https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3U60wTHaX8fQ_8Yg0HInzVSXKnKBL-VDhchJ_vJ3IEVvqSMxfADa71lrg

the article includes a fairly detailed set of criticisms of the official theory regarding the world trade center building collapses

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-31/ny-fire-commissioners-call-new-911-investigation-citing-overwhelming-evidence-pre

https://youtu.be/_ueBrH1O3CQ

Skip to 58:49

What is the name of the philosophical argument used by JF here?

He calls it "the fisherman's bait" in informal terms

Is there a formal name for it?

listening now

I don't know, I don't think I've ever heard of it being specifically named anything before.

I think there's a degree to which the ideas aren't being explored with proper nuance, however. Just from this brief clip.

Basically, the issue is, if you have some mechanism by which those who are more focused on being reproductive than being productive can economically sustain their reproduction, it creates a risk that it would be exploited by those people to tremendously expand their ratio of the population.

Essentially, any charity meant to address poverty needs to also implement some check against the subset of the population which requires it becoming a more dominant representation of the population as a whole.

Which is extraordinarily tricky.

The best selection mechanism, historically, in my understanding has actually been *lethal scarcity.* But only in certain contexts. And this is something which is difficult to replicate artificially, on top of carrying all kinds of ethical ramifications, and the capacity to be ideologically exploited.

Basically, a regime tends to operate like an organism, and will seek to perpetuate itself over serving its official function. Such a regime granted power to affect the reproduction of the masses will almost certainly choose to perpetuate those phenotypes which its operators believe can be most easily exploited to perpetuate and expand itself.

The irony being, if it *doesn't* do this, it will likely become unsustainable far sooner, and be replaced by another system which does.

So, simply by virtue of evolutionary reality, a system which prioritizes perpetuation of itself above service too its goals will almost always be the more successful and stable system long term.

There isn't a formal term for it because JF is speaking out his ass. I've looked at his CV he has done no work in evolutionary biology at all. I also bothered to read his book which seems like a poor understanding of Dawkin's *Extended Phenotype* mixed with some of the nuttier things Marghulis said....

Oh no, he doesn't have a funny little hat in evolutionary biology? Obviously must be wrong. What's Destiny's funny little hat in?

fatherhood

He has a biology degree but his work was mostly in neurology. You don't really have to know much about evolutionary biology for that.

I've not read his book, but I've heard his argument on the Revolutionary Phenotype. It's apparently a concern shared by a lot of "big brained nibbas" but his reaction to this concern is over the top.

Furthermore, his idea that it can be avoided. It can't be avoided.

Not unless we go extinct first.

Or regress to a point where we can no longer devise technology.

I wonder when we'll have enough processing power to make like something as intelligent as a dog or animal with lesser Intelligence

What animal has the smallest processing power

We do, they're called "antifa"

Like I said he borrows some of Marghulis's nuttier ideas. She did brilliant stuff on the evolution of eukreatic cells then smoked too much devils lettuce and came up with Gia Hypothesis.

Yeah, I'm not gonna pretend his concern is original.

Or even accurate....

My own position is that humanity has already passed that threshold. But rather than having our selection based on any single AI, it's based on a gestalt of many, as well as symbiotic with the kinds of technology we create.

Humanity invents hammers, but access to a hammer also transforms the dynamic of human prosperity, and which attributes are the most valuable, and by how much.

Widespread literacy almost certainly transformed human attributes long term. Selecting for people who could more easily become literate in societies where literacy had value. And it becomes *more* valuable the more things can be done with it, up until the point where people choose for whatever reason to subsidize the existence of the incurably illiterate.

If you want a better grasp on quantitative genetics, watch stuff by Sean Last, or Alternative Hypothesis (Ryan Faulk)

Sure we generally refer to these as cultural technologies. They are not unique to humans bout our species uses them to an exponentially higher degree.

If Last is as bad at it as Faulk I'll pass.

>as bad at

The data he refers to isn't even fringe.

What specifically is he "bad at"?