A liberal tiger roars at a Felid Supremacist lion, "You speciesist! Look at these poor dogs!"
The lion is baffled. "Why? You are a tiger! I'm a Felid Supremacist, not a Lion Supremacist, a Cougar Supremacist, etc. Why not support us instead? We have no hard feelings towards you tigers. Come on."

You keep using this, "We aren't trying to destroy you, why not join us?" argument. The flaw with this is that people can see how narrow your ideology is in the end.

First Tabby came for the blacks, and I did not speak out because I am not black.

Then Tabby came for the liberals, and I did not speak out because I am not a liberal.

Then Tabby came for me, and there was nobody left to speak for me.

Only a severely narrow subset of the populace are part of your "ubermensch". Due to this, the vast majority of people are going to oppose you just out of self-preservation. You'll never gain a significant following to your cause, because you're nothing more than a detriment to most of humanity.

^Stop moralizing. You are a scientist. Don't be like these irrational retards. Respond to my arguments about facts with arguments about facts.

Moralizing is part of what makes us human. Unlike you, the rest of us haven't allowed ourselves become more akin to an emotionless machine that lacks all empathy and creative thought.

Besides, for all your mewling about facts your arguments contain a fair bit of opinion and biased nonsense. You're also very adept at sliding around facts that don't fit your ideology, there's a reason people have stopped arguing with you in a serious matter.

On the other hand peafowlism is about destroying all houses and then forcing everyone to be homeless.

I dont find much when I try to search for the term "Peafowlism". Can you please use scientic language that is accepted?

We will peacefully reclaim any land that has been lost to peafowlism and will let the light of civilization shine upon every corner of this planet, including the Dark Heart of Africa, Congo. Peafowlism shall be annihilated just like head-hunting.

Who is "we" though? Is there more people like you? I am geniously curious.

^Stop moralizing. You are a scientist.

Another example that even scientists are just humans.

@strongkillaz I'm no longer very active in this community.

Judging by the scientific data I collected, your comments, I can say with 100% certainly (the fact that we all could live in a Matrix-like world excluded) that you are still active in this community, and therefor your statement is wrong.

Edited 9/7/2017 13:02:17

Oh and in a Tabbiocracy knyte, kretoma and MathWolf are going to be honored but not you. Sorry. I always like my fellow STEM folks even if we disagree.

You're skipping the part in which they like you, though...

Oh and in a Tabbiocracy

Yeah, and when are we going to see some progress on that by the way? It's almost hilarious how deluded you are to think you're going to be forming your own government anytime soon.

For a guy who claims to only care about facts and reality you spend a lot of time in a fantasy land where you somehow have control over the rest of us.

We will have to upgrade all humans if humans reject rationality.

If you're an example of what "rationality" is like than I'm pretty sure it's best the rest of us stay far away from that.

Also, +1 Zephyrum. It's going to be pretty hard for you to establish the Tabbiocracy when even your precious fellow STEM majors find you repulsive.

Humans are mostly irrational, we shall never be ''fully'' rational unless, as you said, we become ''robots''. So your ideas are irrational.

You do realize that, on a species level, maximizing diversity makes a hell of a lot more sense than artificially inducing selective pressure, right? The more biodiversity we have, the more likely we are to survive low-probability near-extinction events (or other cataclysmic changes in selective pressure).

If you want to talk about being retarded, let's talk about your brilliant idea of artificially reducing biodiversity in a species that's already low on genetic diversity thanks to the genetic bottleneck from 70,000 years ago. The reason there's so much 'undesired' biodiversity is because certain traits you value are not being strongly selected for. It doesn't even make sense to call those traits undesirable in the context of our environment, because if they were you wouldn't have to worry about artificially weeding them out.

For someone who seems to care all this much about STEM and human biology, you sure as hell don't devote a minute of your life to actually understanding these subjects. This seems to be the ultimate form of self-sabotage- wasting your life away on a pointless obsession over controlling the human species. When normal people value traits, they strive to improve those qualities in themselves- but you're too lazy or scared or incompetent to do that, so you decide to spend your time obsessing over those traits in other people.

Value STEM? Pick up a few books.

