Thread: Overpopulation

It does not matter whether or not an IQ test uses a language or not, people speaking different languages think differently and visualize differently, and it goes beyond the words they use when communicating. It defines the very structure of conceptual reality they have.

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

I find this language constraint on cognition to be very interesting. While its a myth that the eskimo's language have more words for snow then english, it is true that its polysynthetic nature undoubtably influences their cognitive processes. I did a bit of digging around and found the following link documenting an unusual acuaty in visual memory that eskimo village children posses over caucasion urbanites:
Visual Memory in Village Eskimo and Urban Caucasian Children
Heres an excerpt:

You have to be very careful. If you are inclined to think that language determines your thought, you will take this correlation as evidence. But correlation does not imply causation, and it's highly possible that your conclusion is backwards; the thoughts might determine the language.

Indeed this is a much simpler explanation in the case of the Eskimo example: Eskimos spend a lot more of their time exposed to form and space in their daily lives, and so they are better at thinking about it. It seems a rather obvious corollary that a more intricate language will develop in contexts that you are better at thinking about and more exposed to.

I disagree strongly with your example Xei, how exactly are eskimos exposed more to form and space then us? I would argue that a dense urban environment poses a far more complex form then the sparse huts and great plains that are presented to eskimos in their lives.
I don't honestly understand whats so conceptually far fetched about language having a role in cognition. What is the primary medium that we manipulate information with? Language, whether we're talking English, Japanese or even maths.
I do agree though that this needs to be studied in more depth. A possible experiment to conduct would be to conduct an MRI scan on a native english speaker as well as various visual memory tests, then put him on a 12 month course on learning an eskimo dilect in which he continues to live in his normal surroundings. Then after the 12 months are up, test him again on visual memory and rescan him and compare the two sets of results. If my theory is correct, you should see a significent boost in visual memory as well as enlargement of the posterier pariel cortex as well as both visual cortexes. I'm fully aware of how sketchy a picture I've presented but you get the idea. You can adapt this basic format to test any language

At least we can agree that people have different ways of thinking about things which effects their ability to score on tests.

For there may be a correlation between a high IQ and intelligence. But it is not directly causal. And moreso, it only regards one specific sort of intelligence which is not directly related to greater functionality nor advantage.

Shit I just relised how off-topic we've become! I also don't think I've presented my view of over population yet.

Well here it goes:
Of course its fucking real. While you can argue that we [I]can[I] have a larger substainable population, with our current technology, politics and general situation, shits about to hit the fan real hard. So I present to you steps that could be taken to help the overpopulation problem:

1. Legalize the cultivation of industrial hemp worldwide. This super plant takes just 120 days to reach cultivation point and is the primary candidate to replace timber. Its fibres are so strong that it could replace steel beams in many buildings. Its also the fastest way of producing biomass which can provide biodeisel. Last but not least, hemp seeds have the highest protien content in the plant kingdom and since more then 50 % of a fully grown hemp plant's weight is in seeds, its a great future food source. Hemp seeds can be eaten raw, ground up to make bread and you can even make milk out of them simular to soya milk.

2. Make policies that award family planning. For example structure child benifit so it provides the largest sum per child for the first two with it dropping steeply afterwards. Make contreception available to everyone with NO minumum age. Produce a global advertising campaign that extolls the virtues of child planning and contraception. Be realistic about your plans. For example in India large families are valued greatly so start with the premise of a "golden 3" rule and then work from there. Contraception can also be considered as fostering adultery in certain countries, work VERY hard to dispell this perception. Obviously the catholic church is a major obsticle to contraception in Africa. A sneak discredit campaign may be necessary.

3. Put a cap on the personal wealth of an individual. This cap is determined by various factors such as the family size, price of living in the region, etc. Any money that exceeds this must be either spent on investment, registered NGO's, embersed into the goverment or placed into an account that will remain unopened for at least 10 years. I can see a lot of opposition to this idea by powerful people but can also forsee circumstances that will make the public force it upon them. Punish intentional trangression of this cap VERY severly, it should be considered treason as it in fact indirectly is.

4. Make GM crops legal world wide with the condition that you keep them under either hydroponic conditions or enclosed in a greenhouse. Mass produce hydroponic tech. Try to fit a hydroponic installation in every developed world home by 2030.

When I have the time I'll adress power

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

I disagree strongly with your example Xei, how exactly are eskimos exposed more to form and space then us? I would argue that a dense urban environment poses a far more complex form then the sparse huts and great plains that are presented to eskimos in their lives.

But that is largely what the article you linked was about; how the eskimo environment is conducive to the development of those skills...

I don't honestly understand whats so conceptually far fetched about language having a role in cognition. What is the primary medium that we manipulate information with? Language, whether we're talking English, Japanese or even maths.

I didn't say it was far fetched, just that the correlation doesn't necessarily show it.

It's very contentious as to whether we do the manipulation via language. It could be that thought takes place on a more fundamental level, and language is simply a representational layer on top which is stimulated by it. Thought preceded verbal communication in evolutionary terms so this seems more likely to me.

