Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by GIThruster »

MSimon wrote:But prove me wrong.
Simon, in order to discuss ethics, or morality and actually understand what you're talking about, one has to have unimpaired noetic faculties. Yours are as impaired as they can be so all conversation of this sort is lost on you. Suffice it to say, decadence does not equate with morality, does not equate with violence, does not equate with gender ratios (which removes all moral responsibility from people, yet an even more obvious blunder) and anyone who regularly makes moral rather than immoral decisions, knows this. This is the simplest and most natural kind of observation one can make who routinely obeys his conscience. You need to be morally bankrupt and ethically retarded to make these kinds of mistakes.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by MSimon »

GIThruster wrote:
MSimon wrote:But prove me wrong.
Simon, in order to discuss ethics, or morality and actually understand what you're talking about, one has to have unimpaired noetic faculties. Yours are as impaired as they can be so all conversation of this sort is lost on you. Suffice it to say, decadence does not equate with morality, does not equate with violence, does not equate with gender ratios (which removes all moral responsibility from people, yet an even more obvious blunder) and anyone who regularly makes moral rather than immoral decisions, knows this. This is the simplest and most natural kind of observation one can make who routinely obeys his conscience. You need to be morally bankrupt and ethically retarded to make these kinds of mistakes.
Ah. In other words you know nothing. Thanks for the confirmation.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by MSimon »

BTW GIT doesn't it gall you that a bunch of brain dead drugged up dopers are handing you your a$$ all over the country? How is that possible?

Sarah Palin territory is expected to join Colorado this coming November. A word though:

"You cannot be sure you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do." - Milton Friedman

Evidently your opponents are getting the better of you. My condolences. A fifth of Beam a day will cure what ails you. Three fifths in an hour is supposed to be a permanent cure. But that is strictly anecdotal. Don't try it at home. Or unless you are under a Drs. supervision.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by williatw »

MSimon wrote:When females are in excess they go after the "top" males and shun those lower down the ladder. The M/F ratio controls hypergamy expression. And "excess" need not be in numbers alone. "Eligibility" is also a large factor.

We had the roaring 20s and Weimar when females were in excess. The 60s are another case. Good economic times tend to dampen hypergamy. Bad times exaggerate it.

The homosexual "explosion" we are seeing was also seen in Weimar. Deviance was celebrated. If men can't find a female (the tops are getting them) they will bond with each other.
When women are rare..like in China today with its resulting young male/female imbalance favoring males as a result of its one child policy, than maybe 80% of women go for the top 20% of men. Their (women's) scarcity creates a "buyers" market for them, so naturally they would go for the "best" men. If women are in excess, they really can't afford to be as picky..your average inner city ethnic female is hardly in demand and in a position to be very selective mate wise. The "tops" get the women when women are rare relative to men; when men are rare they are the ones more in a position to be "picky".

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by kurt9 »

Well-recognized metrics of social behavior - crime, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse - have significantly improved in the past 20 years. Work ethic seems to be a function of opportunity. Young people become slackers during economic downturns. They become entrepreneurs when the economy is good (the dot-coms being an obvious example).

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... d-economic

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-birth- ... -says-cdc/

Given this reality, how can someone describe our society as "decadant"? Is not decadence defined as bad personal habits combined with a lack of work ethic and ambition? This is the only definition that makes sense to me.

Again I ask, how is our current society "decadent"?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by MSimon »

williatw wrote:
MSimon wrote:When females are in excess they go after the "top" males and shun those lower down the ladder. The M/F ratio controls hypergamy expression. And "excess" need not be in numbers alone. "Eligibility" is also a large factor.

We had the roaring 20s and Weimar when females were in excess. The 60s are another case. Good economic times tend to dampen hypergamy. Bad times exaggerate it.

The homosexual "explosion" we are seeing was also seen in Weimar. Deviance was celebrated. If men can't find a female (the tops are getting them) they will bond with each other.
When women are rare..like in China today with its resulting young male/female imbalance favoring males as a result of its one child policy, than maybe 80% of women go for the top 20% of men. Their (women's) scarcity creates a "buyers" market for them, so naturally they would go for the "best" men. If women are in excess, they really can't afford to be as picky..your average inner city ethnic female is hardly in demand and in a position to be very selective mate wise. The "tops" get the women when women are rare relative to men; when men are rare they are the ones more in a position to be "picky".
When women are in short supply they tend to stay married.

