Utopia Talk / Politics / Political leftism is a death cult

Rugian Member	Mon Jan 27 18:12:19 How Climate Anxiety Is Shaping Family Planning The notion of forgoing children as a means of fighting global warming is entering the mainstream. By Dani Blum Jan. 27, 2020 For several months after her daughter was born in 1991, Lori Day had terrifying anxiety dreams about failing to protect her baby. Decades later, the recurring nightmares about her daughter’s safety have returned, triggered by the prospect of catastrophic climate change, said Day, 56, an educational consultant in Newburyport, Mass. Last winter, Day stumbled upon the Facebook page for BirthStrike, a group of about 650 people, based in Britain, who have pledged to forgo having children because of “the severity of the ecological crisis.” Though Day used to yearn for grandchildren, as she wrote in a post to the BirthStrike group page, her environmental concern has grown and she is now relieved that her daughter does not plan to become a parent. “I would be worried sick,” Day said. “It would haunt me.” Day is one of a growing number of people who say their alarm over global warming has led them to adjust — or even abandon — hopes for biological children or grandchildren. Scientists recently confirmed that 2019 was the second-hottest year on record. In December, the global nonviolent protest group Extinction Rebellion held a “feed-in” demonstration outside political party headquarters in London; rows of mothers sat cross-legged feeding their babies, under a banner that read, “Climate Change Kills Children.” The ethics of having children at a time of ecological crisis has emerged as a focus in celebrity interviews with Miley Cyrus and Prince Harry, igniting passionate discussions on social media. In recent months, the notion of family planning as a means of fighting climate change has emerged from the eco-warrior fringe and entered mainstream public conversation. Those most concerned about climate change in the United States tend to skew younger and female. Researchers from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that women are more likely than men to believe that global warming will harm future generations and will harm them personally. A 2018 Gallup analysis revealed a “global warming age gap” in beliefs about climate change: 70 percent of adults aged 18 to 34 said they worried about global warming, compared to 56 percent of adults aged 55 or older. An online survey published by Business Insider last March found that 38 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds believe a couple should consider climate change when deciding whether to have children. In 2018, in a survey of conducted by Morning Consult for The New York Times, 33 percent of the respondents — a nationally representative sample of 20- to 45-year-old men and women — cited climate change as a reason they had or expected to have fewer children than they considered ideal. Some research suggests that having fewer children may be one of the most effective ways for an individual to alleviate climate change: In 2017, a study published in Environmental Research Letters found that, in developed countries, having one fewer child would result in an average of 58.6 tons of CO2 equivalent emission reductions per year. Overall, American women’s “fertility intentions,” as demographers describe hopes or desires regarding family size, have decreased, said Alison Gemmill, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Women want fewer children now than they did a decade ago, and, in fact, they are having fewer children; the fertility rate in the United States reached a historic low in 2018, falling to 1.73 average births per woman from a 1957 peak of 3.77 births per woman. Though Gemmill has not formally studied the effect of climate fears on fertility, anecdotally she hears it mentioned as a factor in reproductive decision-making. In recent months, forums have cropped up online for those who have made the decision not to have children to share their feelings. In September a student at McGill University in Canada launched a campaign called “#No Future, No Children,” pledging to not have kids until the Canadian government takes more significant action to combat climate change. Over 5000 people have pledged support; the group’s page offers a space to share stories about the emotional toll of the decision. Conceivable Future, a network led by women and based in the United States, gathers testimonies on how the climate crisis affects decisions around childbearing and parenting. On the popular parenting community blog BabyCenter, posts about the impact of climate change on parenting have proliferated in recent years. “The environment (and the fact that our human race is destroying it) is the main reason we are OAD [One And Done]”, wrote a poster in 2016. A Reddit thread from early 2019, asking if it was “immoral to have children when climate change catastrophe is inevitable” garnered 175 comments. Posts on these forums tend to follow a similar pattern, describing a yearning to have children, followed by expressions of guilt. The BirthStrike Facebook page also functions as a kind of support group, said Blythe Pepino, 33, a London-based musician who founded BirthStrike in 2018. Members post about having to break