thoughts of an ultra high IQ guy

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[gendao]

Population expansion is in decline globally. In the West population itself is declining.

 

If every person on the world stood together the area covered would be about the size of Zanzibar.

There is enough space for every man, woman and child to have 5 acres of space, yet, most prefer to live in highly concentrated cities.

We are not running out of resources, we grow more food than the world could eat. It is the political environment that is the issue not lack of food.

Actually, population is exploding in 3rd World countries, namely Africa...

And if you only include "habitable" land (regardless even of extreme climates and arability), then each person would currently only get 2.3 acres - with much of it off-grid too with no infrastructure.

 

But just based on arability alone, back 10 years ago in 2006, there was only 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide... So, who knows how much is actually "inhabitable" once you tally up all these factors now?

 

Not to mention, what habitat/natural resources would then be left for all the remaining flora and fauna on this planet? The fact that they were not even entered into these equations really illustrates just how anthropocentric many modernized humans tend to be...

Edited March 30, 2016 by gendao

[Karl]

Yes but that was in 1990-95

There are a lot of older people, so the doubling isn't exactly accurate as many will die off.

We are now in 2016 so the first chart was a good 20 years ago.

We can create more arable land and far more technical kinds of production and yields have exploded.

Most of us prefer to live in cities despite the high density we aren't interested in Arable land or having more than a few metres of space.

Many city dwellers don't venture into the country at all, it's like an alien world devoid of shops and culture, just acres of scary openess which makes them feel queasy.

 

The Earth is one massive ball of resource for us to dig, drill, harvest as we will in order to survive, so of course we are human centred. Nature gives us nothing without engaging in action. We must apply our minds then bodies to the task of survival or perish. What I find startling is the number of people who seem to think perishing is a good plan.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Karl

[Stosh]

Choosing to have collectively fewer kids isnt choosing to perish ..

 

Google search

 

World Population: 8.5 Billion by 2030, a 50 Percent Increase. Global population will increase during the next 35 years to around 8.5 billion people, with almost 90 percent of the increase occurring in developing countries, according to newly released World Bank projections.

 

However ! there is some stuff supporting you which I found independently, heading toward 2030  Karl.

The question remains though, whether all these changes will be feasible , if there is to be anything wild left , or whether these changes will result in conflicts preventing the scenario working out pleasantly. 

I think they present a VERY optimistic view -to the border of ridiculousness ... but here that source is anyway. 

 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e06a.htm

Edited March 30, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Choosing to have collectively fewer kids isnt choosing to perish ..

 

Google search

 

World Population: 8.5 Billion by 2030, a 50 Percent Increase. Global population will increase during the next 35 years to around 8.5 billion people, with almost 90 percent of the increase occurring in developing countries, according to newly released World Bank projections.

 

However ! there is some stuff supporting you which I found independently, heading toward 2030  Karl.

The question remains though, whether all these changes will be feasible , if there is to be anything wild left , or whether these changes will result in conflicts preventing the scenario working out pleasantly. 

I think they present a VERY optimistic view -to the border of ridiculousness ... but here that source is anyway. 

 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e06a.htm

 

I'm not really bothered if it supports my post. I dont believe in sacrifice of some men to other men, or some men to nature. People must be free to choose what they will do without coercive force. We have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and private property. That is moral, because mans life is sovereign, his life is an end in itself. If we start down that path, for whatever reason we rationalise, of interfering with men's rights, we may as well install tyrants and be done with it.

[Stosh]

I'm not really bothered if it supports my post. I dont believe in sacrifice of some men to other men, or some men to nature. People must be free to choose what they will do without coercive force. We have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and private property. That is moral, because mans life is sovereign, his life is an end in itself. If we start down that path, for whatever reason we rationalise, of interfering with men's rights, we may as well install tyrants and be done with it.

That's chock full of opinion. Besides I don't support the slippery slope argument , its bogus , BECAUSE , it means that even in the face of reasonable compromise , and reasonable action , one is not going to be reasonable. Its trying to excuse , or be a license to -be wrong extremist and irrational. And at the end of that post , to support your argument , and make it sound level headed , you had to exaggerate that rule of law was equivalent to having tyrants. 

If I wanted to , I could have just quoted the opening paragraph of the above source,,, hiding the rest , would be presenting an argument to suit my beliefs , not to represent the truth of what that source said. 