When men are in short supply the women rotate the men.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by GIThruster »

kurt9 wrote:Again I ask, how is our current society "decadent"?
This is an excellent question and one to which I doubt there is a simple nor easy answer. When I think of decadence I'm reminded of ancient Rome, which had grown so wealthy and lax from the Pax Romana that they turned to things like the gladiatorial games for entertainment. They ate, and drank, and puked up, then ate again, and there was no satisfying the people. And this too, seems to stem from abundance of opportunity, for surely the world has never seen a time before nor since when life was so uncomplicated by war, economic stress, etc.

So I agree with kurt. People do respond to opportunity, and things can and do get both better and worse when the people have an abundance of opportunity. Today we see some of this too. The industrial age and mankind's mastery over so many parts of nature has indeed created abundance never before seen. It is how we respond to that abundance that makes all the difference. There has never been a situation like what we have now, with so few providing for so many and the vast bulk of these recipients of institutionalized rather than personally sacrificial charity, functioning daily with a continual attitude of entitlement while they play with their smart-phones and stumble through life many days at a time, without a single adult thought going through their heads. People playing in parks whom all dump their garbage wherever they like and presume it is not their responsibility to walk 10 paces to the nearest garbage can. This is decadence so far as I can tell, but note, not everyone responds the same to opportunity. Some people do the precise opposite and find fulfilling lives without littering.

We are not in a Pax Romana period, but note we are in a period where we can fight one, two, even three wars at a time, and never see any sort of sacrifice back home such as the rationing during WWII. We may complain about the cost of a war, but their effects are little felt at home. The oddities of decadance, impersonal group sex, X-Sports, videos of people performing the most astonishingly stupid stunts out of boredom, drug abuse, and mindless communications through FaceBook, blogs, texting, twittering and anything else people can invent, are all certainly skyrocketing off the pages of human history's greatest exploits in feeble entertainment. We are decadent. All of us. How else do any of us have time to read Talk-Polywell?
Last edited by GIThruster on Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by MSimon »

http://therationalmale.com/2014/08/07/open-hypergamy/

The video at the beginning of the piece is a commercial.

As to group sex - my preference is small groups. Three people total. With me in the minority when it comes to gender.

=================

Even if our wealth was to decline by half we would still be incredibly rich.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by williatw »

MSimon wrote:When women are in short supply they tend to stay married.
Yes probably because they were in a position to pick what they believed were the best men to start with, so therefore little incentive to trade up.

MSimon wrote:When men are in short supply the women rotate the men.
Or they get "rotated" out by the men who are taking advantage of their "buyers" market. Women also tend to marry on the same social/economic level or above; men on the same social/economic level or below. The more successful a man is the more eligible he is the opposite of women (because women rarely marry below their station; many would rather go unmarried & childless). Therefore an "alpha male" say Donald Trump has plenty of younger fertile women to pass his genes on with. He has been married I think three times and had a nice brood with all three. Martha Stewart the "alpha" female has one daughter...that's it I believe. It would appear that alpha males have far greater fecundity than their female counterparts; which perhaps explains why there are more male alphas throughout history than female, maybe more than sexism or any other type of "ism". They are simply selected for over and over again by men and women alike (when marriages were arranged, fathers preferred their daughters to marry higher status over low; women now choosing for themselves hasn't really changed that); in good times and bad.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by kurt9 »

GIThruster wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Again I ask, how is our current society "decadent"?
This is an excellent question and one to which I doubt there is a simple nor easy answer. When I think of decadence I'm reminded of ancient Rome, which had grown so wealthy and lax from the Pax Romana that they turned to things like the gladiatorial games for entertainment. They ate, and drank, and puked up, then ate again, and there was no satisfying the people. And this too, seems to stem from abundance of opportunity, for surely the world has never seen a time before nor since when life was so uncomplicated by war, economic stress, etc.

So I agree with kurt. People do respond to opportunity, and things can and do get both better and worse when the people have an abundance of opportunity. Today we see some of this too. The industrial age and mankind's mastery over so many parts of nature has indeed created abundance never before seen. It is how we respond to that abundance that makes all the difference. There has never been a situation like what we have now, with so few providing for so many and the vast bulk of these recipients of institutionalized rather than personally sacrificial charity, functioning daily with a continual attitude of entitlement while they play with their smart-phones and stumble through life many days at a time, without a single adult thought going through their heads. People playing in parks whom all dump their garbage wherever they like and presume it is not their responsibility to walk 10 paces to the nearest garbage can. This is decadence so far as I can tell, but note, not everyone responds the same to opportunity. Some people do the precise opposite and find fulfilling lives without littering.