up with partners who still want children, or how to cope with the emotional turmoil of staying childless. Pepino herself went through a grieving period after she decided not to have kids, she said, and described a sense of “emptiness” when she imagined what kind of parent her partner might be, or rubbed a pregnant friend’s swollen stomach. “When you look at the environmental crisis through the lens of BirthStrike, it’s a real shock to the system,” Pepino said. “You’re straight into how existential it is. You can’t creep around it.” Mason Cummings, 34, said he almost breaks out in tears when he thinks about his nieces, a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old. Cummings, a producer for the Wilderness Society who lives in Durango, Colo., had a vasectomy in 2016 after deciding that he couldn’t “morally bring a child into a world that doesn’t have a secure future,” he said. Anna Jane Joyner, 35, a consultant and writer, moved home to Perdido Beach, Ala., a few years ago, when she became worried the area wouldn’t survive catastrophic climate change. Around the same time, Joyner resolved that she would not have children, she said, less because she hoped to help mitigate climate change than because of the “selfish” worry that her child wouldn’t be safe. Joyner had always expected to become a mother, she said, and still struggles with anger over her sense that she could not responsibly plan on having children. “It enrages me that this is actually something I have to consider,” she said. Many of these stories start with an aha moment, often stemming from the United Nations climate report released in October 2018 that depicted a strong risk of an early climate crisis. Jessica Johannesson, 34, a writer and bookseller in Bath, England, recalled scrolling through her phone in bed on a Sunday morning, seeing headlines about the report, and thinking “Anyone who is born into this world is in danger,” she said. A few months later, she signed the BirthStrike declaration. When Johannesson joined BirthStrike in 2018, it was the year she and her partner had planned to have a baby, she said, and they often talk about what sort of international action on climate change she’d need to see in order to reverse her decision. “I’d be thrilled,” she said. “It would make me so happy. But it would take a lot.” http://par...ent/climate-change-having-kids Apparently, taxpayer-funded abortions and birth control - not to mention having women prioritize entering the workplace over starting a family - weren't enough on their own to kill off the native populations of Western civilization. As a result, we've now graduated to attempting to scare the citizenry into literally thinking that "OMG THE WORLD WILL END IF YOU KEEP HAVING CHILDREN!" Classy. If we hope to fight against these globalist cultists who want to destroy our country and our civilization, we all need to do our part and vote for the right people in 2020.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 27 18:15:13 I'll just preempt the predictable responses now so I don't have to respond to them later. "Oh there goes Rugian, quoting yet another fringe website" - it's actually the NYT. Sorry. "Look just because leftists want to kill off humanity as we known it doesn't mean that political conservatives are any better" - objectively false. "My ideal scenario is where humanity is reduced to 400 million people" - get back on your boat and shut up, wiggin.
Habebe Member	Mon Jan 27 18:16:19 Perhaps these people shouldn't procreate.
McKobb Member	Mon Jan 27 18:19:15 "Dosen't have a secure future"? Wtf man. If a bunch of cave dwellers could endure climate change ten thousand years ago what makes this idiot fear the future? Global war, pandemic, and cataclysm are more valid concerns. Climate change is the zombie chase of the dooms.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 27 18:29:38 McKobb - If this stance is new to you, then clearly you are not one of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's ~4 million followers on Instagram. ---- We need to talk about the ethics of having children in a warming world Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, nonprofits, and ethicists are now publicly addressing questions about procreation in the age of climate change. By Umair Irfan Updated Mar 11, 2019, 1:52pm EDT http://www...166/climate-change-having-kids (Cancer warning: Link is to Vox)
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon Jan 27 19:03:53 "weren't enough on their own to kill off the native populations of Western civilization" Yup, as expected. lmfao
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 27 19:24:15 WoO. To be perfectly fair. Some purists want to extend population control beyond the borders of the West. Take Bernie Sanders, for example, who wants US taxpayer dollars to be spent on providing abortions in Africa: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49601678 But I consider him to be a minority on his side (and then only because he's always been somewhat anti-immigrant). The overwhelming consensus among modernist leftists has been that we should encourage Western people not to have children, then claim that we "need" immigrants from Africa and Asia to make up the gaps in population that they themselves caused. Prove me wrong.
