4 ms·

Well, it certainly helps all the idiots procreate and survive against all odds. All they need to do is outnumber the smart.

by bserge 5y ago

kragen 5y ago
Are you sure about that? In a liberal society, people can find information about birth control, move to the city, and escape bad marriages, three factors that seem to substantially cut down on procreation. Historically, liberalization has been closely associated with reductions in birth rates, though not exclusively so (Iran and PRC being two illiberal countries that achieved low birth rates recently.) And it's one where you can go BASE jumping, try to invent new kinds of flying machine, put a pulsejet on your bicycle, improvise your own shotgun, or take the medicines that you think will be best for you, all of which are pretty bad for survival if you make a lot of bad decisions. Like me. Moreover, it's not clear that liberalism is compatible with democracy; democracy might inevitably succumb to a Pisistratus or a Robespierre, which certainly isn't liberal. Ultimately, i think, liberalism cannot survive the existence of unlimited government power, even if it is democratic. Sooner or later it's two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. (Though, as the handling of the covid epidemic in the US demonstrates, sometimes all three vote to huff spray paint for dinner.) The Mozi begins: > To enter upon rulership of a country but not preserve its scholars will result in the downfall of the country. To see the worthy but not hasten to them will make the country's ruler less able to perform his duties. To the unworthy is due no attention. The ignorant should remain without inclusion in the state's affairs. To impede the virtuous and neglect the scholarly and still maintain the survival of the state has yet to be, indeed. Finally, most of idiocy is non-genetic. Idiots have always outnumbered the smart and always will, because humans are just sort of inherently pretty idiotic. So it doesn't matter that much who's doing the procreating.
inglor_cz 5y ago
I am not sure whether I understand you correctly. But "idiots" isn't the main problem that liberalism faces. From historic accounts, many important enemies of liberalism were fairly intelligent chaps, only with a very different set of ideas. Khomeini, Trotsky or Goebbels do not strike one as being stupid or idiots.
- bserge 5y ago
  And can you tell what their actual intentions were? Either they pandered to the masses or realized that there's no way a liberal society with an uneven mix of tolerant and intolerant people can survive. I like to hope the future of humanity is good, I help individuals, but I would really not mind if millions die in a nuclear fire. Including me, of course - if anyone wants, you can kill me anytime. Alternatively, I have some ideas about a certain type of drone.

Well, it certainly helps all the idiots procreate and survive against all odds. All they need to do is outnumber the smart.

by bserge 5y ago

Well, it certainly helps all the idiots procreate and survive against all odds. All they need to do is outnumber the smart.

kragen 5y ago

Are you sure about that? In a liberal society, people can find information about birth control, move to the city, and escape bad marriages, three factors that seem to substantially cut down on procreation. Historically, liberalization has been closely associated with reductions in birth rates, though not exclusively so (Iran and PRC being two illiberal countries that achieved low birth rates recently.) And it's one where you can go BASE jumping, try to invent new kinds of flying machine, put a pulsejet on your bicycle, improvise your own shotgun, or take the medicines that you think will be best for you, all of which are pretty bad for survival if you make a lot of bad decisions. Like me. Moreover, it's not clear that liberalism is compatible with democracy; democracy might inevitably succumb to a Pisistratus or a Robespierre, which certainly isn't liberal. Ultimately, i think, liberalism cannot survive the existence of unlimited government power, even if it is democratic. Sooner or later it's two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. (Though, as the handling of the covid epidemic in the US demonstrates, sometimes all three vote to huff spray paint for dinner.) The Mozi begins: > To enter upon rulership of a country but not preserve its scholars will result in the downfall of the country. To see the worthy but not hasten to them will make the country's ruler less able to perform his duties. To the unworthy is due no attention. The ignorant should remain without inclusion in the state's affairs. To impede the virtuous and neglect the scholarly and still maintain the survival of the state has yet to be, indeed. Finally, most of idiocy is non-genetic. Idiots have always outnumbered the smart and always will, because humans are just sort of inherently pretty idiotic. So it doesn't matter that much who's doing the procreating.

inglor_cz 5y ago

I am not sure whether I understand you correctly. But "idiots" isn't the main problem that liberalism faces. From historic accounts, many important enemies of liberalism were fairly intelligent chaps, only with a very different set of ideas. Khomeini, Trotsky or Goebbels do not strike one as being stupid or idiots.

bserge 5y ago
And can you tell what their actual intentions were? Either they pandered to the masses or realized that there's no way a liberal society with an uneven mix of tolerant and intolerant people can survive. I like to hope the future of humanity is good, I help individuals, but I would really not mind if millions die in a nuclear fire. Including me, of course - if anyone wants, you can kill me anytime. Alternatively, I have some ideas about a certain type of drone.