[ExI] Forbidden Words

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sat Feb 10 18:01:00 UTC 2018

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:


​> ​
> Read this:
> http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/11/politics-and-iq-conser
> vative-democrats.html
> 2.7 IQ points is not within sampling error, as long as our sample is large
> enough.

If I Google ( liberal conservative IQ ) the first 4 hits bring up studies
that say liberals are smarter, but to tell the truth I don't think those
studies or the one you mentioned about how being conservative correlates
with IQ are worth much because the word "conservative" no longer means
anything. At one time "conservative" meant smaller government, but no
longer. At one time being conservative meant wanting smaller government and
balancing the budget, but that is no longer even close to being true. Just
2 years ago conservatives where people who were pro law enforcement and
thought the FBI were the good guys and the Russians the bad guys, but now
they think the exact opposite. When I was young and giant reptiles ruled
the earth conservatives were for family values, but now they vote a pussy
grabber into the presidency and they’re OK with him trying to get a child
molester into the senate. And a few years ago conservatives were for state
rights and didn't want a lot of government regulation, but now
conservatives want the federal government interfere with state laws that
gives cancer patients the right to decide for themselves if they want to
smoke marijuana to relieve their agony.

Today if the word "conservative" means anything at all it simply means
Trump supporter, and one thing remains unambiguously clear, the group of
voters that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump with the largest margin
were white men with little education; without them he wouldn’t be the most
powerful man in the world today. It's also true that the more industrial
robots there are in a congressional district the more likely it went for
Trump, a fact that does not bode well for the future


They conclude:

"*one more robot per thousand workers reduces the employment to population
ratio by about 0.18-0.34 percentage points and wages by 0.25-0.5 percent*.

Unhappy desperate people tend to do stupid things, like vote for Donald
Trump. The number of robots is certain to increase in the coming years, so
are future presidents likely to be even crazier than Donald Trump?   I
think the answer is yes unless measures are taken to help people get
through the jarring destabilization cause by the transition to a robot
economy. One of the first declared candidates for the 2020 presidential
election is Silicon Valley executive Andrew Yang , and his primary issue is
surviving the robot apocalypse

Yang thinks the USA needs to
 radical steps or Great Depression-level unemployment and a total societal
collapse is certain.
​He says:​

  "*All you need is self-driving cars to destabilize society,  in just a
few years we’re going to have a million truck drivers out of work who are
94 percent male, with an average level of education of high school or one
year of college. That one innovation, will be enough to create riots in the
street. And we’re about to do the same thing to retail workers, call center
workers, fast-food workers, insurance companies, accounting firms.*”

Yang thinks there should be monthly payments of $1,000 for every American
from age 18 to 64. I know a idea like that rubs the libertarians among us
the wrong way and until very recently I would have laughed at such a thing
too, but AI is advancing faster than I expected so my views can't remain
fixed. Yang says:

“*I’m a capitalist, and I believe that universal basic income is necessary
for capitalism to continue*.”

​ ​
John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180210/6f5c9071/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list