I know these tactics are popular, to misquote sources refuse negotiation, exaggerate self servingly , but you know better. Tsk Tsk. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

That's chock full of opinion. Besides I don't support the slippery slope argument , its bogus , BECAUSE , it means that even in the face of reasonable compromise , and reasonable action , one is not going to be reasonable. Its trying to excuse , or be a license to -be wrong extremist and irrational. And at the end of that post , to support your argument , and make it sound level headed , you had to exaggerate that rule of law was equivalent to having tyrants. 

If I wanted to , I could have just quoted the opening paragraph of the above source,,, hiding the rest , would be presenting an argument to suit my beliefs , not to represent the truth of what that source said. 

 

I know you don't, but I can't ever compromise Stosh, I can't afford to.

 

It's like saying that I will accept a bit of poison, or some degree of theft. It's completely against my principles and that would be immoral. I would be betraying myself knowingly and I cannot do that under any circumstances where the freedom of choice continues to remain open to me.

 

If man is sovereign, if he is his life is held as tye primary value, then he must use his mind and body to survive and he must be free to exercise that right. Any form of force initiated against him is therefore an denial of that freedom to choose and therefore to survive. It is a denial of his right to live and the primary value he holds. To know this and appreciate it by holding ones life as the only moral standard by which everything else is judged, then to knowingly support something which devalues it is impossible.

 

When I was practising Yoga I read several times that once you became enlightened it became impossible to ever go back. It seemed an impossible kind of thing. I expected some kind of mental change, or a revelation, I didn't really know what and eventually I gave up all thought of it. Tonight, I see for the first time that enlightenment isn't revelation, it is a deliberate and volitional expansion of consciousness through reasoned thought. Now I see it, I can't go back. Any backsliding would be to put a noose around my neck and throw myself from a tree. It's that serious that death would be the only alternative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

I know you don't, but I can't ever compromise Stosh, I can't afford to. It's like saying that I will accept a bit of poison, or some degree of theft. It's completely against my principles and that would be immoral. I would be betraying myself knowingly and I cannot do that under any circumstances where the freedom of choice continues to remain open to me. If man is sovereign, if he is his life is held as tye primary value, then he must use his mind and body to survive and he must be free to exercise that right. Any form of force initiated against him is therefore an denial of that freedom to choose and therefore to survive. It is a denial of his right to live and the primary value he holds. To know this and appreciate it by holding ones life as the only moral standard by which everything else is judged, then to knowingly support something which devalues it is impossible. When I was practising Yoga I read several times that once you became enlightened it became impossible to ever go back. It seemed an impossible kind of thing. I expected some kind of mental change, or a revelation, I didn't really know what and eventually I gave up all thought of it. Tonight, I see for the first time that enlightenment isn't revelation, it is a deliberate and volitional expansion of consciousness through reasoned thought. Now I see it, I can't go back. Any backsliding would be to put a noose around my neck and throw myself from a tree. It's that serious that death would be the only alternative.

Well since I wish you long life and prosperity, this puts me in a tough spot. 

 

 It's completely against my principles and that would be immoral. 

 

Exactly !    this is what Ive been harping on ! 

 

That's why I don't like 'morality' ,  it makes people extremist rather than compromise-rs. (But humaneness is great !) 

Compromise is in everyone's interest long term because it makes for moderation. Its what our constitution is supposed to foster, and how successful business prospers. When groups cannot come to compromise , thats when the shit hits the fan. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Well since I wish you long life and prosperity, this puts me in a tough spot. 

 

 It's completely against my principles and that would be immoral. 

 

Exactly !    this is what Ive been harping on ! 

 

That's why I don't like 'morality' ,  it makes people extremist rather than compromise-rs. (But humaneness is great !) 

Compromise is in everyone's interest long term because it makes for moderation. Its what our constitution is supposed to foster, and how successful business prospers. When groups cannot come to compromise , thats when the shit hits the fan. 

What you see as extremism I see as men's rights. Those right can't be compromised otherwise they are no longer rights. This makes compromise evil. It is the action of being deliberately immoral and to rationalise it which lets evil grow.

 

Compromise of rights is not in anyone's interests. The founding Fathers of the American understood this clearly. This is why America became a republic until it was hijacked it

and subverted to a democracy.

 

Notice here that I'm saying 'rights' cannot be compromised of they aren't rights anymore. Instead they are permissions. Some states allow long leashes, others are tyrannies. In a democracy it is the mob who holds power over the individual. It means that compromise is like a grease which oils the wheels ever more towards far fewer permissions and the end of any pretense of rights.

[dawei]

I'll likely watch the other videos provided as well but I find that he is a victim of his own thinking at times.

