That's precisely the point---to look at those strange creatures, the Muggles, see how they eradicated smallpox and put men on the Moon, and ask: how do they do such amazing things using only their brains?

The phrase "X Studies" refers to lessons about X, not lessons for X. For example, in Harry Potter (or at least in HPMoR; I'm not so familiar with the original), "Muggle Studies" refers to classes that wizards take to learn about Muggles.

So you're either misusing this phrase, or using "Muggle" to refer to LWers instead of non-LWers.

It is not surprising that there aren't a proportional number of old people in TV/movies right now. And I suspect there never were. TV/movie audience desire to view people who possess high-status markers. Two important markers are beauty and power. In reality, younger people typically have beauty but not much power. Older people have more power and less beauty. Since TV/movies don't have the constraints of reality, we can make young people who are beautiful also powerful. We can rarely make old people beautiful with some exceptions, which TV/movies often exploit. I don't think this has anything to do with respect.

I really wish Jonah had mentioned that some number of comments ago, there's a lot of arguments I don't even try to use unless I know I'm talking to a mathematical literati.

There is no thermodynamic law stating that fat cells must release fat just because your body needs it. If you're built so that weight loss is impossible and you try eating less, your metabolism slows down - possibly in much the same way it would as if you tried eating less and you had no fat cells whatsoever. I can't cite studies but wouldn't be particularly surprised to see that muscle gets cannibalized instead of fat being lost, if you try to eat less than the most slowed metabolism needs. And if most metabolically disprivileged people stop trying to eat below their minimal metabolic rate before doing significant damage to themselves, that's just the survival instinct kicking in. I would seriously not be surprised to find that fat people have starved to death without their fat cells releasing fat, and blinded by preconceptions, nobody managed to notice or note down when this occurred. But I would expect that to be rare - most people, if their body tells them they're starving to death, will eat. This gets cited as weakness of will.

Metabolically privileged people assume that if you eat less, your fat cells will release fat. (Bitter laughter.) No. We don't have energy storage units like you do, we have energy retention units. Calories go in, they don't come out. Or if they do, it's on special occasions we don't understand how to predict or trigger, and which don't have any obvious relation to attempts to eat less or exercise more. The laws of thermodynamics do not require that a physical fat cell physically release stored lipids when you eat less or exercise more - and if your fat cells are malfunctioning, they just won't.

In that case medical interventions to remove fat directly are inadvisable as the fat will simply be regained, psychological treatment is required instead.

This is simply wrong. If you start out metabolically disprivileged, medical interventions to directly remove fat result in reduced appetite as your fat cells no longer suck glucose and fatty acids out of your bloodstream.

Nietzsche is dead

God
:)

Sexual Weirdtopia: It's illegal to be a virgin past a certain age, say 25. Each person must show proof that they've had sex at least once before their 25th birthday, or face punishment (which could range from a fine to execution, depending on the level of dystopian-ness desired). Stories could deal with the difficulties faced by unpopular or unattractive people in meeting this deadline, or with the complications entailed by the requirement of proof.

An interesting variation would be for the rule to apply only to one sex, say males.

Whom use, even correct use but especially incorrect use, can signal an excessive concern with pedantry.

is there a history I'm missing?

IIRC, Eliezer banned Richard from SL4 several years ago. I can't find the thread in which Eliezer banned him, but here is a thread in which Eliezer writes (to Richard) "I am wondering whether to ban you from SL4..."

After a few counter-productive discussions with Richard, I've personally stopped communicating with him.

that some single large ordinal is well-ordered

An ordinal is well-ordered by definition, is it not?

Did you mean to say "some single large ordinal exists"?