I do agree though that this needs to be studied in more depth. A possible experiment to conduct would be to conduct an MRI scan on a native english speaker as well as various visual memory tests, then put him on a 12 month course on learning an eskimo dilect in which he continues to live in his normal surroundings. Then after the 12 months are up, test him again on visual memory and rescan him and compare the two sets of results. If my theory is correct, you should see a significent boost in visual memory as well as enlargement of the posterier pariel cortex as well as both visual cortexes. I'm fully aware of how sketchy a picture I've presented but you get the idea. You can adapt this basic format to test any language

The problem is that it's debatable the extent to which you could learn the language without understanding the novel environment it corresponds to.

I think that if we don't solve it, it will eventually "solve" itself.
Not saying it is good, but it seems logical, and partly unavoidable. I know nothing of this except that the earth's population is growing rapidly, and we won't have enough food. We don't even have enough food now.
Did you know that if the whole became completely vegetarian, it would be enough food for everyone? Just an odd thought.

And are we even willing to do anything to change? Pollution is a very relevant subject, but it's almost like people think they can just hide it under a carpet.
But as I said, I think what happens will happen anyway.
And about the pollution; "we need the Earth, but the Earth does not need us."

Human kind might be reduced if anything.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, it's late and I'm tired.

Originally Posted by Ibis

Did you know that if the whole became completely vegetarian, it would be enough food for everyone? Just an odd thought.

Yes but it begs the question, in that case would life even be worth living?

I wouldn't be against only allowing certain people to breed if it could be done properly

I think people with high intelligence should be allowed to breed like crazy, and the only ones allowed to donate to sperm banks.

Basically I don't think we can keep using science to fix the results of our innate problems.

(Of course we will be able to correct all genetic conditions at the genetic level before they present themselves

We need to fix our minds.

Originally Posted by tommo

Greenhavoc is an idiot, 'nuff said.

Oh, I'm an idiot alright.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Oh, I'm an idiot alright.

I thought you were banned from here?

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I thought you were banned from here?

Not all bans are permanent.

Originally Posted by Xei

But that is largely what the article you linked was about; how the eskimo environment is conducive to the development of those skills...

Sorry I wasn't really thinking when I sent that reply lol. I don't think though that this invalidates my hypothesis. Obviously a language's capabilities would be determined by the speakers's environment and I don't think that its an accident that the eskimos are able to express spacial oriontation with such efficiency.

I didn't say it was far fetched, just that the correlation doesn't necessarily show it.

Agreed.

It's very contentious as to whether we do the manipulation via language. It could be that thought takes place on a more fundamental level, and language is simply a representational layer on top which is stimulated by it. Thought preceded verbal communication in evolutionary terms so this seems more likely to me.

I actually largly agree with you on this one. I'm not claiming that we directly think with our language. However language is by its very definition a way of conveying information to one another. No one can argue that we can't be stimulated by what someone says. Even if the vocalising you hear in your head is caused by the stimulation of your thought flow, that opens up the possibility of a feedback loop: You think of something which sets off a vocalised representation of that thought which in itself sets off more thoughts which generate more vocalisations and excetera. As well as that, a language can operate much like a group of schemata, a filter if you will in how we view the world. Its highly unlikely that this doesn't modulate our thought to some extent at least. Heres a rather extreme example of how far language can effect abstract reasoning:
Brazil's Pirahã Tribe: Living without Numbers or Time - SPIEGEL ONLINE
As for the fact that thought preceeded language in evolution, I see little relevence in this fact.
Our neocortex was preceeded long before by our limbic system which in itself was long preceeded by the R-Complex yet our large neocortex is responsible for almost all cognition thats uniquely human.

The problem is that it's debatable the extent to which you could learn the language without understanding the novel environment it corresponds to.

Perhaps the solution lies in synthethic languages.
This debate deserves its own thread imo.

Whites are not having enough children. I would advocate a massive increase in child benefit payments for whites. The world is overpopulated, but keeping whites in existance is the priority.

> implying you'll ever have a consensual relationship

Originally Posted by tommo

Got any sources for those claims?

I can't be certain for it was a long time ago, but I believe Stephen Jay Gould tackles this IQ thing and race. People don't like it though, obviously, for if intelligent = good, and unintelligent = bad, then a race that is less intelligent than another will thereby be 'bad' in contrast to the 'good'. Thus we'll divide people rather than unify them.

I'm not putting my opinion here, nor whether IQ is a decent assessment of 'functional intelligence' or 'valuable aptitude'. Check out his work and others. ^_^




Whilst Xei remarks that truth alone cannot be a bad thing in and of itself... that we shouldn't shy away from truth, for it is indifferent and non-judgmental. It just is. And it's what we do with it that matters - it's not that simple... we can't get the truth and then just choose to keep it separated from the grander moral implications and consequences of it. I say, if the answer you seek has no decent purpose, then there's no valid rationale for undertaking a task.

