or not something is closed on not is unrelated to apparent reversals of disorder locally, since the ‘closed’ system might simply
        be big enough. We can try to see the Universe as a closed system, but such attempts just end in paradox.
        When you say closed system, you mean a system where the influence from the outside is so small, it can be neglected. Then you can consider it a closed system and define
        entropy as the measure of disorder in it.
        I never said that local (apparent) reversals of disorder aren’t possible, I take that as a given because I exist. But that cannot contradict the fact that the total amount of
        disorder always increases, according to the definition. That’s the whole point of the theory, that the amount of disorder always goes up, no matter what local reversals
        might exist that seem to contradict this, like evolution. Or technological progress etc.

        • Since evolution and technological progress are local reversals that don’t contradict entropy (as you acknowledge), why did you bring it up in the first place?

        • Because it means that every resource is scarce, no matter what. It’s you who didn’t agree. If you agree with this definition of entropy, why do you disagree with that?

        • Because it means that every resource is scarce,

          You seem to have an odd notion of scarcity. My definition of it is a human-level, economic one involving not having enough supply to meet demand.

          Under that definition, most people in a first world country like the US have enough food to make it a non-scarce resource. The amount of hand-wringing about obesity (as opposed to thinness and starvation) suggests that my beliefs are correct.

          Something that is a scarce resource would be something where supply doesn’t meet demand somewhere between very often or always. An example of a scarce resource would be the availability of women for sexual gratification or software that thrashes because not enough cache memory is available.

          In a system, it’s the scarce resource that drives behavior. Do you question that?

        • ‘You seem to have an odd notion of scarcity.’

          I don’t think it’s right to say that because there’s enough supply to meet demand for a certain product, that product isn’t scarce because scarcity is a more fundamental
          notion that economy actually depends on in the first place. Without it I don’t think the concept of product can be meaningfully defined.
          There needs to be at least the fundamental assumption of scarcity as a condition of reality, that effort needs to be done, that sacrifices have to be made, because concepts
          like market or competition or commodities etc. all implicitly require this assumption. No market without strive.

          ‘In a system, it’s the scarce resource that drives behaviour.’

          The Will to Power drives human behaviour.

        • Maybe I wasn’t expressing myself properly when I brought up the subject of Entropy. With this, I mean the observation that everything in the Universe tends towards
          destruction. In my philosophy, this is the condition of reality that economy calls scarcity.
          The physical theory of this observation requires the concepts of heat transfer causing changes in temperature (which is an average of kinetic energy and energy is of course
          the conserved quantity associated with the degree of freedom called time, hinting at an entropy-time relation, where the time-quantity is removed) and the observation that heat
          always flows from hot to cold (as a consequence of the ever-increasing disorder, statistically, establishing a direction of time, hinting at an introduction of the concept of time)
          to define the concept of thermal equilibrium, which is uniform distribution of temperature and the highest state of disorder a system can achieve, in order to make disorder in
          a system a measurable quantity and representable as a number. A feat that also implies the transitive nature of thermal equilibrium. And if there are no external influences,
          the system will just flow towards maximum entropy thus defined, no matter what ‘bubbles’ of low disorder might initially exist, like planet earth and its technology.
          This is the classical formulation, but much controversy exists over which quantities are actually primordial. And this certainly isn’t an exhaustive treatise.
          There’s Bolzmann’s formulation in terms of microstates, which describes the ever-increasing disorder as a consequence of statistics.
          And then there’s also pure information theory versions of entropy like Shannon entropy, which interestingly only differ from their thermodynamic counterparts
          by Bolzmann’s constant, which gives them the physical units.
          And then there’s black hole thermodynamics, where paradoxically a black hole is seen as having highest entropy, instead of lowest as one would expect for such a
          fundamentally simple object.
          And then there’s much confusion …
          And so I’ve settled for my own primordial idea : Entropy, meaning inevitable destruction. Death. And Time, which seems to give a flow to this annihilation.
          And I conjecture : No one beats Time or Death … And everything is scarce.

        • There needs to be at least the fundamental assumption of scarcity as a condition of reality

          If what you’re saying is that the cost is non-zero I’d agree. But it can be low enough so it effectively has no impact on people’s lives.

          The Will to Power drives human behaviour.

          That too. Certainly scarcity isn’t the only thing that drives it. My earlier point was that scarce nonelastic resources tend to be much greater drivers of behavior than commoditized, cheap products.

          The late John McCarthy had a short web page about universality in science (why there are separate sciences).
          http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/universality.html

          His contention was that higher level sciences could effectively ignore most content of lower level ones (they ‘leak’ into them to a small degree, but not that much).
          So psychology and economics are largely independent of one another. I don’t expect the price of aluminum or quartz to have much effect on day to day human affairs.

        • Nature can be considered on various levels, but one shouldn’t loose sight of the relation between the levels, how they relate to each other.
          You can say you don’t care about how your computer functions, but not to the point where you don’t care about supplying it with electricity.
          Information hiding must be valid, there must be some justification for ignoring the lower level, like a tank of gas that has certain thermodynamic properties that you can
          reason about without referencing individual particles. But in that case there exists a justification : Kinetic theory, where the macroscopic quantity of pressure is derived from
          the microscopic quantities of the kinetic energies of colliding particles. And only when I have that result, can I consider pressure without reference to the individual particles.
          Otherwise, it’s just invalid. And there exists no justification for ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, on any level. They seem to be as universal as we’re ever going to get.
          Psychology* isn’t independent of it. They can’t say that physics only leaks a little bit and therefore people don’t need to eat. You can’t jump down a building because
          you think physics has no influence on human behaviour and therefore gravity doesn’t apply. That would be fucking stupid.
          *(And psychology is pseudo science. All through its history, it has never matured into a real science. It always and still does fail basic scientific requirements.)

