Mutually assured destruction I think is often woefully overlooked as a stabilising force in the world.

I don't think it's at all a co-incidence that since nuclear proliferation we have only seen wars vs non nuclear nations. You can never really win meaningfully vs a nation that has the thermo-nuclear trump card in their back pocket.

When superpowers come to blows now, proxy wars are the only realistic option. That may still suck for the poor bastards that get caught up with it, but it does mean a world war is somewhat off the table (even if they like to rattle the sabres from time to time).

Also Starship troopers is an oft misunderstood book I think. Some people get so hung up on the underlying idea of a Military dictatorship that they miss much of the nuance and wisdom woven into it.
I'm not even sure Heinlein was even necessarily advocating such a world, but rather using it as a narrative device to explore how our societies really work once you drop the wishful pretences (especially the stable ones).

It seems like there is perhaps some intrinsic relationship between peace and the capacity for effective and controlled violence. There are few people as calm and non aggressive as the ones who truly know they have nothing to fear from you in a fight.

Think about it this way. Stack the corn trays just once and you just doubled your output for a given area.

You're right about getting less mileage from taller crops. But every vertical layer would in theory still double the area you have to work with each time you added one.

Scale this up to a skyscraper sized building and you could supply any city with all the food it could need locally.

It probably could start to skew the market towards squatter plants as you say, but I can't see why most if not all of the things we grow now couldn't be viable. (doubly so if they ever nail the process of growing meat)

There is actually an argument that our brains are three due to the way the frontal cortex works. (not the "triune brain" which is a different idea)

The frontal part can exercise control over the two hemispheres and is about as close as we have gotten to identifying where free will comes from. Certainly, in people who have had frontal brain damage there appears to be a direct link to lack of impulse control.
Almost every serial killer in history appears to have had some manner of frontal brain trauma at some stage in their lives and the link to delinquency is fairly well documented by this stage.

The latest research suggests consciousness itself is a fractal programme running co-operatively across the brain, but it remains pretty obscure none the less. The frontal cortex is split between left and right hemispheres, but it certain appears to behave as one in healthy brains.

The best way I could describe it is that the left and right represent the animistic unconsidered side of our behaviour and desires as we see in most animals (interacting via the corpus callosum that connects them). With the frontal cortex seeming to represent the higher functions that allow us to harness the rest of our brain in more considered and abstract ways (presumably also split into left and right).

I think of it like the foreman directing the other divisions of the factory but staying largely hands off when considered decisions don't need to be made.

All of the above is a gross oversimplification though. We can guess at the basis for free will, but it remains elusive.

As a lifelong flight sim addict (with a decent bit of real world experience), there is a twisted part of my brain that wills exactly this scenario to happen whenever I'm on an airliner.

I have no doubt that I would swiftly regret this if it ever did happen and I was mad enough to volunteer.

@mxxcon Unless a qualified pilot happened to be on the plane it would likely be the senior attendant that takes responsibility yes.

I imagine there is some procedure in place, but the scenario is so massively unlikely and modern avionics so good that there would be little point in doing much if any formal training (I can't see most airlines warranting the expense).

I dare say they might be shown how to work the radio though.

^ There appears to be a lot of sand in my vagina today! Sorry if that came across as overly harsh.

It would appear arguing with SJW trolls on youtube is harmful to ones soul.

Pretty sure I'm to some extent projecting my frustration with other similar styles of movement here. Though my underlying concern about such propaganda still stands I think. (& PETA can still more or less fuck off)


@iaui I have absolutely nothing against you and none of my vitriol was at all directed towards yourself. This was a perfectly legit thing to be sifting and I would hate for you to take anything I've said as an attack on yourself.

I'm not even sure it was really an attack on this specific movement, outside the insidious nature of it's propaganda.

It just left a bitter taste and much like I find myself having to stand up for people I deeply dislike and disagree with (re: freedom of expression). I also find myself having to take people to task even though I might like them or agree with the underlying premise of their position (a bad argument is a bad argument).

I'm now going to go away and watch frolicking kittens until I stop feeling like such a touchy twat...

"What if I told you that tickling them was like torture?"

Then I'd say: "please explain why this is and how you worked it out so I can contribute meaningfully to the issue."

Genuinely had to check after watching that this wasn't a hoax/satire. I'm not sure it could have come across as much more patronising and manipulative if they had tried.

Really reminded me of G.E.F.A.F.W.I.S.P. thing from brasseye in it's style and presentation. (Poe's law etc.)

Not that I disagree with the underlying point being made (most exotic pets have massive hidden costs to the animals well being), but I think they made it very poorly indeed.

If tickling is indeed torturous to them, then maybe make the flagship advert for your campaign do more than glibly announce "they don't like it!" whilst showing a video of what, to uneducated human sensibilities, appears to be joy/pleasure.

