Since we didn't even have a radical left running this time, I picked an ordinary social democrat. One whom I've met and talked to, and who seems a reasonable person... and is already a MEP. He will narrowly continue to be a MEP.
As for priorities - the transition to a sustainable economy is indeed on the back burner currently. I like to imagine that everyone knows it must happen and soon - but maybe I over-estimate people.
The local hot topics this time were economic crisis and war.
Thanks for the news, but also - thanks for posting a proper summary. :)
(So many videos have only the YouTube-compiled summary, which is typically totally off topic.)
Interestingly, warfare also has the effect of:
causing houses to be abandoned, necessitating houses elsewhere while the abandoned ones likely get bombed
decreasing the number of future consumers, whose future footprint would depend on future behaviour patterns (hard to predict)
changing future land use patterns, either due to unexploded ordnance or straight out chemical contamination (there are places in France that are still off limits to economic activity, because World War I contaminated the soil with toxic chemicals), here in Estonia there are still forests from which you don't want trees in your sawmill because they contain shrapnel and bullets from World War II
I have the feeling that calculating the climate impact of actual war is a difficult job.
But they could calculate the tonnage of spent fuel and energy, that would be easier.
Nice to hear. :) The process seems doable in a suitably equipped factory. :)
Alas, I did not have the time to watch it all.
Acting as if they were ever under attack by this video is mansplaining an best and strawmanning at worst.
Those are quite closely related branches of research. If you deal with one, you're almost certainly also involved with another, so much that teaching them on the same course makes sense. Human psychology is considerably more complex than animal psychology, but built of the same blocks - and both humans and animals can, to different degrees, be rational agents in natural or artificial games, where their choice of strategy depends on their psychological profile.
Please show the scientific process went in establishing that mistrust of strangers is a genetically evolved trait.
Here are some articles on the subject. The deepest-drilling article is not about humans, but dogs.
"Genetic mapping of canine fear and aggression"
We conducted genomewide association (GWA) mapping of breed stereotypes for many fear and aggression traits across several hundred dogs from diverse breeds. We confirmed those findings using GWA in a second cohort of partially overlapping breeds. Lastly, we used the validated loci to create a model that effectively predicted fear and aggression stereotypes in a third group of dog breeds that were not involved in the mapping studies. We found that i) known IGF1 and HMGA2 loci variants for small body size are associated with separation anxiety, touch-sensitivity, owner directed aggression and dog rivalry; and ii) two loci, between GNAT3 and CD36 on chr18, and near IGSF1 on chrX, are associated with several traits, including touch-sensitivity, non-social fear, and fear and aggression that are directed toward unfamiliar dogs and humans
So it seems that in dogs, there likely is a genetic factor involved in fear of unfamiliar individuals and agression towards them. It is no wonder, as countless generations of wolves have likely needed to decide how to relate to an individual from another pack, and this has sometimes conveyed them advantages or disadvantages.
Large Study Identifies Genetic Variants Linked to Risk Tolerance and Risky Behaviors
An international group that includes researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine has identified 124 genetic variants associated with a person’s willingness to take risks, as reported in a study published January 14 in Nature Genetics. /.../ The researchers emphasize that no variant on its own meaningfully affects a particular person’s risk tolerance or penchant for making risky decisions — such as drinking, smoking, speeding — and non-genetic factors matter more for risk tolerance than genetic factors. The study shows evidence of shared genetic influences across both an overall measure of risk tolerance and many specific risky behaviors.
So it seems that in humans, there are hundreds (or thousands) of genes subtly influencing different types of risk-and-reward calculations. Trust (or distrust) in strangers is a narrower part of a wider array of attributes which can be summarized as "risk tolerance". It has been noticed recently that genetic factors contribute, along with environmental factors, of course. It is worth noting that genetic factors aren't considered to be the biggest source of influence.
...and in practise, a person knowing about their genetic predisposition might apply this knowledge in related fields - e.g. when negotiating a risky deal, deciding whether to litigate or take retribution after being wronged, deciding whether to wear a life vest or attach a seatbelt.
Some person might know of their predisposition to seeking higher reward at high risk, and refrain from gambling. Another might know that their reward-seeking mechanisms are more susceptible than usual to chemical addiction, and avoid consuming certain substances. Another might know of their predisposition to averting loss, even if it also averts gain, and deliberately increase their willingness to take business risk. Another might want to compensate against their higher tendency to distrust strangers, or against a tendency to trust too easily.
Are you seriously comparing the breeding of crops with the human genome?
Yes. All life on Earth is related. Even plants and bacteria use the same sort of ribosomes to make their protein, and most air-breathers use the same sort of mitochondria to process oxygen. Altering plants so they would resist drought or flooding better is only some degree of knowledge away from giving oneself or others night vision, ability to heal bigger wounds, greater resistance to cancer or inability to get thrombosis.
Not hastily, though, as genomes don't have their goods in clearly labeled boxes.
Well, a heat wave cannot last forever. And in terms of cold storage - it's +30 C over here currently already for a week, it has been 1.5 months since the last snowfall - and the last pile of snow on the local airport is still melting. Darkened, not recognizable as the substance it used to be, but existing, without people making the slightest effort to protect it. :)
Someone claimed that they had "debunked" evolutionary psychology. I pointed out that it has quite a firm footing - nobody is doubting that evolution can produce psychological traits, and psychological traits can have evolutionary value.