        • Nature can be considered on various levels, but one shouldn’t loose sight of the relation between the levels, how they relate to each other.

          Well, good advice, and I’ll try not to lose sight of it. I’ll still stand by McCarthy’s insight about natural phenomena being decomposable into largely (not completely) independent subsystems. As human beings, we have to do it anyway. We can only focus on a few things at one time.

          They can’t say that physics only leaks a little bit and therefore people don’t need to eat.

          We can probably just go a level or two lower in most cases (biology and organic chemistry). Certainly quantum chromodynamics doesn’t have much to say about getting enough to eat.

          You can’t jump down a building because
          you think physics has no influence on human behaviour and therefore gravity doesn’t apply. That would be fucking stupid.

          Well, ok, fair enough. I’d guess we can largely ignore the height of buildings as a factor in Putin or Obama’s foreign policy.

          And psychology is pseudo science.

          It’s definitely at the pre-paradigm level.

        • I’ve already explained that thermodynamics is about Time and Death. You cannot ignore that. You cannot isolate yourself from that. That’s delusional.
          For me it’s very important to explain physics stuff properly, because my theory of the mind argues the existence of an actual violation of physics law.
          Hence, most academic scientists or sceptics will immediately assume that I’m making basic mistakes in my reasoning process concerning conservation laws, entropy etc.
          The long rant about thermodynamics actually almost explains the entire field of classical thermodynamics in almost one sentence. Just ask an expert if there’s
          something wrong with it. I dare you.
          As I’ve already argued, the fact that psychology is degenerating into absurdity means it can be seen as one giant reductio ad absurdum, showing, nay proving,
          with the full rigour expected from a sound scientific experiment, that the neurological model cannot be correct. That’s the source of the problem.
          And if you say that contra-causal free will is a religious assumption, I wholly agree. But this time, there’s actual experimental verification for something like this
          for the first time in history. And that’s what’s required for society not to degenerate into another dark age due to the abandoning of the scientific method, which
          is what’s going to happen, what is already happening because all of those mind and social sciences are just meaningless pseudo vomit.

  14. ‘Organizations that put the weak, stupid, and incompetent in charge are at a competitive disadvantage to those that don’t.’

    Not if they do not have any responsibility whatsoever, like most psychological, psychiatric, care, human resource etc.
    You know, female make jobs! And in those ‘fields’, competence is irrelevant since it’s all absurd anyway.
    If you run an IT consultancy company, the greater the idiot, the more money you can make, it seems.
    That’s the inverse of evolution : It indeed puts the weak, stupid and incompetent in charge. It’s the reality at most IT companies.

  15. Not if they do not have any responsibility whatsoever, like most psychological, psychiatric, care, human resource etc.]
    You know, female make jobs!

    HR can be and is being outsourced. It’s a big win for companies who don’t need to keep idle employees who are rarely needed on the payroll anymore. Their functions can be easily subsumed by a payroll/benefits program and by ‘hired guns’ who can conduct the unpleasant business of firing.
    http://www.inc.com/fiscal-times/human-resources-big-savings-for-small-business.html.

    And in those ‘fields’, competence is irrelevant since it’s all absurd anyway.

    I predict that over the next 10-15 years, many of them will simply disappear.

    And in those ‘fields’, competence is irrelevant since it’s all absurd anyway.

    If you run an IT consultancy company, the greater the idiot, the more money you can make, it seems.

    I’ve worked for them – where I worked the idiots ended up getting fired or at least pushed off to the sidelines and the ones who were able to do the job got to do it. Yes, it took some time and some false starts.

  16. Summarizing some of the points here :

    The scarcer reproductive resource is the one far more valued than the less scarce one.

    BUT,

    The scarcer reproductive resource is the slower to evolve, and hence obstructs the overall evolution of the species.

    The scarcer reproductive resource has the more specialized skills, as there is not enough room for too many skills outside of those ancillary to reproduction.

    Once a species has any purpose beyond mere reproduction, the scarcer reproductive resource starts to become obsolete, as they cannot transition to any other useful role.

    The scarcer reproductive resource makes virtually no contribution to anything that a more advanced civilization would measure our progress on, which pretty much comes down to space exploration and matter/energy harnessing.

    Hence, the scarcer reproductive resource is really just a stepping stone towards the eventual evolutionary endgame, which breaks the Fermi paradox.

    So yes, this does explain the Fermi paradox. Out of millions of species’ that have ever existed, only one has become sentient. In the same way, out of millions of civilizations that reach our level, perhaps only one manages to adapt around the scarcer reproductive resource.

  17. If women had been in charge of developing civilization, our greatest achievement would be the grass hut. If we continue to let them have a significant say in our civilization, we will eventually be living in grass huts again.
    There is no reason that civilizations must necessarily develop, grow, and prosper. The historical record is the opposite in fact. It seems that technological advancement is accompanied by the adoption of ideologies and the emergence of interest groups that undermine all of the other achievements. A common thread is the “liberation” of women, which creates a bio weapon aimed at the heart of civilization.

Leave a Reply to lowtestmale Cancel reply

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: