Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Wokie-Wiki-Vandals Eat Their Own
Eli Broad died. He was a Democrat and a billionaire. The two just seem to go together, don’t they? He gave billions to K-12 education, art museums, and similar projects. But that doesn’t stop the Wokies from vandalizing his Wikipedia page. When I checked it out earlier today, I saw this at the beginning of the article:
Eli Broad (/broʊd/ BROHD;[2] June 6, 1933 – April 30, 2021) was an American billionaire entrepreneur, philanthropist, and anti-union wealth criminal.
Note the last few words of that first sentence. Broad’s father was a union organizer, by the way. There is nothing in the article that supports that opening statement. Nothing matters to the Wokies other than he accumulated a lot of money, so he must be a criminal. That he made his first fortune helping people buy affordable homes doesn’t matter. How dare he help people own detached housing? They should all be packed into high-rises in cities to not have such a huge footprint. How dare he?!
The Wikipedia page was fixed within less than fifteen minutes. That is a good thing. But it still leaves us seeing the main thing about the Wokies: They eat their own.
Published in Group Writing
Wherever the error comes from and however it’s fixed, I think it’s the most fundamental principle in economics, more fundamental than Supply and Demand on page 1 of the econ textbook:
Wealth is created by human activity.
But we have had the theory for over a hundred years and in my lifetime, the amazing rise of an Asian middle-class (and the rise of Africa that is happening now) have demonstrated in a Popperian sense that zero-economics is false. Not to mention that incredibly racist wars and campaigns of violence have been done in many different countries on different continents against ethnic groups that are more economically successful.
Yet we still believe the same stupid stuff we are programmed to believe. The key to breaking out of our ignorance is genetics and not education.
When was the last time we actually tried education?
I’m not sure we have time for evolution.
We do not believe it, Henry. Some percentage of uneducated people believe it. It is not “natural.” It is not genetically programmed. If billions of people have overcome thinking that way, we are not locked in by genetics.
Maybe in the 1880’s? That’s when these new ideas started to become en vogue.
So, we just kill everyone who believes in zero-sum economics to give evolution a jump? Is that how it works?
We have tried it for centuries I think. It doesn’t work very well with low I.Q. people and evidence doesn’t make people who aren’t genetically empirical change their minds. Just talk to the anti-vaxxers on Ricochet. They know exactly where to put a comma but their minds can’t do logic when it comes to something involving their physical bodies.
As controversial as that sounds it seems like more and more data is backing up that we are
limitedimprisoned by our genetic inclinations.Tried this kind of education, I mean. Taught economics without leftist political bias. Taught history without leftist political bias. That sort of thing.
Speaking en Francaise, are we? Well, count me out. I been educated MURICAN!
Not really. I just prefer speaking in Latina or Urdu meh, and I’m only any good in English if we’re being blunt. (But full credit to the French for inventing Daflon. That’s a good pill.)
Getting back to the point, 1880s is, I’m guessing, at last pretty close to the right answer. In the USA, it can’t have been anytime since education was a big left-leaning federal thing.
Not that Dewey deserves all the blame in the world, but he’s at least a historical benchmark: the correct answer couldn’t possibly be much after Dewey, could it? Or after the 60s radicals took over at the very latest. Late 1800s or early 1900s seems more likely to me.
If you say so, it is so for you.
It took decades for his bad ideas to become pervasive.
We can also blame the Germans, including Otto von Bismarck. A lot of bad ideas come out of Germany.
But the main thing we should blame is “Something has got to be done!”-ism.
Tens of years, yes.
I think it took tens of minutes for most of his good ideas to be missed, misunderstood, or ignored.
I like Dewey.
More later. I got plans.
That would be immoral. We should give them sex robots to prevent them from breeding like civilized people.
You’re a hoot, Henry.
I discuss this more in my interview in Land of Confusion. I reference to how learning about how I.Q. is more depressing than Holocaust literature.
https://ricochet.com/947009/loc-49-with-henry-castaigne/
I don’t understand the joke. What’s immoral about sex robots?
Human effort creates wealth, but never shapes humans, eh? Except when take evolution into our own hands–preferably by kinder, gentler means.
I still prefer the old ways: Human effort shapes humans first. Virtue ain’t easy, but it’s better than sexbots.
Amen, brother.
Humans are more creative and industrious than they are virtuous. As I wrote before.
So you would rather they pursue technology without moral improvement? Developing virtues are how we determine what technologies should be pursued and which should be avoided.
If Fauci and the Chinese scientists of Wuhan were more virtuous, they wouldn’t have been funding and pursuing certain lines of research.
Yes. But, first, should they be?
And, second, which will do more good?
Third, creativity and industry without virtue are worlds of trouble.
But, fourth, who’s against creativity and industry? Them’s good things–and, like most virtues, they work best with other virtues.
It’s not what I want humanity to be. It’s what humanity is. Sex robots seem more fitting with human nature than an end to widespread sexual freedom.
Humanity is not what you think it is. Is there a base level to human nature? Yes, certainly. Is there also an altruistic and virtuous component? Yes. Thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years of culture have gone into teaching what virtues are and how to develop them in the young. We have seen that if a culture emphasizes virtues, we get more virtuous people. If a culture emphasizes and rewards corruption, we get more corrupt behavior. It ain’t rocket science.
Indeed. But it doesn’t seem like we can emphasize critical thinking and empiricism into people.
Of course we can. It may not be successful in all cases, but we can do it. Not the way current schools go about it, but we used to be quite successful at it.
I wouldn’t know. Seriously. I only know enough history to know we haven’t tried it in north America at least since my grandparents were kids.
They used to be called kulaks.
Isn’t that just another term for eugenics?