Sociopath Community

You're completely ignoring the fact that your avarage educated
contributor to society and science came from a small, middle or upper
class family.

Actually I didin't. I did mention most of the world population is comprised of families that are not in the double digits of offspring, and I did mention there are poor people who've gotten themselves out of the gutter.

In most families where there are lots of kids most of
those kids don't achieve anything greater then maybe a lower management
position at walmart or some other such job. And those are the successful
ones. And yes, intelligent people do exist in africa and asia, but most
of them arent educated enough to do anything about it.

The Education in the US is terrible and most of Asia and parts of Africa offers better education than the US.

You know Zodiac, there is something called passports and
airplanes. People get around and end up living in other parts of the
world. Some of which came from accross the globe.

This is true, but in parts of the world like africa or much of asia it is near
impossible to get a passport or an exit visa and even harder to get the
money needed to leave your country. Throughout history most of science
has been furthered by numerous INDIVIDUALS. Not the collective.

 As you say, numerous individuals and not collective. I never suggested everyone delivers the best of what we have. I even said there is good and bad in all of this, and even the so called bad apples can be made useful.

What is needed is a efficient system of education and a stable government and
these individuals can flourish. Too many people has been shown to bog
down the efficiency of any education system, thus making it less likely
that these individuals are proporly taught. And while a higher
population would make it statistically more likely that these
individuals would be born it would also make it less likely that they
end up in the enviroments they need to become something special rather
then just wasted potential.

I agree. And it will make it more likely that these individuals will surface, and they do, and the quality that is being produced is greater than if it were coming from smaller numbers. 

Everyone has to take care of themselves and do what is required to ensure their success. Some of them make it, some do not. We can view a list of rich and famous people in the world who came from poor families. By example, they are but a small fraction of those who've become successful from rising without relying on it being handed to them. It happens.

And about China's population control. They have the 1 child policy because too many people are difficult to control. On the most part, the Chinese have homes and eat everyday, with food to spare and more on the way. It's conjected as hell in some parts, but as far as population goes, to call it overpopulation is all a matter of prefrence.

"Try switching the demographics tab to population and not birth rate".

Ok, I already did it and I found this:

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?t=0&v=21&r=xx&l=en

According to this map, places like Europe and Africa have the same colours. We may conclude that there's no correlation between population high rates and development, which obviously contradicts your quote ""Quantity IS quality. The more people, the more advanced we are". If you don't want to see this, it's because you're lying to yourself or you're just too ignorant and dogmatic to admit it.

I've had the decency to post links, while you, on the other hand, limited yourself to speculate about these topics. You know, Spatial??? that makes you look very bad :) (when you don't have sources of any type).

I've read the rest of the post and I just see an emotional man posting his own opinions and ideas. I think it's funny how you criticized Obama once...almost absurd, since you're just like him.

Hahaha.

"Try switching the demographics tab to population and not birth rate".

Ok, I already did it and I found this:http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?t=0&v=21&r=xx&l=en

Accordingto this map, places like Europe and Africa have the same colours. We
may conclude that there's no correlation between population high rates
and development, which obviously contradicts your quote ""Quantity IS
quality. The more people, the more advanced we are".

If you don't want to see this, it's because you're lying to yourself or you're just too
ignorant and dogmatic to admit it.

Let's make one thing clear. I say the more people there are, the more advanced we are, people travel to where there is oppertunity. While you simply say, "Look at how many people are over there compared to here, this obviously contradicts you"

Two heads are better than 1. We have 7 billion. Quantity = Quality, this is common sense.

Being the most populated you obviously think China is loaded with a bunch of idiots. Well. Those people are real smart, who else is knocking off iphones ? Do you understand what is required to replicate such a thing down to the processor and have it work the same as the original Then mass produce them ? They do this with all kinds of electronics. And it's only a fraction of them doing this. Making a processor alone is staggering work, and these people manage to do it underground.

I've had the decency to post links, while you, on the other hand, limited yourself to speculate about these topics. You know, Spatial??? that makes you look very bad :) (when you don't have sources of any
type).

Of course it makes me look bad in the eyes of someone who lacks intuition and is reliant on media to support the basics of common sense. Also your speaking too soon, for you have been ignorant and did not research my claim, so I went and did it myself.

- When the population grows, what I mentioned is called "Innovative Potential" This is when "natural selection" has more material as it expands with greater numbers.

