"dragged into degeneracy"

[everything]

never heard of horseshoe fallacy. interesting.

there seems to be an objective trend to far-right extremism, protectionism, dictatorship/"strongman"/authoritarian tendencies, attempts to control information/propaganda, an attempt to over-throw a legitimate election and process (things that happen in "other countries"). democracy needs educated, informed, intelligent voters/citizens. the history of humanity is really about authoritarianism. so this entire "experiment" is a blip. but still. the trends are disturbing. "dragged into degeneracy" while people use "tik tok".

[Steve James]

My point about labels is that they don't address the issues/argument. I agree that there are people who won't be reasoned with. However, as soon as I identify "them" with a label in an argument, I'm not evaluating the argument anymore. Not left or right, but my youngest daughter will sometimes say I don't understand because I'm from a different generation. Actually, I just disagree.

Anyway, once someone calls me a leftist (communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, etc.), I know it's emotional. They'll tell me what I believe because that's what leftists believe. Or, how about people who think they know because someone's Black, White, or Jewish.

Of course, it's ok to be passionately against communism, but just calling something communist isn't an argument. Nowadays, though, the tactic is to use a term to misrepresent an idea in order to create emotional outrage. So, first rule is ignore the terminology. It's usually an ad hominem. The "right" is no more accurate than "woke," until they're spelled out. And, as you know, there's a resistance to doing that, even so far as saying "We don't need to define it." And, if they do try, they'll say things like "The Dems want to drink our children's blood." Even if they vote for the same candidate, it's the belief that's crazy.

[everything]

completely agree. so if my argument is that's "liberal" as if that's some kinda argument, I really don't understand it. again lack of (critical) thinking skill.

[Steve James]

I just read about West Virginia University axing it's world language majors. It'll keep Spanish and Chinese (Madarin?), but no more German, French, Italian, Japanese, etc. Of course, they're not opposed to language study. It's that only a small percentage of students take those courses. Cutting courses allows staff cuts. It also allows them to remove the language requirement for graduation; so, it can indirectly improve graduation rates. Somebody is getting paid big bucks to do this too.

It's true that learning a language isn't necessary. Again, back in the day, you had to take a language from elementary school. That doesn't mean we ended up speaking a language, the way it happens in other parts of the world. Fortunately, the students who are interested are generally passionate. What the college has done is taken away the student's ability to earn credits toward their major. Oh well.

[everything]

Only saw the headline. Said WVU bet too big on future growth.

Probably McKinsey or someone fancy advised them in both directions.

[Steve James]

Well, I'll bet none of the Ivy League colleges will drop them. In fact, that's why those colleges were created -to study things that others don't. That's supposed to be turning out "well-rounded" people capable in several areas. They'll even send a student to the target language's country.

[everything]

trying to read the book Sapiens, which says (among many other things) that a key difference that led to Homo Sapiens conquering all including other Homo (human) species was linguisitic ability, gossip ability, social information ability. Monkeys can alert others to a lion or eagle, but cannot say they saw a lion hunting a bison down by the river in this exact spot, decide to kill the lion and hunt the bison, etc.

With advanced technologies, people (who are essentially "children" imo) can say many more (stupid) things to get the "information" out. But Homo Sapiens is also smart enough to contemplate it all and form some kind of more intelligent reaction.

[everything]

It also makes me wonder if Florida Man
is some kind of devolution.

In the dawn of an age of AI and “enhanced humans”,

what does Florida Man represent?

Is there some ideology? Other than childishness?
Or some kind of return to illiterate alpha male chimpanzee social groups?

“I can do whatever the fuck I want.
But you cannot. Don’t say gay.
Women have no rights.
Disney can suck it.”

In theory “intelligent” Homo Sapiens should easily “defeat” such stupidity.

But it’s probably necessary to realize what it is first.

[Steve James]

Naw, if so, we've been devolving since the ancient Greeks. There are probably more people in the US who believe the earth is flat today than existed in Greek and Roman times.

Hmm, the ideology is often concealed in the rhetoric, so you can't always know what's behind an argument. For example, the guy who says he believes in "free speech" writes a "Don't say gay" law, and laws determining what can be in a library. He'll say the ideological basis is to protect children. When it comes to food assistance to immigrant children, that doesn't apply -even though it's a central principle of his religion. "Small government" and "limited government interference" are also ideological tenets.