Dukhat Member	Mon Jan 27 19:25:03 LoL, you guys are so unbelievably fucking stupid. At least Rugian posting some interesting links even though his commentary is retarded.
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon Jan 27 19:45:05 I was simply pointing out that I read through the entire thing wondering where your typically racist slant would come in. And then there it was.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 27 19:51:56 WoO. Consider it a belated catching up to the identity politics that the left has engaged in for God-knows how long. Certainly the political right is way behind you guys on that front. Here's your "moderate" candidate celebrating the oncoming reduction of white Americans to minority status: "Vice President Joe Biden welcomed a top Latin American leader to Washington by declaring that "those of us of European stock" will be the minority in less than two years, and, he added, "that's a good thing." According to a press pool report of the event, Biden addressed several key issues in the complicated U.S.-Brazil relationship. The report then added: "By 2017, those of us of European stock," Biden said "will be an absolute minority in the United States of America." That's "not a bad thing, that's a good thing," he added, because it means the U.S. is expanding the diversity of its people. " He has cheered the end of the white, European majority before. Last December, while in Morocco, he said: "Ladies and gentlemen, in 2017, the United States for the first time, Caucasians of European descent like me will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America. The secret that people don't know is our diversity is the reason for our incredible strength." " http://www...ority-in-2017-census-says-2044 Feel free to inform all of us as to how the Democrats haven't been playing the race card for years now, just on the other side. I'll wait.
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon Jan 27 19:58:19 Most "visible" Democrats are fucking idiots, just like most "visible" Republicans. Your argument is essentially, "I see the sky is red - prove me wrong. No? That's right, because I'm fucking right." Oh, and, "The other side has been playing the race card, so it's cool for me to be a racist." Good stuff there, buddy.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 27 20:00:11 WoO. By "most visible," you mean "the people most likely to eventually grab control of the government at some point?" Because if so, I don't know what we're arguing over. You agree with me.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 27 23:03:05 How come these retards are always fuzzy studies careers? Ohhhhhhhhhh
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 00:58:10 Ruggy There are a lot of better arguments for individuals to consider having fewer offspring in your country. It costs close to 500 000 dollars to see a child through college. This provides the baseline, but no assurance, of an ok life for the child. How many people can afford more than 1 or perhaps 2 children? But having children is a profoundly individual choice based primarily on what values a person has. If global warming is a concern you have, then of course it should play a role in your decision of how many children to have. It is after all, the most profound way you can impact on climate emissions. That you do not have that base concern does not bar others from having it. The irony is not lost on me that those most against climate change measures in this forum have often done the most to limit their personal CO2 emissions simply by not procreating. Greta and I thank you!
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jan 28 01:33:57 [Habebe]: "Perhaps these people shouldn't procreate." Probably not? These are Nietzsche's nihilists — too placated by society's successes and controls to even feel an urge to procreate. They don't take into account that survival is a competition. Western suicide via the nihilistic self-destruction of de-selection comes with the rise of even weaker cultures. That is, Idiocracy style, all the smart, well-educated people who can give a better life to their children happen also to be the people most capable of making a *choice* to have or not to have children (a position of strength cast aside). Meanwhile, the poor and poorly educated will have *more* children, replacing the educated and bringing down the quality of life in their respective countries. "If global warming is a concern you have," you should find policies that restrict the amount of children that 3rd worlders and poorly educated migrants will have, whether that be free contraceptives and free birth control in ghettos, mandatory birth control education, or whatever. But it could be a mistake to not compete knowing that your competition will bring « Le Grand Remplacement » away from being mere fringe theory. If you have one kid, try to make 4 third-worlders have zero ;)
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 01:52:17 Survival is a competition between women's genes. Male genes almost invariably fade away over the course of generations and even if passed on, its not really your genes, its that of djegis khan or whoever. And he has already won. Yay martriarchy. Its where the game is. Education is inheritable only in places that make education inheritable. Educational stratification need not be particularly rigid. Follow the stereotypes. In what fields do WASPs dominate the stereotype professional? Firefighter maybe? A decision to decide how many children other people should have is also a profoundly personal choice. Not many of us want to be that guy. For natural reasons.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 01:57:34 Its quite simple to understand. If you believe that spreading genes is important then check: Djengis Khan gene (check). Wait, fuck that is completely redundant. It is found everywhere. Two femaile yy sets. Wow, unique. Must be spread: *Kills male baby, has more female offspring* Winning genetic game!
