volco

In fact you got that right! I think, since it's not made apparent in the movie. Would you prefer to live in a world with magnificent beautiful things (that are made possible by ugliness), or in a World without Pyramids (technology) at all? Well at least that's how I understood it. It really is a fantastic movie, very recommendable. http://www.dailypaul.com/313086/robots-now-are-the-airplanes-of-miyazakis-the-wind-rises

Le vent se leve (Il faut tenter de vivre) The wind rises (we gotta try to live) I just watched such a beautiful film in the big screen that I just had to share with other people who have been moved by Ayn Rand's works. It includes love for life, for one's own dreams, and even hero worship. I even think it is Romantic Realism for many reasons. The film recounts the story of Jiro, a pioneer aeronautical engineer/designer from his early childhood to his ultimate success Jiro loves airplanes and believe they are machines too beautiful for war, he dreams of commercial airliners as he studies his Heroes in the West. But he was born not only in Japan but in the dawn of the 20th century. War was the only writing in the wall. At beginning of the film Jiro's Hero asks him what I consider the most brilliant quote: Would you prefer to live in a World with or without Pyramids?

Controversial psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa says Liberals are more intelligent than Conservatives. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf

Uruguay is legalizing growth and sale this year too. But the government will be directly involved.

Thanks Hairnet, that's pretty much in a nutshell. I was beginning to police myself for researching the subject so I wanted to see how you guys reacted. It took me by surprise that most attacked Suzuki outright before watching the video. The nailed it. I understand it's a touchy subject and now I'll search more about John Rawls. If you think the three 'races' are different in between, you should take a look at the precious genetic isolates.

What about Rushton? Suzuki is there only to debunk what Rushton's trying to discuss.

Yes I could see how Suzuki didn't even want to discuss those ideas, but what do you think of Rushton's correlations? Do you think it should be allowed to discuss those ideas in a frank and open manner? I thought that made him establishment rather than nut job. In any case he's definitely antagonistic to Rushton.

This is another way to visualize genetic distance between ethnic groups. This is biased because there are more European samples than of any other ethnicity, but it still can be seen that Europeans and Arabs in general are in between East Asians/Amerindians and Africans. Just as Geography dictates. In my original post I show two maps which are uncannily similar, but obtained through different methods.

David Suzuki is not a nutjob, he's one of the most mainstream popular scientists there are. He's the one star the program Rerum Natura, The Nature of Things. He's establishment, not nutjob. Yes, Cavalli-Sforza's research also advocates for the term genetic diversity rather than race since it's impossible to trace boundaries. The problem with the term ethnicity is that it's not genetic-exclusive, it also includes people who share the same tongue. i.e. not all basque speakers are basques, even though the majority are are, and not all genetically categorized as basques are basque speakers. I don't know if there is one human race, or multiple. Each individual is an individual expression of the human race. The problem arises when grouping genetic closeness. Then it seems to arise three, corresponding to the three major expansions out of Africa. Africans, Australian Aboriginals, and Eurasian and Amerindians.

I don't think the state should intervene in any of those cases, except taken to an extreme. Hurting instead of light spanking would be a clear cut case. The case of an illiterate parent homeschooling children reminds me of Amish and Mennonite classrooms. In fact all of your examples are found in Mennonite and Amish communities. They use spanking to rear children, they make them work in the farm from early age, and they 'brainwash' them to fear a God. But all of this is tolerated as, I believe, it should be.

Philippe Rushton vs David Suzuki debate begins at minute 12 This is Cavalli-Sforza's aproximate 'race' map. Note that Cavalli-Sforza is mentioned by Suzuki as a defense that race does not exist as he had proved there is more variation within the races than among them. And this is an old 19century race map. http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/race-maps/ So do you think that a category such as race can be identified? Do you think the debate was politically charged on either side?

Now I understand what you're getting at. with genes vs self I don't make the same dualistic distinction as in mind/body. It would be mind and body vs the portable, reproducible piece of information that we live for: our genetic coding. There was an excellent essay by Patri Friedman I can't quiet find that explains it...

