Thread: The Ethics of Ripping Off Newagers

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Excellent post and I can see your point. The starving Africans analogy was spot on. I can admit that perhaps using Darwin's theory and applying it to the rules of finance may have be....
....
I did not study Darwin at all in depth or anything so you'll have to help me understand why the correlation I drew earlier is flawed. Thanks mate.

Well, in some ways you are wrong, and some you are right. It's just a fairly hard thing to realise the difference. I thought the same as you until I realised I was really wrong.
It's sort of hard to communicate what the differences are between Darwin's meaning and your meaning/interpretation.

You are correct in the way that people in this society should beat people in other societies because we are more advanced. But only if you use your definition.

You are wrong because we are part of the same species, we are not more evolved than them, and they just happened to be in Africa (or wherever else that is similar). Killing them all off isn't going to provide any evolutionary benefits, because they have the same genes as us.

Also, you simply misuse the quote and distort the meaning. We aren't the fittest, the con man isn't the fittest, the successful businessman isn't the fittest, they just by chance have better circumstances.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

My question to you is doesn't a persons education level and environment make them weaker or stronger in some areas relative to someone else? Regardless of opportunity. If so, why do you believe Darwin's survival of the fittest cannot be used to support this?

Darwin was talking about genes. Even though he didn't know it of course. (We know he was because he was talking about adaptations etc.)
Or, you could even just say he was talking about adaptations or mutations.
Being educated doesn't change your genes, doesn't give you more brain power to
pass on to future generations.

Of course, we could say that humans have created our own environment now, and people who didn't have the opportunity to live in it aren't fit to survive. Purely by chance.
But it takes Darwin's idea way out of what it was supposed to be.

Because you are talking about groups, more than individuals, or species

Does that explain it a bit better?

EDIT: With your Trump and you analogy. It's good but not correct. Take you and Trump in a room, strip you of assets, contacts AND knowledge. Who would win then? Whoever has a better ability to learn quickly. And it's not just making money that matters. It's surviving. If you decided it's easier or more efficient to survive in the wild, you could go off in to the forest while he died in the streets.

Thanks. Great post. The only thing I have some doubts about is your statement below..

Being educated doesn't change your genes, doesn't give you more brain power to
pass on to future generations.

If you're using the words "brain power" to be synonymous with IQ then I'd say that what you said is not fact, but debatable.

Other than that, thanks for helping me understand Darwin better.

Ummm, I think you ignored the key part of that statement.
"pass on to future generations."

Of course environment plays a key role in intelligence. But
you aren't altering your genes by being educated.
If you have genes which make you of average intelligence, but
you study your ass off your entire life and become incredibly smart,
you aren't going to pass on the genes for incredible smartness to your kids.
They'll still get the average intelligence genes.

Originally Posted by tommo

If you have genes which make you of average intelligence, but
you study your ass off your entire life and become incredibly smart,
you aren't going to pass on the genes for incredible smartness to your kids.
They'll still get the average intelligence genes.

And why wouldn't studying to become incredibly smart alter your genes in a way that it would have an impact on your child's IQ? Take addiction for example. Addiction is something that's largely hereditary, so I'm not seeing why this would be something that's out of the realm of possibility.

Why not? Because that's simply not how genetics works. That may not sound like a very satisfying answer, but it's a fact. The idea that acquired traits can be passed on through heredity is called Lamarckism. Lamarckism is a very old idea which we now know to be manifestly and unambiguously Wrong with a capital W.

Originally Posted by DuB

Lamarckism is a very old idea which we now know to be manifestly and unambiguously WRONG with a capital W, R, O, N and G.

Fixed 'er up for you a little bit.

EDIT:
With regards to the addiction being heritable, that's not quite the theory. The theory is that susceptibility to addiction is heritable, not addiction itself.

Yep that's correct. It's only hereditary because whatever mechanisms which cause someone to seek out dopamine releasing drugs (we assume lower levels of dopamine, but that's really a weak theory atm) are sometimes passed on to their kids. Genes cause this, not the act of taking drugs.

Remember hereditary means genetically transmitted or transmittable from parent to offspring.

I think it's great. Natural selection at work.

These bunk companies are marking the scientifically stupid with junk magnet bracelets, or chakra squares, or mineral stones, or religious figurines, so that the normal folks know to avoid breeding with them.

What you all are ignoring though is that if someone with the genes that would predispose them to an average intelligence studies their ass off and develops an above average intelligence, they will be much more likely to pass on their work ethic to their children, thus "passing it on to future generations". I don't know if there is a word for "meme heredity" but it is just as important as "gene heredity". Not to mention that they could have a "study their ass off" set of genetic influences.