We are not in a Pax Romana period, but note we are in a period where we can fight one, two, even three wars at a time, and never see any sort of sacrifice back home such as the rationing during WWII. We may complain about the cost of a war, but their effects are little felt at home. The oddities of decadance, impersonal group sex, X-Sports, videos of people performing the most astonishingly stupid stunts out of boredom, drug abuse, and mindless communications through FaceBook, blogs, texting, twittering and anything else people can invent, are all certainly skyrocketing off the pages of human history's greatest exploits in feeble entertainment. We are decadent. All of us. How else do any of us have time to read Talk-Polywell?
In other words, what you are calling "decadence" is really a form of laziness. I would agree with this definition. I would also agree this is common to many of the people in our society. However, I would give two reasons why I don't consider this a real problem at this time. One, we are in the long recession and being a slacker is a rational choice in a no-growth, stagnant economy. American young people really do bust their asses when they are given sufficient economic opportunity to make it worth while to do so. Remember, it was those Gen X slackers in the early 90's who became the dot-com entrepreneurs by the end of the 90's. Second, the most significant effect of continued technological innovation on society is its decentralizing effects of empowering smaller and smaller groups. We see this with the fusion power start-ups, Space X, and everywhere with regards to the internet, 3-D printing (additive manufacturing), and in biotechnology. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) has written a book about this phenomenon (An Army of Davids) where he argues that this trend will continue into the future.

It is this second phenomenon, the self-empowerment of small technologically oriented groups (such as transhumanists) such that they are capable of creating the future they desire independent of the rest of society; is the reason why I do not consider the laziness or "decadence" of the larger society to be a problem. Such is totally irrelevant to those of us who actually do want to create the open, endless future for ourselves. This is the reason why I remain fundamentally an optimist no matter what negative trends occur in the lives of people who do not share our dreams and aspirations in life. We do not need the cooperation of such people to create the future we want. Hence, they are irrelevant.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by kurt9 »

GIThruster wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Again I ask, how is our current society "decadent"?
This is an excellent question and one to which I doubt there is a simple nor easy answer. When I think of decadence I'm reminded of ancient Rome, which had grown so wealthy and lax from the Pax Romana that they turned to things like the gladiatorial games for entertainment. They ate, and drank, and puked up, then ate again, and there was no satisfying the people. And this too, seems to stem from abundance of opportunity, for surely the world has never seen a time before nor since when life was so uncomplicated by war, economic stress, etc.

So I agree with kurt. People do respond to opportunity, and things can and do get both better and worse when the people have an abundance of opportunity. Today we see some of this too. The industrial age and mankind's mastery over so many parts of nature has indeed created abundance never before seen. It is how we respond to that abundance that makes all the difference. There has never been a situation like what we have now, with so few providing for so many and the vast bulk of these recipients of institutionalized rather than personally sacrificial charity, functioning daily with a continual attitude of entitlement while they play with their smart-phones and stumble through life many days at a time, without a single adult thought going through their heads. People playing in parks whom all dump their garbage wherever they like and presume it is not their responsibility to walk 10 paces to the nearest garbage can. This is decadence so far as I can tell, but note, not everyone responds the same to opportunity. Some people do the precise opposite and find fulfilling lives without littering.

We are not in a Pax Romana period, but note we are in a period where we can fight one, two, even three wars at a time, and never see any sort of sacrifice back home such as the rationing during WWII. We may complain about the cost of a war, but their effects are little felt at home. The oddities of decadance, impersonal group sex, X-Sports, videos of people performing the most astonishingly stupid stunts out of boredom, drug abuse, and mindless communications through FaceBook, blogs, texting, twittering and anything else people can invent, are all certainly skyrocketing off the pages of human history's greatest exploits in feeble entertainment. We are decadent. All of us. How else do any of us have time to read Talk-Polywell?
In other words, what you are calling "decadence" is really a form of laziness. I would agree with this definition. I would also agree this is common to many of the people in our society. However, I would give two reasons why I don't consider this a real problem at this time. One, we are in the long recession and being a slacker is a rational choice in a no-growth, stagnant economy. American young people really do bust their asses when they are given sufficient economic opportunity to make it worth while to do so. Remember, it was those Gen X slackers in the early 90's who became the dot-com entrepreneurs by the end of the 90's. Second, the most significant effect of continued technological innovation on society is its decentralizing effects of empowering smaller and smaller groups. We see this with the fusion power start-ups, Space X, and everywhere with regards to the internet, 3-D printing (additive manufacturing), and in biotechnology. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) has written a book about this phenomenon (An Army of Davids) where he argues that this trend will continue into the future.