I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but even their website provides no materials or evidence to back up what they are saying. With a term as emotive and loaded as "torture", that comes across as rather disingenuous and makes me naturally somewhat suspicious as to their motives.

i.e. that they are likely ideologically opposed to most/all animal trafficking already and will happily muddy the facts & manipulate emotions if it furthers their higher purposes.

^ I don't want the above to come across as support for the Slow Loris pet trade, their unsuitability to domestic life and the need for pretty specialised knowledge to keep them healthy is reason enough (same as the vast majority of exotics). Chris Packham is one of the supporters and I have a great deal of respect for the guy's knowlage on such subjects.

But this, if anything, makes that advert seem all the more distasteful. YOU HAD EXPERTS! Persuade me better!

I also don't want to come across as suggesting that tickling definitely isn't deeply unpleasant for them for whatever reasons, but a cursory google and inspection of their own campaign site yielded nothing of any substance on the subject either way. (maybe my search-fu was lacking today?)

Again, I'm willing to accept the premise. If it will stand on it's own merits then I would like to understand. I will even advocate for the movement myself! But I'm not going to endorse anything I either can't or don't yet properly understand myself.

For every level headed campaigner with a basic sense of discernment and empathy for other creatures, there seems to be a mob of authoritarian ideologues eager to beat us around the head until we see things exactly their way and deny and semblance of nuance (i.e. PETA).

I'll keep this fairly brief for once but, why is everyone so hung up on the idea that the theoretical "simulation" is somehow distinct from "reality"?

To put it another way, what are the laws of physics themselves?

We do appear to inhabit a reality defined by laws we can describe mathematically. The mathematical models may be abstracted, but whatever they describe is presumably in some sense analogous in its "true" nature right? (even if we can't get at it directly)

If you take the leap into thinking that reality may be more mathematical than physical in nature (or rather that "physical" is a property of what we could think of as mathematical phenomena interacting in the right way), then questions about who's computer were in kind of become moot.

If reality itself is fundamentally mathematical in nature, we don't need a computer in which to run it, so much as reality itself is the computer.

I really don't think it's an either or thing, more like a shift in how we think about the concept of "reality" itself. Even if an experiment could prove that the universe is holographic in nature, it needn't change anything about it's validity as a "real" thing.

The "simulation" and "reality" needn't be mutually exclusive, merely different ways of understanding the same phenomenon i.e. that we exist and experience things.

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

My hope is that this will take the form of progressive revolutions. When the food and energy start to become scarce people might start to recognise that the ONLY people who can get us out of this mess are engineers, inventors and scientists.

Maybe we will even be smart enough to put them in charge and ditch the whole idea of politics for the sake of politics all together.

A man can hope anyway. The alternative seems to be extreme left and right wing movements fighting over metaphorical ash and bones.

Co2, methane and other undesirables in the atmosphere could probably be shifted if there was a concerted global effort, doubly so if we factor in 50-100 years of technological advancement. I'm sure the task would be herculean but it would probably also be the greatest thing we ever achieved as a species! ("screw your ancient wonders, we built an air scrubber the size of Missouri!")

It always slightly amazes me that the fact that little maxim works both ways is lost on most people. Sorcerers (well the good ones anyway) invented the scientific method, it can be just as appropriate to regard science as very advanced sorcery as you have done here. (modern science most certainly doesn't have a monopoly on "deductive truth" at any rate)

Then again I guess a lot of people get hung up on the superstitious nonsense most people associate with sorcery/magik these days.

Their loss!

For those that don't know this is an old trick you can totally do with just your own mouth & a cigarette (or similar ). As if smoking wasn't cool enough already right?!?!!

Well done. Attack the person arguing without actually attempting to counter the argument itself. You definitely won that one (genuine lol at this end)

Your right to say we have nothing more to discuss at this stage though I guess, you have just proven more or less everything I was trying to articulate all along i.e. that you would rather live in a little bubble of ignorance than actually try to learn and grow. Character assassination and evasion basically = not having an argument. You could't engage with what I was actually saying so you just resorted to insults and petty circumstantial details (seriously having better things to do for 2 weeks makes my argument invalid?), TROLOLOLOLOL.

(I also posted this reply on his profile not realising in case that causes any confusion)

My 1st post in that thread was intended purely to inform. Most people I meet who own dogs are painfully unaware of what I was describing and consequently foster futile behaviour and negative emotional outbursts around things their dogs do (the idea that everyone in that thread already knows about this is laughable). This is far from the biggest ill in the world but it's there and I saw an opportunity to present an alternative view of events in the hope that perhaps someone somewhere might learn something (or at least consider an idea rather than just mindlessly following social tradition). Where I learned that idea is irrelevant, it stands or falls on its own merits.