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 02:10:07 The idea that we needed lots of males to pass on genes was valid of course. When we were competing against other sapient homo species. Defeat of males. Mass rape. Sterile offspring. Female line dies out. But that is no longer relevant. Defeat of males. Mass rape. Who cares. Female genes spread.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jan 28 04:04:22 "Male genes almost invariably fade away over the course of generations and even if passed on, its not really your genes, its that of djegis khan or whoever ... The idea that we needed lots of males to pass on genes ... is no longer relevant." Biologically false. Maybe by some ultra-broad metric that defines functions such as the fetal development of two legs and two arms, but in practice, even spending 20 minutes observing a public place elucidates the giant genetic differences available in mate selection. And there exist huge distinctions between functional genes when you look at the BLAST database. This is not XX exclusive. And when considering worldwide populations, these BLAST distinctions grow even larger. There may be less need to make comparisons between, say, two fair-skinned Norwegians in the same village, but between a Norwegian and a Mongolian? Absolutely. It is scientifically disingenuous to argue otherwise. The phenotypic differences create an exhausting catalog, and these immediately observable differences would be only the tip of the iceberg. And if you think that only female genes need to be protected and not male, then do not erroneously forget that males carry an X-chromosome. They guard those genes for their mothers also. And mating is not even exclusively about the X and Y-chromosomes. Remember that humans of both sexes contribute 23 chromosomes to the offspring; chromosomal crossover does not limit itself to X and Y, and the success of these crossovers depend on the genetic potential of both parents who each have an intensely unique DNA sequence. .. "Two femaile yy sets." Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about if you don't even know the most basic, freshman level genetic terms. Female "yy"? X and Y aren't even close on the keyboard. That mistake would scream at a freshman who had just started introductory genetics. .. "Education is inheritable only in places that make education inheritable. Educational stratification need not be particularly rigid." False. Education holds a large cultural component that tends to be passed between parent and child. Consider, for instance, a parent who teaches a child to be observant and responds to childhood curiosity with comprehensive explanations drawn from his or her own extensive education versus one too distracted to care who simply tells the child, "Shut up!" instead. Even if both children start in the same school (they likely would not, because an educated parent would be better equipped to select better schools), shortly they'll be on different tracks. And outside of school, an educated parent can help a child achieve greater career paths, whereas someone who never went to college who then attempts to get a child into college will only have a vague notion of how the child can achieve that goal. This isn't an absolute life-determining situation, but for most people a heritable education sets the stage. Most people do not grow up orphans. .. "A decision to decide how many children other people should have is also a profoundly personal choice." It's also a social choice, and politicians make it on behalf of their voters. Rugian already pointed out Biden and the article; and the DNC's propaganda machine, CNN, thinks (e.g., via Fareed Zakaria) that boosting birth rates via immigration would be an economic and social success. It's not an isolated ideology. It is not confined to a small mass of "personal choice" voters. It is a political platform. People must make the personal choice of whether or not they themselves should have children, *and* in voting they must exercise their social choice on a stage of various birth-competitive body politics. I.e., people *already* vote for and against candidates who make this "[profound] personal choice" via immigration policies and education reforms. If non-nihilistic voters want to protect their genetic potentials, they probably should not vote for politicians who intend to displace them.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jan 28 04:18:08 "How many people can afford more than 1 or perhaps 2 children?" Take out loans, vote Warren, get them paid off. Wew lad "Male genes almost invariably fade away over the course of generations and even if passed on, its not really your genes, its that of djegis khan or whoever ... The idea that we needed lots of males to pass on genes ... is no longer relevant." X chromosomes are the control. This is even more true in a sexually liberated society. X chooses the Y, which continues to cause ripples in the gene pool. One male won't drastically affect the pool, unless he's a Khan or Muslim. In any case, you still need a breadth of males to provide of the selection sample needed by females. It is ultimately the X choosing the Y, but no individual can account for the myriad genetic markers being passed on beyond the outwardly obvious.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 04:18:13 CC We are using a broad metric. Its inherent to quoting Nietche. Educational stratification need not be particularly rigid. Review a timeline. What % of any population had a university degree 100 years ago? Now everyone and their dog has it. A development completely incompatible with rigid educational stratification. There is the aspect of fundemental human rights where a person's right to control their own procreation rests at the base of it. Legislation target specific groups or subgroups can be done of course. If you want to have that kind of society. Are we not celebrating 75 years since the end of that kind of society? Nice try though.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 04:25:41 Forwyn You don't date much, do you? Males are not limited to single choices biologically. If every male chooses everything all the time, then that is no selection, there is simply mass availability of a very limited array of x genetic material. So you are a carrier of D. Khan's dna. So what? So is all of your competition. D. Khan has already won. Game over. the y contribution to xy is more varied of course, But where one y is good, two yys are better.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jan 28 04:36:01 Males should be more selective. They usually aren't. Why else do 6'5" dudes end up with 5'2" girls? Khan won like 7%. That's cool. That establishes him as a control, alongside fenales.