Why would one seek for racial disparities in biological intelligence? Yes, we should be confident and accept the truth (easy to say), but when it by nature divides humans, into a sort of superior-inferior dichotomy, what do you expect? Sometimes morality should stop science.

There is a decent purpose. The genetics of intelligence is a very important and interesting area of research, for which understanding of variation among populations is a higly useful tool.

Man, I hate arguing from a moral standpoint. I'm no good at it because I usually take the other side.

I am typically against things that impede progress and understanding. As cold as that is.

I get it, but lollll @ your ambiguity. Why was I even remotely seduced by that.... I am ashamed.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Whites are not having enough children. I would advocate a massive increase in child benefit payments for whites. The world is overpopulated, but keeping whites in existance is the priority.

If whites never spread Catholicism to those damned brown people we wouldn't have that problem. Amirite?

Also what we need to do is increase air pollution. See, if we increase air pollution we can have more global dimming, thus making it harder for people to get tan. In a few hundred thousand years, it won't even be feasible to have enough skin pigment to be considered asian.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Whilst Xei remarks that truth alone cannot be a bad thing in and of itself... that we shouldn't shy away from truth, for it is indifferent and non-judgmental. It just is. And it's what we do with it that matters - it's not that simple... we can't get the truth and then just choose to keep it separated from the grander moral implications and consequences of it. I say, if the answer you seek has no decent purpose, then there's no valid rationale for undertaking a task.

Why would one seek for racial disparities in biological intelligence? Yes, we should be confident and accept the truth (easy to say), but when it by nature divides humans, into a sort of superior-inferior dichotomy, what do you expect? Sometimes morality should stop science.

There are uses for almost all of the data we have collected over the years using science. It may seem trivial at first, but it can almost always be put to use.
I can't think of any specific examples, maybe it could help us study how intelligence arose, or learn how certain factors affect it, or which areas of the brain create it and which of those is more advanced in certain people.
On and on.

Originally Posted by tommo

There are uses for almost all of the data we have collected over the years using science. It may seem trivial at first, but it can almost always be put to use.
I can't think of any specific examples, maybe it could help us study how intelligence arose, or learn how certain factors affect it, or which areas of the brain create it and which of those is more advanced in certain people.
On and on.

Yeah, I agree there'll be a use for it. But, I guess, people are sensitive... and if particular data downplays their worth, they ain't gonna be happy. I just think science in general goes forward as if humans are vulcans without much emotion, operating on pure logic.

Well, they'd just be pretending to not know the truth, that's their problem.
IQ doesn't mean better either. I know at least one guy who had a fairly high IQ ~180 I think it was and he was a complete wanker. He had no drive for anything, just acted like an idiot but aced all his tests etc.
Of course it comes in to the equation, if we determine good qualities as ones which help our society. Appearance also counts, interest in certain things counts, physical fitness counts etc.

Using physical fitness as an example, if Australian Aboriginals do have the lowest IQ of any race, it doesn't mean they're the worst race, because they're certainly the most physically fit race.
And furthermore, if I say this, nobody gets up in arms about it.
It's only because of the obsession people have with IQ that causes them to get upset about that.
In reality it's really no more important than many other traits. (Assuming average IQ of a population is not 70 or something).

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, they'd just be pretending to not know the truth, that's their problem.
IQ doesn't mean better either. I know at least one guy who had a fairly high IQ ~180 I think it was and he was a complete wanker. He had no drive for anything, just acted like an idiot but aced all his tests etc.
Of course it comes in to the equation, if we determine good qualities as ones which help our society. Appearance also counts, interest in certain things counts, physical fitness counts etc.

Using physical fitness as an example, if Australian Aboriginals do have the lowest IQ of any race, it doesn't mean they're the worst race, because they're certainly the most physically fit race.
And furthermore, if I say this, nobody gets up in arms about it.
It's only because of the obsession people have with IQ that causes them to get upset about that.
In reality it's really no more important than many other traits. (Assuming average IQ of a population is not 70 or something).

Yeah I truly get what you're saying. It's just such data will inevitably affect some people's dreams. If you know your race has the shittest IQ, you ain't gonna feel like you have a good chance at high level mathematics, and imagine if your race had the highest IQ... it does make a different to one's motivation to drive on. This can be mental fitness, physical fitness, physical health etc. Knowing there are limitations to one's race destroys the ideal that people love: Anyone can do or become anything.

lol, everyone knowing the truth is like playing an RPG as a particular race with certain advantages and disadvantages.... the only thing is that you didn't get to choose which one you play. You just are what you happen to be.

Don't get me wrong though, I myself, believe the truth should be the truth. It should be known. I just have moments...

Well, arguing from another point then, you simply cannot say that morals should stop science on some things.
Because everyone's morals vary. For example Christians tried to stop stem cells from being used in research and therapy.
And there isn't really a way to objectively judge which morals are superior to others, despite what Sam Harris says.

Do you believe there is basic, objective morality? Just interested.

No. I just said that.