Is future totalitarian?

Allnamestaken said:
Would you elaborate more on your ideas of inherited intelligence? If possible relate it to the OP's points about how companies utilise human capital(potential) etc.

I don't want to go off topic, as it seems we have a bit.
Click to expand...

Im not sure there would be much use in just regurgitating the body of scientific research (the facts of the matter) on the subject of inherited intelligence.

Being practical, raising it (to more adaptive degrees, as times might require) is more important. Despite Enkore's woke emotional bluster.
 
Last edited:
What's the difference between Obama and a random Chicago south side kid? Then explain why Obama went to Harvard and why the latter ended up in a coffin.

I'll wait.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Yes, the future is totalitarian, run by corporations like Google, Amazon and Apple, while we few run underground hacking operations and jack in to surf the matrix, smuggling data using hard drives built into our heads, while Android softly dreams of electric sheep.
You all wanted Cyberpunk 2077 to be really immersive, right? You're about to get that wish!!
Click to expand...

If I can have a full range of cybernetic enhancements I'm in.
 
Addendum, just in case the colour question (Obama, etc) was addressed to me, ADHD (for example) risk factors for the US Black population are briefly covered in this review:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32902608/

Though my view is more like Sternbergs

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/8/1/13/htm

But not like the authors of "Killing the Behavioural Zombie"

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/70/6/515/5828241

for several reasons (apart from the obvious wordplay ones).

Eg.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927579/#__ffn_sectitle

...and several more recent genomic scans.

Trivia: Gene effects in a Chinese autistic savant:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6836402/
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
What's the difference between Obama and a random Chicago south side kid? Then explain why Obama went to Harvard and why the latter ended up in a coffin.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between Mike Tyson and <insert-random-dead-ghetto-yute>? Intelligence.
 
Allnamestaken said:
Was there any point to your comment at all?
Click to expand...

Yes. To point out that work is work. You were paid to do it. Do you think sewer workers do their jobs because it's fun? Stop being entitled. Throughout history there have been nasty and arduous jobs. You're not special and Amazon isn't anything new in that regard either.
 
R.P.L said:
I should add, I don't really understand this bit. Money is required to enable the exchange of goods and services.
Click to expand...

No its not............. i'll trade you 4 hours labour fixing your car for a bushel of wheat.......................
 
Quartz said:
Yes. To point out that work is work. You were paid to do it. Do you think sewer workers do their jobs because it's fun? Stop being entitled. Throughout history there have been nasty and arduous jobs. You're not special and Amazon isn't anything new in that regard either.
Click to expand...



:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
My post went completely over your head didn’t it. You assume too much.

The whole point of my reply to Roar was simply to stress how tough the work was and as such that choosing to do overtime was not an easy decision as he seems to have thought.

The strenuous nature of the work and time you do it make it difficult to do over time.
As such it is quite uncommon for staff there to take up more than there regular shift hours.



You quoted me out of context and assumed my post was some complaint about work. You were completely off target.

Why so edgy?
 
Last edited:
wildman said:
yes, it's called greed, people wanted more than they actually needed. If humans weren't selfish and narcissistic, things would be very different
Click to expand...

Money doesn't give anyone more than they'd have otherwise on a macro scale. It's only a medium of value - it hasn't got any inherent value and therefore can't be used to create value (a mistake which numerous major economies have been making for a while now).

In case you're just trying to pull me up on my statement "Money is required to enable the exchange of goods and services", if you take it literally then yes, it's not true. We could go back to exchanging goods and services directly as you suggested, but it would be a right pain in the arse, and that's the reason why we don't do it like that any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom