I need to start this thought with the idea that evolution never stops.
Humans are evolving right now, and they're affected by selection pressures right now. In a world where 60% of young men aren't in relationships and the number of women age 40-44 who have no kids has doubled, there's quite a powerful selection pressure towards whatever drives people to have kids. There could be ways where people who don't have kids help survival and replication of their kin and so help their bloodline, but far from seeing that, I'm seeing an increasingly atomized society where individuals are lonely and not involved with family or friends.
We know that humans evolve because we can see many ways human beings are evolved to their environment. Westerners have a high tolerance for lactose and alcohol, Chinese people tend to be lactose intolerant, Native Americans tend to be intolerant of alcohol. Some populations of Africa uniquely hold the sickle cell trait that confers protection against malaria. Even skin color is an adaption based on the environments these people find themselves in over milennia.
The reason for these differences is different selection pressures. Sickle Cell traits are harmful and lethal if you get too much, but confer protections against malaria. Producing lactase is only a good idea if you're regularly drinking milk and otherwise is a waste of effort. Skin color is a balance between letting in enough sun to produce Vitamin D and preventing skin cancer.
The thing is, in the same way that skin color is a balance of different factors in an environment, so is risk tolerance. And risk tolerance can have wide ranging effects. A man who is intensely risk averse might never have sex because they're too afraid to approach a girl. A woman who is intensely risk averse might never have children because they're too afraid to face the risks of childbirth or the risks of raising a child. A man who is too risk tolerant might die in a bar fight and a woman who is too risk tolerant might die snorting fentanyl off her drug dealer's ass.
There are many genes thought to have an effect on risk tolerance. One such gene hit popular media that produces a protien that regulates seratonin and dopamine levels, and between different populations have different expressions of this gene. That's possibly because different environments reward different behaviors. It means there is no single right answer and virtually nowhere is total risk aversion the right answer.
I have a nagging suspicion that stress responses are somewhat affected by genetics too, and so we have certain behaviors such as the increased crime in single parent households that remains in effect even after the parents remarry and thus lose the economic disparity. I imagine a past where less risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of plenty, and more risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of scarcity because when times are hard your biggest risk is not making it and when times are easy your biggest risk is screwing things up. It seems too sophisticated and too consistent to be simply learned behavior.
There's a lot of answers, different people will have different tolerance for risk and not just for genetic reasons, and anyone claiming to have the one single right answer is wrong.
Humans are evolving right now, and they're affected by selection pressures right now. In a world where 60% of young men aren't in relationships and the number of women age 40-44 who have no kids has doubled, there's quite a powerful selection pressure towards whatever drives people to have kids. There could be ways where people who don't have kids help survival and replication of their kin and so help their bloodline, but far from seeing that, I'm seeing an increasingly atomized society where individuals are lonely and not involved with family or friends.
We know that humans evolve because we can see many ways human beings are evolved to their environment. Westerners have a high tolerance for lactose and alcohol, Chinese people tend to be lactose intolerant, Native Americans tend to be intolerant of alcohol. Some populations of Africa uniquely hold the sickle cell trait that confers protection against malaria. Even skin color is an adaption based on the environments these people find themselves in over milennia.
The reason for these differences is different selection pressures. Sickle Cell traits are harmful and lethal if you get too much, but confer protections against malaria. Producing lactase is only a good idea if you're regularly drinking milk and otherwise is a waste of effort. Skin color is a balance between letting in enough sun to produce Vitamin D and preventing skin cancer.
The thing is, in the same way that skin color is a balance of different factors in an environment, so is risk tolerance. And risk tolerance can have wide ranging effects. A man who is intensely risk averse might never have sex because they're too afraid to approach a girl. A woman who is intensely risk averse might never have children because they're too afraid to face the risks of childbirth or the risks of raising a child. A man who is too risk tolerant might die in a bar fight and a woman who is too risk tolerant might die snorting fentanyl off her drug dealer's ass.
There are many genes thought to have an effect on risk tolerance. One such gene hit popular media that produces a protien that regulates seratonin and dopamine levels, and between different populations have different expressions of this gene. That's possibly because different environments reward different behaviors. It means there is no single right answer and virtually nowhere is total risk aversion the right answer.
I have a nagging suspicion that stress responses are somewhat affected by genetics too, and so we have certain behaviors such as the increased crime in single parent households that remains in effect even after the parents remarry and thus lose the economic disparity. I imagine a past where less risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of plenty, and more risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of scarcity because when times are hard your biggest risk is not making it and when times are easy your biggest risk is screwing things up. It seems too sophisticated and too consistent to be simply learned behavior.
There's a lot of answers, different people will have different tolerance for risk and not just for genetic reasons, and anyone claiming to have the one single right answer is wrong.
Even though in another thread I argued at length (and length... and length....) that there are clear benefits to the pure nuclear family that tends towards liberal democracy, it's also clear that there are drawbacks.
