When it comes to major Western countries like the United States and Germany, the left has decisively won the culture war and is now in control of most institutions. BUT it hasn't won the war against reality.
1. Left-wing economic policies such as Marxism have failed spectacularly each time they have been tried.
2. Eugenics actually works, as anyone breeding livestock or plants can certify. Indeed, countries like Germany still have eugenics laws against incest and Jews screen their babies for genetic diseases. In Iceland, most babies with Down syndrome are aborted.
3. Ultra-conservative groups like Haredi Jews, Salafists, and the Amish are by far the most successful at reproduction, whereas most liberals are being aborted.
4. Racial in-group favoritism by males is universal and a result of millions of years of intergroup competition. White liberals are the only group showing out-group favoritism.
5. Almost all conflict scholars agree on one point: ethnic diversity causes conflict. The "diversity is strength" narrative is religious dogma that has no basis in reality. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downlo…
During the 20th century, left-ideologues managed to subvert Western institutions and thereby leave their mark on society. Especially the subversion of the education system, journalism, and the entertainment industry contributed to the perception that reality has a left-wing bias.
But the current interpretational sovereignty of the ideological left is a historical anomaly that's already crumbling, as the rise of illiberal regimes like China shows.
That said, even today it would be wrong to believe that every smart person is embracing all the trendy left-wing ideas. To see this, consider the military-industrial complex.
Who developed hydrogen bombs? Who is developing hypersonic weapons? Who developed the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber? Who coded Stuxnet? Highly gifted people.
If you were to only look at statistics about the political affiliations of professors or the intellectuals popular with the mainstream media then you might come to the conclusion that almost nobody would be willing to develop such technologies.
But even in Germany, where the anti-war movement is very strong among the highly educated, you still have people developing very advanced first-strike weapons such as the Taurus bunker-busting missile bought by South Korea.
So the next time it appears as if seemingly all smart people are decrying private space flight or rally against their companies cooperating with the government, just think about all the engineers who you won't hear about in the media.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"...it should be possible to harvest around 6 microwatts at around 180 meters (590 ft) from a 5G transmitter."
"An energy-harvesting circuit based on graphene could be incorporated into a chip to provide clean, limitless, low-voltage power for small devices or sensors," phys.org/news/2020-10-p…
Scientists have observed a single-cell alga evolve in real time into a multicellular organism. The transition took around a year and was caused by the introduction of a predator into the environment. nature.com/articles/s4159…
The ctenophore’s brain suggests that, if evolution began again, intelligence would re-emerge
“invented neurons, muscles & other specialised tissues, independently from the rest of the animal kingdom, using different starting materials" aeon.co/essays/what-th…
Whenever someone publicly "wastes" food for a purpose other than eating, someone else comes along and complains about it by citing "hunger in Africa".
What's your best steel man argument in support of this complaint?
For example, if I, living in Germany, was to take a bar of edible chocolate and just threw it in the garbage, how would this behavior negatively affect the food supply in poor countries like Yemen?
Some answers I got so far:
1. Wasting food will raise prices for globally traded food commodities, which will mean that those on lower incomes can afford to eat less.
- Large penalty if the topic is politicized.
- Medium/large penalty if it pertains soft sciences.
- Medium penalty if the opinion seems to be in conflict with more fundamental principles.
- Small/medium penalty if it involves financial incentives.
The classic example of what I mean by being "in conflict with more fundamental principles" is the perpetual motion machine.
But it can also be more subtle like claiming that border closure won't slow down a pandemic when it obviously does in the limiting case.
There is a fine line between allocating some resources of a vast budget to researching remote possibilities (rational) and crackpottery. marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolu…
“Along with classified briefings, multiple senior U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter say two classified intelligence reports on UAP have been widely distributed...reports include clear photographic evidence of UAP.”
US intelligence agencies have 180 days to share what they know about UFOs, thanks to the Covid-19 relief and spending bill edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/us/…