Also possible.
Actually, since we're genetically engineering anyway, we should be able to combine genetic material from two males or two females (or just clone, of course). And once an artificial womb gets developed you won't need to rent anything, um, living.
In any case, not too many prospects for dating :-/
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel suddenly acquires a whole new meaning X-D
Actually, since we're genetically engineering anyway, we should be able to combine genetic material from two males or two females (or just clone, of course). And once an artificial womb gets developed you won't need to rent anything, um, living.
If we're assuming artificial wombs are widely used, humanity effectively becomes a eusocial species.
When researching my book I was told by experts that the intelligence genes which vary throughout the human population probably are linear. Consider President Obama who has a very high IQ but who also has parents who are genetically very different from each other. If intelligence genes worked in a non-additive complex way people with such genetically diverse parents would almost always be very unintelligent. We don't observe this.
Consider President Obama who has a very high IQ
Evidence?
Lol, thanks for the calibration warning.
Not interesting in discussions of environmental disasters. I've been reading way too much about this with the new climate accord to want to have an LW-style discussion about it. I think we can both agree that there is significant likelihood of problems, such as major flooding of low-lying areas, in the next 20-30 years.
I think we can both agree that there is significant likelihood of problems, such as major flooding of low-lying areas, in the next 20-30 years.
This is so nostalgic, this was what the GW alarmists were saying 20 years ago.
The difference is, if they fail, you can always buy a new appliance.
For some underwhelming value of "always", and anyway appliances aren't all that engineering makes.
Off the top of my head, cases when "harms take longer to show up & disprove than benefits" outside medicine included leaded gasoline, chlorofluorocarbons, asbestos, cheap O-rings in space shuttles, the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the use of two-digit year numbers...
cheap O-rings in space shuttles
Look at Feynman's analysis. I'd say this is a good example of disproportionate channeling of optimism.
I just found it refreshing to read what EvoPsych looked like from outside of the LW-sphere. It's the first time I've seen someone take the trouble to address such a large number of unchallenged assumptions.
If that's your idea of "addressing", I can point you to some creationist sites.
How do you "exploit" somebody in a reputational fight, pray tell?
You exploit the weakness by demanding more concessions. To use an example strait from today's headlines the Christakises' showing of weakness by apologizing was exploited by the BLM thugs putting pressure on her to resign.
Tell me, how would you go about preventing somebody from robbing your house?
I believe in having a gun for home defense.
That doesn't match my impression of the start of it. The article's first mention[1] of racism is this:
A lot of what people find eyerollingly stupid about EvoPsych is actually a product of the media [...] or almost as often pseudoscientific loons [...] misreporting or misusing the results of EvoPsych. For which EvoPsych proponents can’t be blamed, other than for not doing more to combat this abuse and misrepresentation of their field than they should be [...]. Indeed EvoPsych proponents should be more involved in publicly combating the nonsense that their science is abused for (including racism, sexism, and misogyny).
which is saying not "evopsych is bad because racism" but "evopsych may get a bad reputation because of racism but that's not evopsych's fault and its proponents should be fighting abuse of evopsych". (And "because it allows for gays" seems actually to be "because it offers an explanation for the otherwise puzzling existence of homosexuality".)
[1] There seems to exactly one other, which is made only in passing and seems clearly unobjectionable.
"evopsych may get a bad reputation because of racism but that's not evopsych's fault and its proponents should be fighting abuse of evopsych"
Well many critics of EvoPsych accuse perfectly correct parts of EvoPsych of racism because they don't like the conclusions. True, maybe Carrier doesn't do that specifically in this essay, but I think it's only fair to expect critics of EvoPsych to be more involved in publicly combating the nonsense accusations some of the critics make.
EvoPsych also rarely finds any genetic correlation to a behavior
This is a ridiculous standard. The author presumably has no problem with using evolution to describe non-psycological traits. No one, say, demends we find the "trunk gene" before talking about why elephants evolved trunks.
More problematic still is the rarity of ever even acknowledging the need to rule out accidental (byproduct) explanations of a behavior
It's called Ockham's razor. If a behavior has beneficial (to the individual) effect X, it having evolved for that purpose is a more parsimonious explanation than to having evolved for reason Y that just happens to correlate with X.
The evidence actually suggests human evolution may operate at a faster pace than EvoPsych requires, such that its assumption of ancient environments being wholly determinative of present biology is false.
EvoPsychs are perfectly willing to explain traits using more recent enviroments when the evidence warrants it. Of course, Richard Carrier probably considers those parts "abuse of EvoPsych for purposes of racism". After all if a trait evolved after the human populations diverged, it probably didn't evolve the same way in all populations.
“Neuroscientists have been aware since the 1980s that the human brain has too much architectural complexity for it to be plausible that genes specify its wiring in detail,”
Amazing how the Creationists' "argument from complexity" suddenly becomes respectable when applied to psycological traits specifically.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Interesting article on vox (not a new one, but it's the first time I've seen it and I thought I'd share; apologies if it's been featured here before) on 'how politics makes us stupid': http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid
tl;dr: The smarter you are, the less likely you are to change your mind on certain issues when presented with new information, even when the new information is very clearly, simply, and unambiguously against your point of view.
Also, as George Orwell said "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them".