Your response garnered hostility because it was indistinguishable from saying "your spoiling our fun by trying to suggest that the animal might actually be terrified and confused and our fun is more important than someone/thing suffering". You didn't try to challenge what I said, you simply indicated some level of disdain for the fact I was even trying to say something intelligent, or because I didn't mindlessly jump on the "look at the terrified dog" bandwaggon like the rest.

Your damm right it was an emotional response, the attitude you displayed from my POV causes untold suffering throughout the world (and I don't just mean dogs which in the grand scheme of things is relatively harmless). If you read my reply again you'll see that at no point did I suggest you were disagreeing with me, I was insulting you precisely because you didn't even try, you just tried to indite me for trying to raise the level of the conversation. It was that and that alone that garnered my hostility, I'm happy to be proven wrong or even for people to switch off and ignore me but to give me flack just for trying I have little patience for.

You have clearly misunderstood my whole argument against you, if I were to take my own advice then I would either challenge your point (which I did) or accept that I didn't understand enough to try and counter intelligently.

What you did was insult me for just trying to make an intelligent argument. That is where the " little gem of "Fuck You"" came from.

Also it's no good getting on a high horse about me being "over sensitive" when you took the time to jump onto my profile and unleash a boatload of bile yourself. That argument would only have worked if you said it to yourself and got on with your life. But you didn't, you felt you had to give me a piece of your mind just like I did.
I'm not going to call you over sensitive, I'm just going to call you human because that's what you are, just like me ;-).

Edit: for the record that Bill Hicks quote refers to precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism I'm accusing you of. It was because an audience member objected to Bill trying to raise an idea above the trivial self interested level that they felt had been threatened. Or to put it another way Bill had spoiled their fun by trying to make an intelligent point rather than just wallowing in their own unconsidered ignorance. As far as I'm concerned it was entirely appropriate.

The difference here is between "punishment" and "treatment".

Punishment demands that one have an absolute and objective moral imperative . Such absolute imperatives quite demonstrably do not exist (save perhaps that the strongest tend survive and prosper which is of little use to us here)

Simply put, unless you want to invoke some absolute ethical standard such as the commandment of God, "punishment" can only ever be equivalent to forcing ones own prejudices and desires onto others. (and if you reject the existence of absolute authorities like God then doubly so)

This would be fine if we had any objective prejudices with which to inflict people, but we don't. We have only mob consensus and this is how human legal systems have worked for most of our history. The Crowd doesn't like something you did so they lynch/burn/flog/exile you for it. (pure democracy at its finest)

While naturally many dangerous and delinquent individuals are effectively dealt with in this way there is an unacceptable price. It enshrines personal prejudice in law and a great many otherwise perfectly innocent or relatively harmless individuals inevitably fall foul of this.
(much) Moreover it also demands that one accept the premise that some people are just born "bad", or rather that "criminals" are a breed apart from the rest of us. This assumption is essential if one is to justify "punishing" some and not others because you are asserting that they are inherently bad and will continue to be so. One is not concerned with improving them as a person or correcting the problem, one is instead concerned with justifying and demonstrating ones own moral superiority. "you are not like us and so we will subjugate you and inflict suffering to prove our way is the superior".

Due to the barbarism inherent in such systems many cultures have moved instead to systems based instead upon treatment of the "criminal" and protection of the victim in recognition of the fact that all humans share the same fundamental condition.
Many of the practicalities remain the same e.g. a need to segregate the perpetrator, set laws to prevent certain behaviours etc. (the need for this I think should be obvious), however there is a fundamental difference in how one deals with "delinquents".

Instead of an aberrant product of nature which must be defeated the unacceptable behaviour is instead seen as simply an undesirable/unacceptable but perfectly natural aspect of the human condition we all share.
All humans share an innate capacity for violence and subjugation, every single one of us has at some point felt the desire to hit someone etc. we only take issue with those that fail to control such impulses.
However rather than seeing this lack of control as anathema we simply see it as an underdeveloped or damaged aspect of the human condition we all share.

We must take steps to control it for the sake of potential future victims but the idea of actually "punishing" people for simply being human is to me patently absurd and backwards.
Further to that pretty much all of the modern psychology and neuroscience on the subject supports this position. There is no "criminal gene" or race, the only common factor that appears to exist is frontal brain damage (the bit that controls impulse and behaviour)

Treat them like humans and you might actually get a human out of the other side. Treat them like animals..............

Lets be clear though, I'm almost agreeing with you. The way you have used the word "punishment" is closer in some ways to my use of the word "treatment". But I've placed the emphasis that little bit more on "treatment" or rather against "punishment". As you've defined it "punishment" isn't the extreme example I have described with the term, but I did so in order to highlight the clear distinction between two positions.
Meaning is use and I don't want anyone to get too hung up on the semantics at the expense of the underlying concepts .

The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)