Definitely Rachmaninoff

I don't understand the connection. The idea of original sin is particular to a part of the World, it doesn't appear (as far as I know) in Chinese or Amerindian cultures. The idea of reproduction as a means to give continuity to the genes your carry (some people would call their genes, their soul, other their blood) is universal.

Thanks Nicky that last reply was useful. I am debating this with an American living in Korea (who glorifies that society) Can I now say that anything short of free transit of people as policy would be inflicting in the rights of pre existing citizens to invite friends or collaborators to live with them. Regarding the environment (I've been made fun of this) I'm still not sure in the cases of small isolated islands like Socotora, the Galapagos, etc, which have a very fragile and valuable environment (valuable for the islanders). Those territories (not countries) have indeed closed borders and restrict the entry of tourist to a yearly quota. The Falklands would be an example for the West. A Brit can't simply migrate to the islands except as a tourist (or in the military).

I am playing the devil's advocate here, so bare with me: Isn't/shouldn't be a country's territory the aggregation of all private property plus infrastructure? Can the interest of a country be the aggregated interests of its individual citizens? Market is self correcting, but demography isn't. People reproduce.

So the judges robbed you of 5 years of your life for finding a gun in your car? There's got to be something more to it

Yes, only that the quest for the immortal is not Medieval, it is hardwired. Our genes and instinct drive us to procreate and the mind rationalizes that as living forever, but the sentiment is much more biological. It makes sense. Many atheists have children as to give continuity to their lives. Others write great novels. Some do both. History can be seen as a great struggle between the mind and the genes, or the individual's volition and its baser instincts. But instincts have been there before the Medieval Age! And sadly remain afterwards

Another question would be: Is it in every country's best interest to have an open borders policy? We have established in this thread that it is good for America. But it is not good for Israel. What about the other nations in between the two.

Those are good defenses for Global Capitalism, but it ignores the current situation some countries face. Immigration is de facto not free, but set by policy makers. My question is whether individual citizens should have a say in that policy making? And if so, how? My other question is whether it constitutes initiation of force to simply close a border (particularly of an island nation, that's why I cited Japan) or only allow tourists and a minuscule amount of foreign residents in order to either preserve their identity and demographic profile, or to keep it from overpopulating (which is subjective but real).

that's because there is a biological basis (as remote as it may be) for nationalism. There is nothing for class solidarity.

Ok you've answered Israel. Now Costa Rica: A huge amount of Guatemalan immigrants would ruin the environment, real or perceived, and ruin the country's prospects. What about Japan?

True, she answered this during the Mike Wallace interview and in one of her Capitalism TUI, the breaking point is free speech cancelled in the last free country on Earth. If Free Speech is cancelled in another country her recommendation (according to her previous books) was emigration.

Dream Academy - Life in a Northern Town And this is something really interesting I've become addicted to. Medieval Portuguese music. And this is my drinking song, it's a very popular drinking song A ce flacon faison la guerre!

Thanks for the reply. I understand that an Objectivists-run Government and society would be a free market of people and capitals. I favor that point of view and that project, but still I have questions regarding the present state of affairs. Is it a country's obligation to open up its borders and allow free immigration ? Is it a country's obligation to give those immigrants citizenship? America's strength is Capitalism, and therefore the USA's strength has to be maintained by a constant influx of immigrants. But what about other countries, as dissimilar as Costa Rica, Japan and Israel? Countries whose strengths might not be those of a superpower, but have other qualities that make them valuable? Citizens of these countries might find they have some things to be valued that would be unequivocally ruined if they were to allow free migration: a pristine environment in the case of Costa Rica, a country that is unequivocally their homeland, in the case of Israel, and a country that is unequivocally theirs in all respects, as in the case of Japan. Do Japanese or Costa Ricans have a right to decide who's going to immigrate into their territories? Do the Israelis have a right to keep Palestinians without citizenship because that would surely destroy Israel?