Dukhat Member	Tue Jan 28 06:02:05 "Why else do 6'5" dudes end up with 5'2" girls?" Because it feels fucking amazing that's why. "What % of any population had a university degree 100 years ago?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States Looks like about 5% during the 1940s and about a third now. So not everybody, not close. And lots of the people that get degrees don't do much learning. Look at Sam who still denies climate change or the mediocre idiots who major in shit like history. Anyways there is more stuff but I don't care enough to enter a long discussion especially when a lot of the facts are wrong. Why the fuck does Rugian care who has kids anyways. If the dumb libs stop having kids, don't the cuckservatives love that? On the flip side, every conservative moron always has like a billion kids anyways. Turtle has like 4 kids and doesn't make nearly enough to take care of their futures which makes sense since he doesn't believe in stuff that would affect them like climate change anyways. As ROB would say, just enjoy what you have before the shithole implosion occurs.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 28 07:56:07 Lol cuckhat now has an excuse for his lack of ability to have kids.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 28 09:34:40 Jergul You are confusing the hell out of everyone. XX = female (X) XY = male (Y) X chosing Y is a desciption of how sexual selection transpires in humans and many other species, where the female picks who they mate with. YY, or rather XYY is rare disorder. i.e two Y's is objectively not better than one Y.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 28 09:37:08 FOrwyn >>They usually aren't. Why else do 6'5" dudes end up with 5'2" girls?<< Because males have different priorities than females and males chose their partner based on different criterias than females. You may as well ask, why do C-cup women end up with A-cup men ;)
Nekran Member	Tue Jan 28 09:50:28 Hooray for death!
Habebe Member	Tue Jan 28 10:42:58 Sam, He has kids. They just look nothing like him
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 14:03:45 Nimi Yah, I saw, but I thought from the context it was clear what I meant to type.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jan 28 14:18:23 "Because males have different priorities than females and males chose their partner based on different criterias than females." Sure. Check out sperm bank criterion for donors to see the stark difference. "Turtle has like 4 kids and doesn't make nearly enough to take care of their futures" "Take out loans, vote Warren, get them paid off. Wew lad"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 28 16:37:54 CC >>False. Education holds a large cultural component that tends to be passed between parent and child. Consider, for instance, a parent who teaches a child to be observant and responds to childhood curiosity with comprehensive explanations drawn from his or her own extensive education versus one too distracted to care who simply tells the child, "Shut up!" instead. Even if both children start in the same school (they likely would not, because an educated parent would be better equipped to select better schools), shortly they'll be on different tracks. And outside of school, an educated parent can help a child achieve greater career paths, whereas someone who never went to college who then attempts to get a child into college will only have a vague notion of how the child can achieve that goal. This isn't an absolute life-determining situation, but for most people a heritable education sets the stage. Most people do not grow up orphans.<< Genetic confounding. If educational attainment is, in part, heritable you would expect educated parents to behave like educated parents and have children who become educated adults. Jergul >>Education is inheritable only in places that make education inheritable.<< Meritocratic societies. http://www...fter_the_Soviet_era_in_Estonia
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 16:56:46 Nimi That study looked at people with complex behavioural problems with a certain genetic marker and saw what happened to them. Unsuprisingly, they failed more often than the normal population. Its now a good think that children suffering from ADD and ADHD often fall to the wayside? It might be good to provide for control. A society focusing on employing everyone and making sure everyone has certifications would reasonably see both higher educational attainment and higher employment rates amongst troubled subsets of a homogenus population, than societies lacking that focus.