It isn't necessarily true that all cultures will trend towards that, especially since right now what we're seeing is the advanced technology of the day relies on massively powerful nation-states, which suggests we're going to continue to see more authoritarianism and at the rate we're going someone like a male version of Justin Trudeau will actually follow through and just end democracy.
It isn't necessarily true that all cultures will trend towards that, especially since right now what we're seeing is the advanced technology of the day relies on massively powerful nation-states, which suggests we're going to continue to see more authoritarianism and at the rate we're going someone like a male version of Justin Trudeau will actually follow through and just end democracy.
To be fair though, even really good techs make mistakes.
That's one reason why RCM analysis is important, to make sure you're doing the ideal amount of maintenance because too much maintenance is potentially more destructive than not enough.
That's one reason why RCM analysis is important, to make sure you're doing the ideal amount of maintenance because too much maintenance is potentially more destructive than not enough.
Every kid should grow up with "Ill mind of hopsin 5" in their playlist. Pretty sure that wouldn't be on a list of top songs.
Microsoft really messed up by going with the "cortana" branding on a crappy 2010s era "AI".
Actually, if they combined some of their current crappy chatbot technology with the crappy 2010s era "AI", maybe they could have made it work.
Actually, if they combined some of their current crappy chatbot technology with the crappy 2010s era "AI", maybe they could have made it work.
You're making some big assumptions that if I pursue either of these topics I'll hit exactly the same documents you did and I'll interpret them exactly the same way you did.
The untested experimental vaccine that was rolled out before testing was even completed is the safest vaccine in the history of the world, even safer than homoeopathic vaccines.
“[The show] was me responding to the world of Brexit and Trump and feeling, ‘Why hasn’t the Federation changed? Why hasn’t Starfleet changed?’ Maybe they’re not as reliable and trustworthy as we all thought,” Stewart said.
0/10 didn't watch one episode
0/10 didn't watch one episode
I used to run a UT99 server on fbxl.net, I think there's a script out there that takes care of 99% of the work for you.
I think this is the one.
https://linuxgsm.com/servers/ut99server/
I think this is the one.
https://linuxgsm.com/servers/ut99server/
I used to get visitors to my random-ass websites organically. Today I run a blog that's imo much better than anything I put together back then, and most of my traffic is russian spam bots.
The tech mindset is about explosive growth rather than polishing something to a sheen, which you definitely see. The quality of a lot of the work is exceptional in terms of lack of defects in the initial work, but it better be because it won't change until they replace it entirely.
"Worry not, mi amore, I shall stare at your tits and tell you how beautiful your eyes are."
(User was banned for this post)
(User was banned for this post)
Both parties are coming for your retirement every year because the federal debt is 130% of GDP and neither party is remotely interested in changing its trajectory.
No money left for old people, there's bankers to pay!
No money left for old people, there's bankers to pay!
I find its output is a bit middling, but I guess it would make sense for an aggregation of a bunch of professional writers acting as a genetic verisimilitude engine would be a bit middling since that's what would be generally aiming at.
That was a risky click, but I was not disappointed.
Told my buddy -- "You gotta go to anus.com right now. No, it isn't what you think."
Told my buddy -- "You gotta go to anus.com right now. No, it isn't what you think."
I think its missing a point going "just learn to be huuuuman guys!" -- it's something that sounds really good on paper, except its clear or should be clear that our society is having huge problems answering "and what does that mean?" -- and that sounds like a cop out, but an in reality we're seeing that a lot of people just don't know what to do in their lives and it's having a big effect on their lives -- more men staying virgins much later, not getting married perhaps ever, not having kids, never owning a home, and many women facing similar indicators showing people don't really know what to do. There's a pandemic of women reaching middle age asking "where are the good guys?" Because there's a whole skill set they don't have as people.
Our society is so broken that gen z is more not ok than ok, which isn't like previous generations at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/health/gen-z-mental-health-gallup-wellness-cec/index.html
If you can say something like that you're to be able to just know how to be human, one of a shrinking number, especially when what it is to be human is changing so much so quickly. I'm one of six kids in a family with stong and still useful traditions, so yeah I learned how to coexist with others and exist in the world, but there's generations coming of age who were part of small, atomized families and who never had a real world community, and so they don't know and that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them homo sapiens in the postmodern world.
Our society is so broken that gen z is more not ok than ok, which isn't like previous generations at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/health/gen-z-mental-health-gallup-wellness-cec/index.html
If you can say something like that you're to be able to just know how to be human, one of a shrinking number, especially when what it is to be human is changing so much so quickly. I'm one of six kids in a family with stong and still useful traditions, so yeah I learned how to coexist with others and exist in the world, but there's generations coming of age who were part of small, atomized families and who never had a real world community, and so they don't know and that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them homo sapiens in the postmodern world.