 

The "priesthood of the elite" and population control is too reminiscent of the movie Gattaca.  

 

He talks of some ultimate agreements made on the basis of logic not dogmatic quibbling... yet he doesn't realize he'll end up with disagreements based on varying interpretations of logic.   As a joke I once heard goes, "if everyone agrees, then nobody else is needed".  So his ultimately ideal is everyone is just a clone of his own thinking.

 

He bemoans how the world is lead by dummies.... and then extols the modern technological world.

 

He praises his early speaking as something meaningful and yet compared his IQ to Einstein.  Einstein didn't talk till age 5.

 

He claims to a 'trick knee and bad back'... and his choose of work is to be a bouncer.    

[Karl]

I'll likely watch the other videos provided as well but I find that he is a victim of his own thinking at times.

 

The "priesthood of the elite" and population control is too reminiscent of the movie Gattaca.  

 

He talks of some ultimate agreements made on the basis of logic not dogmatic quibbling... yet he doesn't realize he'll end up with disagreements based on varying interpretations of logic.   As a joke I once heard goes, "if everyone agrees, then nobody else is needed".  So his ultimately ideal is everyone is just a clone of his own thinking.

 

He bemoans how the world is lead by dummies.... and then extols the modern technological world.

 

He praises his early speaking as something meaningful and yet compared his IQ to Einstein.  Einstein didn't talk till age 5.

 

He claims to a 'trick knee and bad back'... and his choose of work is to be a bouncer.    

 

and he seeks, in some small way to grab power because of his higher intellectual level. We get used to the idea that we have a president and a government insinuated into most parts of our lives, yet, if we were alone on a desert island and a new guy washed up on the shore telling us he had come to save our arses, that all that was required was obedience to his higher IQ, we would tell him to get lost and get on with surviving.

[dawei]

and he seeks, in some small way to grab power because of his higher intellectual level. We get used to the idea that we have a president and a government insinuated into most parts of our lives, yet, if we were alone on a desert island and a new guy washed up on the shore telling us he had come to save our arses, that all that was required was obedience to his higher IQ, we would tell him to get lost and get on with surviving.

 

it is not about grabbing power.  Just an intellectual, logical pretend-framework of, attempt to a binary understanding of life.  It is the ultimate misunderstanding of duality.  

 

So your latter point is about the "individual".   So I don't disagree with the point.  This comes closer to the reality about what High IQ means (and where it falls short).  

 

Here is my litmus test:  Given 10,000 situations, which do you choose?

 

A High IQ would likely judge in similar fashion to each situation but 'common sense' would show that each situation needs its own outcome.   Ergo, a test of one's common sense is actually much more in need than a test of one's High IQ.

[Stosh]

please explain that last part Dawei.

[dawei]

it is not about grabbing power.  Just an intellectual, logical pretend-framework of, attempt to a binary understanding of life.  It is the ultimate misunderstanding of duality.  

 

So your latter point is about the "individual".   So I don't disagree with the point.  This comes closer to the reality about what High IQ means (and where it falls short).  

 

Here is my litmus test:  Given 10,000 situations, which do you choose?

 

A High IQ would likely judge in similar fashion to each situation but 'common sense' would show that each situation needs its own outcome.   Ergo, a test of one's common sense is actually much more in need than a test of one's High IQ.

 

please explain that last part Dawei.

 

My point in the last part is that I suspect he wants a binary decision making processing which likely would answer the same question in different situations with the same answer.   On the other hand, 'common sense' needs to view the entire situation and change even one variable can change the answer.

 

I'm likely just making an argument that what the world doesn't need are robotic decisions just because it is based on a high IQ but rather common sense should prevail. 

[Stosh]

You probably have a nice high IQ, dont you think you use common sense? or do you think your ideas are unrealistic.

[dawei]

You probably have a nice high IQ, dont you think you use common sense? or do you think your ideas are unrealistic.

 

I believe I am common sense at its core.  And I think Wu Wei is the daoist concept of it to some degree.

 

I once meet a guy who had developed some technology and my first thought was, "this is 20 years ahead of its time"... he was a 'genius' in this regard.  He just didn't have a practical side to creating a tech revolution for this invention.

 

He told me during my job interview, "I have not meet someone who can talk from common sense about anything I throw at them... he hired me purely due to that feeling".

 

The point is not that we need everyone at the same High IQ or the same common sense.  We will always have a diverse level within humanity.  To attempt to destroy the natural diversity is really showing a lack of intelligence.   JMO.

[Stosh]

Oooh ,very good. I like that. well put!