Value intelligence? Then stop wasting your life turning Off-Topic into a watered-down version of wannabe-Stormfront.

Try doing something with your own life first before you go after all these people you'll never even meet. Whatever genetic superiority you think you have, I gotta feel really bad for those genes because they're stuck inside the body of some pathetic loser where their potential will never be realized.

Try doing something with your own life

^Cool! That's the kind of response I want to see.

^ lol

I'm already a STEM researcher and will remain one. I'm also a member of the rationalist community on LessWrong

What research do you do? Or do you consider spending time on LessWrong to be equivalent to research?

My fav account on LW is tukabel

What branch of math, out of curiosity?

^Stop, NT. Don't interrupt knyte and me when we are having a nice scholarly conversation.

Using NT as an insult is irrational. Punish yourself at once.

Mind to explain what that is? Your PM really didnt help me understand, also Math is not my strength.

Ooh, what are you researching in abstract algebra?

You do realize that, on a species level, maximizing diversity makes a hell of a lot more sense than artificially inducing selective pressure, right? The more biodiversity we have, the more likely we are to survive low-probability near-extinction events (or other cataclysmic changes in selective pressure).

Adaptability is not the greatest measure of superiority, otherwise the human species is outclassed by organisms such as bacteria. It is because of our complexity and our intelligence that we are superior. Experimentation in higher thought and action is the greatest human achievement, not a perpetual, ever-advancing cycle of evolution. If humans "evolve" into mindless idiots that exist only to reproduce, they would be better off extinct.

Edited 9/7/2017 19:39:21

Adaptability is not the greatest measure of superiority, otherwise the human species is outclassed by organisms such as bacteria. It is because of our complexity and our intelligence that we are superior. Experimentation in higher thought and action is the greatest human achievement, not a perpetual, ever-advancing cycle of evolution. If humans "evolve" into mindless idiots that exist only to reproduce, they would be better off extinct.

Its depends on what you mean by "Superiority", but in my opinion bacteria are superior to us. For example, bacteria could wipe us out, but we could never wipe them out. Sometimes the simpliest way is the best way.

If you're interested in 'optimizing' human genetics, obviously you have to make some normative claims in the process. The point is that you can't just claim to be objective when you're assigning some particular values to some particular traits.

I'd still contend that for most people, artificially inducing selective pressure is a waste of time. If there's some hard resource limits, then the selective pressure's already there- humanity is optimizing for whatever resource limitations it's dealing with in that environment (and even if we lose intelligence in the process, it'll be because intellect is a detrimental or wasteful trait with regard to survival in those circumstances). And if there aren't any hard resource limits, well, now you just have a bunch of extra people on top of all the people your eugenics program wasn't going to target- no harm, just a safety net in the form of biodiversity that will increase the expected lifespan of something at least genetically very similar to what you want to optimize for (even if all the desirable people die out, it's preferable to have their closest relatives survive so that the probability of their traits re-emerging is significantly higher).

Then again, if you were truly interested in the topic, there's been decades if not centuries of discussion on eugenics and why it's a terrible and wasteful idea. I have a hard time believing you want to discuss this in good faith, because if you really cared you wouldn't be making these half-assed arguments that have been addressed literally lifetimes ago. It's hard to be more charitable toward your stance than if you were instead regurgitating arguments for geocentrism from Copernicus' time.

At the end of the day, sure, intelligence and a lot of other traits follow the bell curve. Lots of us have genetic traits that may not seem like they're worth retaining- I, for example, have some energy-inefficient mutations in my red blood cells (they stuck around because they also make me very malaria resistant, but malaria's not a threat in Texas these days). But the value of these traits with regard to survival ability is entirely contextual, entirely contingent on the environment you live in. Hell, if I'd been born 200-300 years ago, I might have died at an early age due to traits that are today merely minor inconveniences.

If you want optimal life-forms, just let selective pressure do its own work.

It just baffles me that you're pissed because our species' survival rate is high.

There is no "species" in a political sense. There are different populations opposed to one another. If my enemies die, then my chances of survival can only increase. Your conclusion is wrong simply because it assumed the "human species" is one political force.