Rugian Member	Tue Jan 28 17:03:25 Why are you people entertaining this fool? In response to a thread complaining about societal engineering by a small but influential elitist class, he...went off the deep end and asserted that he could master-plan society all by himself. With some insane bullshit about skewing M:F ratios and everything. You have to go back to the 1950s to find actual policymakers in the West with such a level of delusion. And yet, here we are, jergul thinking that he's capable of guiding us little people to the socialist utopia of tomorrow.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 17:08:55 Its more jergul thinking that social engineering beyond ensuring for meaningful universal access to *stuff* is silly. No matter if grounded in Nietczhe or Mr. D. Khan. I think people should make individual, personal choices based on the values they hold dear. That is my directive to all of you.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 17:13:16 My thoughts on what should be included in meaningful universal access is far more supportive of people having children than your world view holds Ruggy. I don't think access to child care or higher education should factor in as something people need to consider when deciding how many children to have. To name two examples.
Rugian Member	Tue Jan 28 17:24:30 "I think people should make individual, personal choices based on the values they hold dear. " After spending the first 30 years of their lives indoctrinating them to believe what you see fit, presumably. An assertion which your comment about free higher education supports, incidentally. The world already has enough poli sci majors who want to unleash v2 of the Cultural Revolution on the west.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 28 17:34:26 Ruggy I am happy with business as usual in terms of cultural indoctrination. Which in sum amounts to a gradual Americanisation of everything, but that is just the cost of doing business in a free society. I am also fine with preferential funding of departments. If you think there are too many pol sci majors, then fund those departments less. I think you should be worried more about what health care professionals think than pol sci majors. We will need a lot more of them. You should worry more about the views of registered nurses than pol sci majors.
Rugian Member	Tue Jan 28 17:38:29 One more point. In the case of educational attainment, the rate is actually 45% once associate degrees are thrown in the mix. Although I'm sure Dukhat intentionally excluded those since he's an elitist snob who thinks that people with vocational training are nothing more than dumb rednecks. But this sort of discussion avoids the entire question of whether or not higher education is a worthwhile investment at ANY price, whether $0 or $250,000. Certainly it is to the Marxist professionals who want four additional years to mold impressionable young undergraduate students into unthinking far-left idiots. But as I've already said, the world already has enough poli sci and womens' studies majors.
Rugian Member	Tue Jan 28 17:42:05 Anyway, this thread has been taken so far off the rails that the train is now in the forest. I'm not remotely interested in debating how many XXs we should have for every one XYY (seriously, what the fuck does that even mean?). So you and nim enjoy debating arcane points of nothing while agreeing with each other on 99% of what you're talking about.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 29 04:16:37 Shucks ruggy, we were back on topic. Your argument is just not holding up very well.