- As I mentioned, and many times in the past. Technology is our lifeline, like necktar is to the bee. Also more technology creates a boom in our population, our relationship with what we do and what we are, is entangled. Cut the electricity/fry the grid, and billions will die in chaos.

http://www.jasoncollins.org/2013/07/population-technological-progress-and-the-evolution-of-innovative-potential/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_economics

Now the difference between my links, and the one your using, is the ones I show actually say something, while backing my claim. Who's ignorant ?

I've read the rest of the post and I just see an emotional man posting his own opinions and ideas.

Well, not anymore. Pity, I enjoyed coming correct on my own. And make no mistake with my emotions on this matter. I found it glorious from the time you came at me.

I think it's funny how you criticized Obama once...almost absurd, since you're just like him.

So let me get this straight. You're criticizing me for criticizing Obama ?

I provided you media now, for you to maintain your hot air and still insist I am like Obama would be due to ignorance and narcissism.

I'm in a position to insult you now, but at my level, your low blows do that for me. Keep it up, if you wish, but from here on you'll be fencing with evidence I've provided. If you can impress me for a change, then by all means continue, I'm all about higher learning.

Oh, now I understand where you get these twisted ideas from. I've researched that guy 'Kremer' and this is what I found:

"Kremer is also a Research Affiliate at Innovations for Poverty Action, a New Haven, Connecticut based research outfit dedicated to creating and evaluating solutions to social and international development problems. In addition to his work at Innovations for Poverty Action Kremer is a member of Giving What We Can, an international society for the promotion of poverty relief.[2] Kremer is founder and president of WorldTeach, a Harvard-based organization which places college students and recent graduates as volunteer teachers on summer and year-long programs in
developing countries around the world."

It is a fact that he is a progressist...haha. I've been researching also the man who created the concept of 'evolutionary economics' and he's also a progressist:

"Thorstein Veblen - was an American economist and sociologist, and leader of the institutional economics movement. Besides his technical work he was a popular and witty critic of capitalism, as shown by his best known book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899)".

Seems like some others who support this movement (evolutionary economics) are also leftists:

"Prior tothe dominance of Keynesian thought in the late 1930s, progressive economicscentered on the historical model of Richard Ely and the institutional school associatedwith John R. Commons, Thorstein Veblen, and Wesley Mitchell. These earlyprogressive economists shared several beliefs about the interaction of society, politics,and the economy. Many spent time studying at German universities focusingtheir scholarship on the evolutionary development of economics within particularpolitical and cultural environments. Some were influenced deeply by Christianethics and social gospel reform efforts (see “The Role of Faith in the ProgressiveMovement”) that challenged the exploitation of people and communities for profit".

Why should I accept what these leftists have to say??? Sometimes, they have strong anti-scientific tendencies. For example, when they say: "we're all equal". It is obvious that some humans are better than others. To me, that's very "anti-science"...almost absurd. Like Kaczinsky, the Unabomber said:

"Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality."

I don't trust them in any way...always trying to destroy the West. Like Ted Kaczinsky said: "Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western
civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality".

"Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. To 1990".

That is an economic model and I don't know if you understand what economic model means: "In economics, a model is a theoretical construct representing economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them. The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques."

Sometimes, economic models can't describe reality in a holistic way and, therefore, they might fail. If you add some other variables, it might dramatically change the outcome of that model.

"Being the most populated you obviously think China is loaded with a bunch of idiots".

Actually, Chinese people are highly intelligent, as well as Koreans and Japanese. Read: "Race, Evolution and Behaviour", by Philippe Rushton and you'll see that. If, for example, Japanese decided to breed with a race with lower IQ, the average IQ for the next generation in Japan would be lower. That's why it's important to preserve the racial integrity of these individuals.

China's population has been relatively homogeneous for a very long time. That's probably why they've been so successful.

They also highly value honor, intelligence, education, image etc.

THey are amoung the most successful cultures in the world.

First there was art. When people were satisfied and able to overproduce articles of art, then they were willing to exchange and trade them for other goods created using art (also known as human imagination, for those lacking in the arcane knowledge of creation and destruction).

Exchange of artistic goods predates farming.

Remember that a lot of artifacts (mostly ritualistic or remembrance type and excluding the war purpose only) required hundreds of hours of work, which could be spend on the basic hunter/gatherer activities in order to feed the community, or oneself in the Paleolithic age.

Items of cultural worth are of a suporior and more primordial value, than the items of the bassic essence of survival.

P.S.

Then again, I've heard it said somewhere, that culture is not your friend and an enemy in fact.

I love it when you try to talk smart.