It is this second phenomenon, the self-empowerment of small technologically oriented groups (such as transhumanists) such that they are capable of creating the future they desire independent of the rest of society; is the reason why I do not consider the laziness or "decadence" of the larger society to be a problem. Such is totally irrelevant to those of us who actually do want to create the open, endless future for ourselves. This is the reason why I remain fundamentally an optimist no matter what negative trends occur in the lives of people who do not share our dreams and aspirations in life. We do not need the cooperation of such people to create the future we want. Hence, they are irrelevant.

If we get real molecular nanotechnology, or even simply advanced automation, a small group of people (say around a thousand) will be able to re-create an entire techno-industrial infrastructure on their own (on the ocean or in space) totally independent of the rest of the human race. Once we become capable of such autonomy, the habits of the rest of the human race become totally irrelevant to us (and to all of you on this blog as well).

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by GIThruster »

kurt9 wrote:In other words, what you are calling "decadence" is really a form of laziness. I would agree with this definition. I would also agree this is common to many of the people in our society. However, I would give two reasons why I don't consider this a real problem at this time. One, we are in the long recession and being a slacker is a rational choice in a no-growth, stagnant economy. American young people really do bust their asses when they are given sufficient economic opportunity to make it worth while to do so. Remember, it was those Gen X slackers in the early 90's who became the dot-com entrepreneurs by the end of the 90's. Second, the most significant effect of continued technological innovation on society is its decentralizing effects of empowering smaller and smaller groups.
Agreed, but isn't this the trouble? Smaller groups finding success and larger groups finding failure. Its not as if the ever diminishing minority can continue to support the ever growing majority, but that majority will continue to expect this entitlement unless they catch some sort of vision for a brighter, happier future.

I don't see a remedy for society's ills apart from a bold vision. The kinds of plans and goals that make up the broader vision are each individually empowering, and if the limit of a person't vision is the next paycheck, the next TV dinner, the next pack of smokes and the next bottle of Colt 45, you get this zombie like society that doesn't know how to provide for itself. And note too, we're not like in ages past where someone can go off and make a living as a frontiersman without some very advanced technological savvy. You're right to identify the empowering function of things like 3D printing, but what of those who won't learn to use a printer?

All decadence seems to me at the core as yes, laziness, but worse still, it is from putting one's eye, one's hopes and one's dreams on the wrong subject. Without a vision, the people perish. Perhaps, we'll see a proliferation of bold vision sometime soon, as space travel opens up new vistas, just as the internet did 3 decades ago, but apart from some sort of vision like this, I think we should expect to see the continuing degeneration of society where people stoop to the lest common denominator for lack of challenge. People do generally live up to the expectations put upon them, and when those expectations don't extend past "amuse yourself" what we find is the bulk of society amuses themselves to death. Hence the gladiatorial games in the past and the smartphone zombies that have become so common now.

Now if we can get the M-E thrusters working properly and open up a truly golden age of human spaceflight, that's the kind of development that fosters bolder, fresher vision through new opportunity. So really, it is in the whole world's vested interest to support M-E research. :-)
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by kurt9 »

I agree that functional societies have pioneering values and that a frontier is necessary to realize such. Since the whole Earth is now settled, we need to open up the space frontier to make this happen. Frederick Jackson Turner and Robert Heinlein have written extensively about the need for a frontier and pioneering values in a society. M-E thruster would go a long way to making the O'neill's "high frontier" scenario into a reality. If we get an FTL (wormholes?), then that makes for the high frontier on steroids.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by MSimon »

Now if we can get the M-E thrusters working properly and open up a truly golden age of human spaceflight,
Polywell rockets would give at least 70% of that effect and it is a surer technology.

And there are pockets of development. I have worked out a way to cut the costs of the electronics for 3D printers by 75%. And my solution is more versatile re: assembly (a lot fewer wires - better heat dissipation). If I could just raise the funds.

I explain it here Forth and Stepper Motors
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Decadence Is Not A Cause - It Is An Effect

Post by GIThruster »

MSimon wrote:
Now if we can get the M-E thrusters working properly and open up a truly golden age of human spaceflight,
Polywell rockets would give at least 70% of that effect and it is a surer technology.
I doubt that. Remember, we've had the science down for decades how to build fission rockets and that has not yielded a single fusion rocket, and remember that although fusion has a higher conversion efficiency, the system efficiency is significantly worse than fission. So the fission rockets we've never built are a good indicator whether we'd ever build a fusion rocket. Probably not. The only advantage is the lack of fission products and the thrust/mass would be worse than fission, which is worse than chemical.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply