Profile
Name:
Dr. Archibald
Channel Views:
4,988
Total Upload Views:
39
Age:
20
Joined:
May 26, 2008
Latest Activity:
34 minutes ago
Subscribers:
24
Scientisticsoviet, your local science driven council, at your service.
Note that if you bring forth interesting points of discussion to my attention do not be surprised that I send you a long and detailed reply, which will possibly include lengthy citations and sources.
Note that if you bring forth interesting points of discussion to my attention do not be surprised that I send you a long and detailed reply, which will possibly include lengthy citations and sources.
About Me:
When I speak of proof, I mean using a (or many) axioms (statements accepted as true ) to show that another particular statement is by consequence of these axioms true as well.
When I speak of a scientific hypothesis, I mean a simple statement has a little observable evidence to support it.
When I speak of a complex model, I mean a hypothesis around which an intricate predictive set of general statements (mathematical or not) have been formed.
When I speak of a scientific theory, I mean a complex model which has substantial evidence to support it, and little (preferable none) to oppose it. Please note that I might, by accident, use this word instead of hypothesis, please point it out and forgive me.
All of these are particular definitions of the words above, among others. I choose these for purposes of clarity and particular usefulness. Other definitions are fine, but I choose to use these.
My Moral First Principles:
The best course of action (or decisions) for individuals, societies and governments to take are once that promote the perpetuation and spread of human genes which favor the perpetuation and spread of themselves. And this must absolutely be done on a long term basis, even more so then over the short term, should there be a conflict between. (Note that not all genes are suited for enhancing replication in most of the situations in the universe. Modification of those latter would be justified on the basis of enhancing the replication of the others).
For any given choice, the course of action undertaken must be such that all alternatives (both hypothetical and real) would undermine the long term prospects of survivability and expansion of said genes.
A "corollary" of this is that the resources used for these actions are wasted as little as possible, and that the end results outweigh the cost of the means to attain them, as otherwise there may be a net loss, undermining survivability and expansion in the long run. With the previous in mind, it is clear how efficiently a society's resources are managed are of utmost importance, such that the potential for expansion is at an optima compared to hypothetical or real alternative societies. It is in this sense that the above "ought to" principles seem similar to evolutionary principles, but apply them to the longer term prospects of the human genome and its eventual successors.
(Now as an example of the above, when taking the hypothetical scenario where we are whether deciding to invest in either a tractor factory or a toy factory, the tractor factory is to be preferred because it enhances agricultural yields, thus enabling a greater population, thus having a greater quantity and spread of genes, ceteris paribus. If however the construction of a tractor factory would entail a large scale popular revolt for example, then it would best to avoid the construction if the cost of suppression where higher than the gains from more productive farming, because then the amount of resources available to further gene spread would be diminished. In a such a scenario it may be advisable try a different approach such that a tractor factory is eventually obtained (given its relevant benefits over time) but always taking into account what are the costs associated).
The first principles outlined above are "ought to" axioms that are immutable for myself unless I decide otherwise. They are not in any way subject to empirical testing, in the same way anyone's fundamental moral axioms are (and feel free to choose your own). The only thing that would convince me to change them would be to demonstrated that they are somehow inconsistent, or that to implement them would be impossible (as for example demanding that all human societies must make their citizens be able to go faster than the speed of light or cease existence at the level of their fundamental particles). That being said, the policies I argue that follow on the other hand can be criticized insofar as they do not follow from first principles or they do not achieve them given current real conditions.
Country:
Canada
Occupation:
Undergraduate Student in Economics
Companies:
Shinra Electric Power Company
Interests:
Philosophy, Mathematics, Logic, Biology, Logistics, Politics, Economics, Video Games,
Channel Comments
Subscribers
(24)
Keep fighting the good fight, and thanks for the friends invite.