Anyway, what he says has nothing to do with what he believes. He's not stupid or blind. It's just rhetoric that he uses to get political support. He'll say anything, and his supporters will cheer. It's useless to be frustrated. Hey, there should be no Flat Earth Society since India and China have both landed on the moon. That means half the world's population believes what many intelligent Americans don't. The species isn't degenerating.

[Dmitri]

some kind of devolution.

There's no such thing as "devolve"; there's only "change (to better adapt)"

[everything]

I think Steve is talking about a DeSantis professional liar class type of person. "Florida Common Man" is different. Not sure if he knows what he's trying to say. The Reedy Creek District firefighters were for the government takeover until they found out they will not have their free Disney World tickets. Awkward.

If they haven't devolved, maybe it's just the con artists / professional liars changing their tune for votes and people, though smarter than other primates, have always been quite stupid.

[everything]

I asked ChatGPT, who insisted "devolution" is not the correct term, but who also said one could "evolve" to not need vision or complex cognitive abilities. So perhaps Florida Man is "EVOLVING" to not require "COMPLEX COGNITIVE ABILITIES" because it doesn't provide advantages to get resources and survive and pass on genes. I would call that "devolution" but again ChatGPT insisted that's not correct, lol.

In the context of evolution, intelligence refers to cognitive abilities that help an organism adapt to its environment. These abilities might include problem-solving, memory, and learning. If a species inhabits an environment where basic instincts and physical traits are sufficient for obtaining food, avoiding predators, and reproducing, there may be no selective advantage for maintaining or developing complex cognitive abilities.

A classic example of this is cave-dwelling animals that have evolved in completely dark environments. In such environments, vision becomes useless, and over many generations, these animals may lose their eyes or have reduced visual systems because there is no selective advantage to maintaining them in the absence of light.

Similarly, if a species occupies a niche where resources are abundant and easily accessible, and there are few complex challenges to overcome, there may be reduced selective pressure for maintaining high levels of cognitive abilities.

It's important to note that evolution is context-dependent, and the direction of evolutionary change depends on the specific ecological pressures acting on a species. If environmental conditions change or new challenges arise that favor increased intelligence, a species could potentially re-evolve more sophisticated cognitive abilities over time through natural selection.

In summary, species can evolve to have reduced cognitive abilities if intelligence is not a significant factor in their survival and reproduction within their ecological niche. Evolutionary changes in traits, including cognitive abilities, are driven by selective pressures in a particular environment.




User
so I would call that "devolution" but you are saying the only issue is in the label
ChatGPT
I understand your perspective, but it's important to emphasize that "devolution" is not a scientifically recognized term in the field of evolutionary biology. The term "evolution" is used to describe the process of genetic change and adaptation in populations over time, and it doesn't inherently imply a direction toward greater complexity or intelligence. Instead, it reflects how species change and adapt in response to their specific environmental pressures and challenges.

When we talk about a species evolving to have reduced cognitive abilities in an environment where intelligence is not necessary for survival, we are still discussing evolution. This process is consistent with the principles of natural selection and adaptation. The term "devolution" is generally not used in scientific discussions because it can be misleading and doesn't accurately describe the mechanisms of evolutionary change.

In scientific discourse, it's more precise and accurate to describe such changes as adaptations or the result of relaxed selection pressure rather than using the term "devolution." Evolution can lead to a wide range of outcomes, including the loss or reduction of traits, depending on the selective pressures and environmental conditions that a species faces. The key point is that evolution is a natural and ongoing process that shapes species in response to their environments, and the concept of "devolution" is not needed to understand these changes.

[Steve James]

If one accepts evolution, then one accepts that at some point things that had fins lost them and developed legs --through a process taking perhaps millions of years. Humans are evolving, but we aren't going to see the changes except by looking at the fossil record. However, I remember gubernatorial candidate Herschel Walker asking a crowd, "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" That's like the guy going to the zoo and saying, "I've been coming here since I was a kid, and I haven't seen one chimp evolve."

[everything]

lol.

humans are the fastest adapting species. maybe we are faster to evolve (or devolve). once we harnessed fire, it was relatively fast to do things like land on the moon or create an even smarter "life" form. so it should be quite fast to "evolve" to low cognitive abilities.

[everything]

after watching the Oppenheimer movie and reading about the Einstein Letter to Roosevelt (https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan- ... letter.htm), I was thinking it's nearly impossible to imagine someone like Trump (or De Santis) listening to a leading physicist. Almost impossible for me to imagine they almost immediately listened to those scientists' concerns about nuclear fission (and a German bomb).