Daemon Member	Wed Jan 29 08:51:30 I have no kids. It wasn't really a choice as I simply never wanted kids. Has nothing to do with overpopulation or whatever. To make sense of spreading your genes is as close to religion as can be. I see it as completely meaningless for me as an individual. Don't use evolution as a rationale, evolution is simply a process with no meaning or goal itself. Oh Rugian don't talk about Western civilisation when you guys elect someone like Trump. Also education: Trump university LOL
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 29 09:09:43 Jergul The article I posted studied changes in the heritability of educational attainment and SES. "DNA differences (single-nucleotide polymorphisms) explained twice as much variance in educational attainment and occupational status in the post-Soviet era compared with the Soviet era in both polygenic score analyses and single-nucleotide polymorphism heritability analyses of 12,500 Estonians. Our results demonstrate a change in the extent of genetic influence in the same population following a massive and abrupt social change—in this case, the shift from a communist to a capitalist society." Educational attainment and SES is (more) heritable in places like Sweden, Norway, USA and Estonia. Countries were people are free to do what they want and where success isn't dependant on party loyalty or other forms of corruption, only merits, virtually. Merits have a large heritable component.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 29 10:36:02 "single-nucleotide polymorphisms" is a marker typically used to explain why some kids are so totally fucked over by ADHD, ADD, and other behavioural issues. A good marker if the idea is to demonstrate that struggling children will fail more comprehensively in a meritocracy. Yay Estonia. It QEDd the crap out of that one.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 29 10:37:43 will fail more comprehensively in a meritocracy, than under soviet style socialism*
jergul large member	Wed Jan 29 10:43:19 The heritability of the marker is not particularly strong. Its one of those gene on-off switch thingies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 30 06:38:04 "single-nucleotide polymorphisms" is a marker". Yes, for a given trait, including but not exclusively, ADHD and ADD or other behavioral issues. From the study: "GWA data can also be used to create genome-wide polygenic scores (GPSs) that aggregate thousands of SNP associations across the genome to predict the trait of interest." From wiki: Association studies can determine whether a genetic variant is associated with a disease or trait.[6] You said education is heritable where it is made heritables. Yes, in meritocratic societies. "I think people should make individual, personal choices based on the values they hold dear. " You may not appreciate the implication of this, but this is basically telling the gene bags to do whatever the genes have coded them to do. Anything else would require socialization and cultural enforcing, things places like Sweden and Norway have broken down. Once you remove cultural and social barriers/norms you have let loose the genes. Incidentally alot of women have benefited from this, when previously cultural norms and barriers hindered them, they are now judged by their merits. This was the case in Estonia as well. Blueprint by Robert Plomin, I highly recommend it. It talks about this study among others. >>The heritability of the marker is not particularly strong<< 50% as referenced in the article, but that isn't the aim of the study. The hypothesis was "genetic influence should be higher in the post-Soviet era than in the Soviet era". It studies the change in heritability on the same population following a large social change. It is unique in this sense. Also from the study: SNP heritabilities have been estimated as about 20% for educational attainment, occupational status and combined SES4,14–18. SNP heritability (20%) is less than heritability estimates from twin studies (50%), because SNP heritability, like GWA analysis, is limited to the additive effects of common SNPs included on SNP chips. For this reason, SNP heritability is the ceiling for GWA studies. For the purpose of the study (change in heritability), the limits of the method and because we have not mapped all the SNP's associated with these traits, it is good enough estimate. Ultimately, once you provide equal education opportunities, genetic influence replaces things like party influence, who you parents can influence, which tribe you belong to and so on.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 30 08:23:14 "You said education is heritable where it is made heritables. Yes, in meritocratic societies." Meritocracy is a rationing system. The study proves that once you ration educational and employment opportunities, then children with difficulties will start to fail massively. Educational attainment is not primarily about who gets doctorates. Its about who can get a trade. You are using "genetic" as a synonym for "inherited". In this case, the only thing measured is what happens to people with a genetic marker associated with behavioural problems in one system compared to another.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 30 08:55:36 "By accepting monetary contributions from parents in “elite schools”, whether it is called a donation or anything else, a hybrid of municipal and private school is created, which further increases the advantages of children from better socio-economic backgrounds in comparison to other children and thereby increasingly contributes to process of stratification of education" http://hum...-2014-2015/right-to-education/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 30 09:46:44 Is it rationed in the sense that there are requirements to enter a specific education and there are a finite number of spots in every education, yes. People are selected based on grades and national entry tests. It is rationed this way in Sweden and Norway because of supply and demand. You may remember a study I posted on this from Norway of all places a few years ago. Your only response was that, you could not generalize this outside Norway. The result was 50%. "Educational attainment is" a relative term independent of specific degrees. Children of Phds are more likely to get Phds, Children of MSc, BSc, high school etc. >>with behavioural problems in one system compared to another.<< You have misunderstood what SNP is and what it is used for. The study explains what it is and so does wikipedia as I wrote in the previous post.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 30 09:56:25 >>By accepting monetary contributions from parents in “elite schools<< You don’t appreciate what a systematic effect is. The effects of the soviet system was orders of magnitude higher than some parents bribing elite schools. That is a very niche thing.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 30 10:25:45 Nimi Thing is, transition changes are measurable directly. Are you so certain that Estonians with doctorates in 1989 do not have children with doctorates today? I think you should look harder for a better example of a meritocracy. The Soviet system was corrupt, but not corrupt in the way you think it was. Estonian parents pulling rank and favours would do it for slots in Leningrad and Moscow. And the student would still need serious aptitude to pass entrance exams. But ultimately, how many political dynasties do you know of in the USSR? Compared to anywhere else? The system prided itself in lifting up the sons of peasants and workers. And did exactly that.
