the gop and climate change

Reading this blog, one might get the impression that I'm very right-wing on just about everything, but a quick perusal of my other blogs will show that this simply isn't true. In fact, this blog is the exception. Although I am very right-wing on issues of crime and law and order, there is one issue-- the all-important issue, in my view-- on which I am way to the left:  climate change.

When it comes to climate change, the Republicans are simply out to lunch. How it has come to pass that a major American political party thinks it can ignore an overwhelming scientific consensus on this all-important subject is simply beyond me, but it can’t be allowed to stand. Of course, a majority of Republicans don’t even accept Darwinian evolution, so in that sense it’s hardly surprising. What’s unacceptable is not much the GOP’s ignorance of the science, but its arrogance in assuming such ignorance is acceptable.

iq is real, and important

IQ is real, and important:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2015/12/06/iq-matters-for-the-economy/#8c6d1c02045c

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/04/what_do_sat_and_iq_tests_measure_general_intelligence_predicts_school_and.html

meritocracy

I heard some guy on the radio this morning saying that tech companies need to have workforces that 'look like America.'  In other words, they need to institute skin-color quotas. I'm totally against this.  I want this country to be a meritocracy, in which people are given jobs on the basis of competence and nothing else.

I'm beginning to think that, in their heart of hearts, a lot of black 'leaders' believe that blacks will never be able to compete successfully against whites and Asians, which is why they need to be given everything, including jobs.

trump vs.hillary

Which of these two candidates would get us further toward First World America? I don't think it's the 'Make America Great Again' candidate.  We don't need a candidate who's as anti-science as Trump, at this late date still calling climate change a 'hoax' and a 'phony issue.' On the other hand, the thing that REALLY bothers me about Hillary is that she's so beholden to the black vote-- having piled up hundreds of delegates in southern primaries in states she doesn't have a prayer of winning in the fall-- that in office she would be nothing but a Quota Queen. More handouts and set-asides for black folks, which IMHO are the last things they need.  I think they need to start living in the real world with the rest of us for a change.

It's a dismal choice, but in the event I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.  Laws and executive orders can be repealed, but a ruined planet can't be.

the tradeoff

The basic tradeoff for those dependent on the productive people (taxpayers) is this:  We want to provide enough of a 'floor'-- food, clothing, shelter, medical care-- to give these people some basic opportunity to 'make it' in life.  But we don't want to provide such a cushion that they just decide to stay on it rather than try to become productive citizens.  Of course, some people simply don't have the wherewithal to become productive.  This may become even more true in the future, when the productive people will be those with rather specific abilities and skills.  The main thing is this:  Unproductive people-- those being supported by the taxpayers-- should not be reproducing.

default life

At a certain age, people should just be given a job, even if it's a make-work 'public works' job.  It's better -- and cheaper-- than letting them hang out on the streets and then warehousing them in our prisons.  This would be the 'default life' you'd be given if you couldn't decide on your own.

fewer, but brighter: population and iq

It seems to me that eugenics is going to make a comeback, for one specific reason:  the more we come to understand the human genome, the more we will be able to isolate those components of it that have to do with intelligence.  Very few experts in psychometrics or neuroscience doubt that there is a significant genetic component to intelligence.  To the extent that the human species can now control its own evolution, we will move in the direction of being an ever more intelligent species, particularly the kind of mathematical-logical intelligence that is the basis of science and technology.

This means that we will probably have a much smaller human population because it requires so many resources to raise and educate children and young people to a high level.  But it will be a uniformly more intelligent population.  And that's a good thing.