So, the maximum effect to which one can "debunk" that branch of biology / psychology, is pointing out that "people are doing it wrong", and "people are understanding it wrong".
My comparison: I publish a video where I "debunk classical mechanics". In the video, I complain about mechanical problems with all sorts of products, point out that bridges can collapse (and indeed sometimes do), walls crack, cars are dangerous to crash at high speed, and that braking is difficult for roller skaters. Despite listing a whole slew of problems in applied mechanics, and despite having brought examples of people not getting their mechanics right... I have debunked nothing. Textbooks need not be altered.
This video accomplishes pretty much the same. I understand why it was made, but I would have made it very differently - and would have made it much shorter.
That statement alone is ample example of all the bullshit flying around in evolutionary psychology.
Actually, it is not. Willingness to trust outsiders and deal with them has an evolutionary aspect. Everyone's ancestors have needed to address this in their evolutionary past. Results have influenced their evolutionary success. An outsider could bring useful techniques or information, but could also bring a disease against which locals had no immunity, or take back information and bring about hostile interest. Determination of who to consider an outsider is moderated by rational thought and culture, but willingness to risk is also influenced by genes. So, even today, we are influenced - sometimes for good and sometimes for ill - by psychological traits which enabled some of our ancestors to make better / worse decisions in their environment. To make better decisions for ourselves, we should keep that in mind.
I chose my example for a reason. It is not bullshit at all. Building a grand palace of superstructure onto this little bit of understanding, that would be bullshit. To apply knowledge, one must know approximately where it ends. A fool doesn't and builds grand palaces onto one brick.
Thank you, but you don’t need to explain me why eugenics was a bad idea. :) I understand that.
I call bullshit again. You stated earlier that eugenics would work if we knew the “good” from the “bad” genes and called it more euphemistically.
Here, please read again. My words:
"I’m aware of what eugenics is / was, along with some other curious things that preceded (e.g. phrenology). I would say: a branch of science is likely to deserve the prefix “pseudo” if it has a single-minded goal to improve before understanding. Eugenics was such a doctrine."
From this paragraph, I expect a reader to understand (if they are willing) that I consider eugenics to deserve a prefix of "pseudo", that is, I consider it a pseudoscience. I bring another example of such a science. I also point out that eugenicists attempted to fix problems which they did not understand.
"Hypothetically, after gaining actual understanding of what genes are “good” or “bad” (quotation marks since “good” genes are only good in a given environment together with compatible other genes), eugenics might rise from the dead, but likely under another name and with a different character - since the original name has a ruined reputation and the original character was one of repression / discrimination. Indeed, maybe the resurrection has already happened, and the name is medical genetics - finding genetic patterns of risk and ways to avoid risk or fix results (apply gene therapy)."
In this paragraph, I make two main statements. I note down that eugenics took a character of repression and discrimination. But I point out that the goal of either fixing / improving genes or neutralizing the effect of bad ones - that didn't die with eugenics. People started understanding better. In these days, nobody wants to touch the world "eugenics" with a six foot pole, but genetically modified crops are growing on fields, and some patients are even receiving gene therapy. Databases are being compiled to detect genetic predisposition to illness or give personalized suggestions for treatment. I too have donated my genome for research to a local university, and I expect to learn some day what my genetic risk profile is - so that I could behave accordingly and avoid illness.
Then I proceed to explain why evolutionary psychology, behavioural ecology and game theory are extremely unlikely to end up in the rubbish bin where eugenics landed. And I fully stand by my opinion. :)
You could have just stayed silent,
Yes, my mistake was to think that people might benefit from pointing out problems with the information sources they consume. In reality, people get defensive, especially if an outsider comes to criticize (also a pattern which evolutionary psychology helps understand).
As stated before, I watched the beginning, end, and various samples from the center.
You can not invalidate criticism by publishing a N-hour video and complaining that the critics didn't watch every second.
Let's switch perspective for a moment: if I publish a 24-hour video titled "I debunked classical mechanics" and talked about journalism during 23 hours of it, I should not be able to deflect criticism with the claim that "you didn't watch all of it".
Part of my criticism is inability to come up with short and falsifiable points. Public communication about science pretty much requires doing that. Already in my first post, I mentioned that I thought the video was needlessly long.
And yes, I'm not a fan of misleading people. When I see someone doing that, yes, I will criticize.
A really long read, but highly informative. If someone has half an hour, I would recommend this article.
(Warning: graphic depictions of a broken legal system and a malfunctioning society.)
If the motor mount is hackable with reasonable effort, and the motor controller's interfaces are open, then in principle... yes.
Yet in reality, companies build extremely complicated cars where premature failure of multiple components can successfully sabotage the whole. :(
I've once needed to repair a Mitsubishi EV motor controller. It took 2 days to dismantle. Schematics were far beyond my skill of reading electronics, and I build model planes as an everyday hobby, so I've seen electronics. Replacement of the high voltage comparator was impossible as nobody was selling it separately. The repair shop wanted to replace the entire motor controller (5000 €). Some guy from Sweden had figured out a fix: a 50 cent resistor. But installing it and putting things back was not fun at all. It wasn't designed to be repaired.
Needless to say, replacing a headlight bulb on the same car requires removing the front plastic cover, starting from the wheel wells, undoing six bolts, taking out the front lantern, and then you can replace the bulb. I curse them. :P
But it drives. Hopefully long enough so I can get my own car built from scratch.