Meme transmission can go horizontally just as easily as vertically and assuming vertical transmission overlooks the fact that an overbearing parent can very easily turn their children off to an idea.

They have recently discovered methyl markers which turn genes off and those are heritable. So that could let a darwinian system "simulate" a lamarckian one. The underlaying mechanism is still darwinian as far as we know though.

EDIT 2:

What I mean by the underlaying mechanism is darwinian is that no modifications to genes can inherited unless they occur in the sex cells in which case they would not affect the parents phenotype. So the range of phenotypic changes that are heritable is just those that can be achieved from a given genotype by turning on and off genes.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Abra

I think it's great. Natural selection at work.

These bunk companies are marking the scientifically stupid with junk magnet bracelets, or chakra squares, or mineral stones, or religious figurines, so that the normal folks know to avoid breeding with them.

Tongue in cheek I'm sure but it still needs to be said that in all probability, to the extent that there is a set of genes for "believing in stupid shit", we all have them. Specifically, pretty much all humans are, as well as we can determine, wired to think teleologically and to favor assigning agency over not assigning it. What differentiates "us" from "them" is acquired thought patterns. So two scientifically minded atheists could breed and give birth to a new ager just as easily as two new agers could breed and give birth to a scientifically minded atheist. I just don't see an argument for a genetic basis to differentiate the two and without that, natural selection can't operate.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well what do you mean by 'ripping' someone off?

If you are talking about fraud, then sure it is unethical.
If you aren't talking about fraud then you can't 'rip' someone off since trade requires a reverse inequality in wants. That is what people like ClouD don't understand which is why he thinks everyone who makes money is being dishonest in some fashion. A reserve inequality in wants goes something like this:

Let us say person A has a stockpile of peanut butter, a stockpile indicating that they have an overabundance of the peanut butter. Now let us say person A runs into person B. Person B has a stockpile of chocolate, a stockpile indicating that they have an overabundance of chocolate. Person A, desiring a new product or perhaps for some subjective desire, desires chocolate and Person B feels the same. If Person A and/or Person B didn't feel this desire then the trade wouldn't of taken place unless under the threat of coercion but that is another matter. So Person A desires chocolate but has peanut butter and Person B desires peanut butter but has chocolate. Thus the reserve inequality in wants.

Person A: Doesn't want peanut butter, wants chocolate
Person B: Doesn't want chocolate, wants peanut butter

In order for there to be a trade B must have what A wants and A must have what B wants. Therefore, you cannot 'rip' someone off in a non-fraudulent manner.

You are ignorant of another factor; people being sold ideas with products. Ideas that make or break a product.

You're the typical person I'd want to sell to, someone who sees it as black and white. You think people buy only what they explicitly want and everyone is dandy.
You have less power than you think as a consumer, the grey zone sales pitch controls your interpretations and desires if you're ignorant of it.

Originally Posted by ClouD

You are ignorant of another factor; people being sold ideas with products. Ideas that make or break a product.

Well these ideas are subjective to each individual. Let us say I buy an umbrella. Now an umbrella is commonly bought to prevent rain from soaking an individual but let us say I am a novice of fencing and I buy this umbrella because I want to practice my swordplay on the street without arousing attention by using an actual sword. What people buy and how they use a product is dependent solely on that individual so its not so much that I am ignorant of that factor, its just that there is no way to account for it unless asked by the individual buying it. It's called use-value.

If you think my umbrella example is cheesy then I will offer you one better. Let us say I buy a Smith & Weston 6 shooter and put it on my wall. Now people commonly buy guns to utilize them in some manner such as using them in a firing range or for self-defense and yet here I am not using a weapon in that manner but as a piece of decor. It's like using a pencil to kill someone or using a bed sheet as a piece of clothing.

Originally Posted by ClouD

You're the typical person I'd want to sell to, someone who sees it as black and white. You think people buy only what they explicitly want and everyone is dandy.
You have less power than you think as a consumer, the grey zone sales pitch controls your interpretations and desires if you're ignorant of it.

Can you provide an example of someone who buys something that they don't actually want ex ante in an voluntary exchange? I'd really like to see someone break one of the laws of economics.

While I do sympathize with the New Age Movement in some ways, I think they should know when they are being thrown for a loop, since they have the ability to realize it (or SHOULD, but apparently some don't.) Sure, it's kinda shady to do it, but exploitation of ignorance occurs everywhere in advertising. "Now with Mangosteen!" or "Gluten-Free!" magic claims. "Only available for a limited time!" bandwagon, and other fun phrases that make people think they "need" it. if he says it's based off of a Chinese technique and they believe him, that's their own fault. They live in an information-rich society and should be able to research this themselves.