jergul large member	Fri Jan 31 07:18:45 Yeltsin would be a classic example of someone lifted up by the Soviet system who would have failed spectacularly in a meritocracy for adhd reasons. Of peasant stock from the boondocks, he blew off half his hand for kicks and giggles as a teenager. He entered the communist party after university. His success was mainly due to popularity amongst his peers. The privilege he leveraged was primarily jockstuff that slipped him into youth organization visibility.
jergul large member	Fri Jan 31 07:26:37 He was of course a complete disaster during a transition when checks and balances imploded. Note to the future - Don't have a head of state with adhd he is medicating with vodka.
Dukhat Member	Fri Jan 31 08:33:36 The discussion was about university degrees so I referredto university degrees Rugian you dumb fuck. And then you go on to talk about derailing the thread. And the vast majority of college grads and employers dont take those majors seriously anyways though you’d think literally everyone that graduates from college is some firebreathing marxist based on your histrionics. Dont project your helplessness and unwillingness to better yourself in rage against the “liberals.” If so many people really majored in useless majors, you should be able to make a killing majoring in something useful. But you don't because you’re a helpless idiot.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jan 31 09:52:42 Jergul I have no reason to think that the Soviets were systematically rewarding people with behavioral issues, rather they were rewarding (academically) mediocre people with loyalty/affiliation. To put it in others terms, rewarding people with other traits that those relevant for academic achievment. The way religiously pious people in Iran are rewarded for specific positions over educated people. This was especially true in the 80's and 90's. FYI Functional people with ADHD can actually be very productive! The issues you raises may be true, but the effects are unknown (not studied here at least) and ultimately outside the scope of what I am responding to. The effects are mirrored elsewhere, albeit not as strongly, because these policy changes were not of the same magnitude. Spain https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143796 Norway https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4039415 The effect of liberal egalitarian policies on the heritability of educational attainment. It goes up.
jergul large member	Fri Jan 31 10:19:15 Nimi Neither you, nor the study, has established that acceptance into universities were based on favouritism instead of entrance exams. The only thing the study does is demonstrate that people prone to behaviourable problems will struggle more under the Estonian system. Educational attainment is more a measure of who finishes high school and gets trade degrees, than it is who gets doctorates. The Soviet system did have mechanisms to exclude undesirables that were employed at times. But you had to do well in entrance exams to get into prestigous universities.. There was no way around that. The study is acting on assumptions (the Soviet system was preferential) and is using the wrong measure to prove the Estonian system is less preferential. The only thing the study proves is that people with genetic markers associated with behavioural problems fail more comprehensively now. This suggests most of all that the Soviet system was both more inclusive, and more forgiving than the Estonian one. ================ The thing you have to remember on educational attainment is that it does not measure suitability as much as it does preferances. This for conditions were employment is generally available at any level and where education is accessible to any level. What happens under fair entrance exam conditions when unemployment is high and education is the only clear route to success? Well, then men start to fail massively and the university system becomes dominated by female candidates. Gender is not a heritable trait.
jergul large member	Fri Jan 31 10:23:45 To put it this way. In Iran today, what is the best predicator of finishing a University degree? Gender.
jergul large member	Fri Jan 31 10:29:59 It is an interesting find. Twin studies under conditions of accessible education and access to well-paid jobs prove that educational preferences have a heritable component. This in sense that people with a similar genetic starting point will tend to want a similar educational level.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: