Test: If naturalists are right, totalitarian states should be just as creative as free ones

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 22, 2019

Academic Freedom, Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A Chinese university is dumping intellectual freedom from its charter yet China hopes to be the world’s top AI power. Is there a contradiction here?

If humans are just animals, then factory farm methods should work with people as well as pigs.

The big advances in AI have mostly been in free societies. Totalitarian states are grabbing AI but can they advance it if they cannot allow the creativity that comes with freedom?

How does that play out in Hong Kong’s struggle with China:

George Orwell identified two characteristics of a totalitarian state that offer insight into its central intellectual weaknesses…
First, successful modern technological cultures depend on a high level of individual freedom of thought, as the digital revolution demonstrates. He wrote: “Modern literature is essentially an individual thing. It is either the truthful expression of what one man thinks and feels, or it is nothing.” But he adds, “As I say, we take this notion for granted, and yet as soon as one puts it into words one realizes how literature is menaced. For this is the age of the totalitarian state, which does not and probably cannot allow the individual any freedom what ever.”
Whereas Shanghai University is onside with no freedom of thought, international human rights day (December 8, 2019) brought 800,000 Hongkongers onto the streets again. One observer told us, “I love this vid. Hong Kong people never lack creative ideas to express their feelings and thoughts”
Denyse O’Leary, “Can a Totalitarian State Advance AI?: China vs. Hong Kong provides a test case” at Mind Matters News

Indeed. In the vids, they are wearing plastic pig’s heads to frustrate the mass surveillance equipment. In one classic street drama, a man pretending to be a security official (with “1984” blazoned on his shirt) is interviewing Pig 1, Pig 2, etc., to general hilarity.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019-07-21-8-18-sign-on-Ipad-1597x1198.jpg — *In a photo taken last August, a masked Hongkonger uses a tablet to quietly broadcast a message for freedom while standing outside Tai Po train station* *The message reads “How can you be silent in front such absurd government?”*

Unlike the poor Uyghurs, the Hongkongers are tech savvy. It just is not as clear who will win in the end.

See also: Weighing the costs of China’s high tech power: Western nations like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada must weigh Beijing’s demands carefully

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

The Founding Fathers were, to varying degrees, racist by modern (progressive) standards. Why else would those attitudes have been embodied in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
All men being created equal is a wonderful ideal but one to which the Founding Fathers and their successors only paid lip service. The fact that women, African-Americans and Native Americans were denied some measure of equality for so long is an indication that an influential number of white Americans did not endorse all the ideals set out in their own Declaration of Independence. And is Dinesh D'Souza really arguing that the Democratic Party of the 21st century is ideologically indistinguishable from that of Southern slave-owners of the 19th century or that Trump's Republican Party is pursuing an agenda as radical or progressive as the abolitionist policy was at the time of the Party's formation?Seversky_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

I meant to say WW was a racist. Hell he showed “Birth of the Nation” in the Whitehouse. Vividvividbleau_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

BA re 22 Outstanding! Also don’t forget Dredd Scott and the progressive fascist Woodrow Wilson Vividvividbleau_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
To suggest that universal equality was the goal of the people who drafted the constitution is simply turning a blind eye to reality.
And yet reality says that goal was eventually achieved. Back when the US was starting out I am glad not everyone could vote. The Republic was a great idea. And it worked.ET_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

I suggest Ed George read Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. It’s the speech that made him president. He discusses slavery in detail. Also I like to see where progressive ideas led to the modern world in any way.jerry_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

EG, you continue the error. FYI, the US Constitution BUILDS ON AND SEEKS TO DELIVER THE NEW GOVERNMENT envisioned in para 2, DOI (and reflecting a line of thought deriving from nation under God, Government with consent also under God that secures blessings of liberty); indeed, it was a second and more successful attempt after the 1778 Articles of Confederation. Moreover, you reflect the now patently nihilistic positivist view on law, both the DOI and the Const in that context are based on the laws of nature and of nature's God, our creator. That is, they turn on the understanding that first duties of responsible reason obtain for individual and society alike which set the framework of laws we did not invent nor can we amend, that establish justice and regulate laws and Constitutions. Things that start with inescapable duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to justice etc. BTW, you cite a falsity as a fact, the reckoning of the non-free population at a fractional level for representatives was advocated by ANTI-slavery northerners so they would not be overwhelmed by slave-holders. Along the way you fail to reckon with the struggle of reformation, demanding a backward imposition of your preferences [and onward agenda] in an unhistoric radical way that fails to deal with the necessary compromises that make genuine, peaceful progress rather than radical, misanthropic reigns of terror as we saw again and again starting with the French revolution. Notice, how 30 years ago the assured ironclad course of history failed, after 60 million were murdered behind the Iron curtain. One effect of that radicalism is that you cut off the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of precisely said history. That dooms us to relive the same blunders and pay the same coin over and over again. And that is as good an explanation of the current resort to star chamber as any. More can be said, this is enough to point out the main errors and overlooked, hard bought lessons. KFkairosfocus_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

The modern world arose out of a century and half process in England and to a lesser extent in Holland. Starting with Henry VIII gradually morphing over time, the common man became free. This was due to religious wars amongst Protestants mainly in England which gradually led to less power for the king and more for parliament. While parliament was controlled by wealthy land owners this conflict trickled down to more freedom for the average person. They then could reap the benefits of their labor. Then this led to the Industrial revolution. This led to even more freedom in some of the British colonies as Pennsylvania became known as the “poor man’s” country. About 80,000 poor Germans migrated to Pennsylvania and became prosperous. This then led to one innovation after the other as prosperity accelerated in the United States and Western Europe. If one just looks at history most innovation took place in free governments. My guess is that if Henry.VIII had four sons by Catherine and 10 grandsons, the modern world might have evolve but much later. Just look at the development of Latin America vs English North America. The most powerful man in the world in Henry’s time was Catherine’s nephew, Charles the Fifth of Spain and the Hapsburgs. The English colonies would not have been free and the modern world would have looked very different.jerry_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Ed George has a distorted view of history, He states,
"I’m sure that conservatives of the day criticized these changes as being enacted through the false colour of law. Much like the arguments used against LGBQ laws."
And yet the facts of history are far different,,,
Dinesh D'Souza: The secret history of the Democratic Party - 2016 Excerpt: Contrary to what we learn from progressives in education and the media, the history of the Democratic Party well into the twentieth century is a virtually uninterrupted history of thievery, corruption and bigotry. American history is the story of Democratic malefactors and Republican heroes. Yes, it’s true. I begin with Andrew Jackson. He—not Thomas Jefferson or FDR—is the true founder of the modern Democratic Party. Progressives today are divided about Jackson. Some, like historian Sean Wilentz, admire him, while others want to remove him from the $20 bill because he was a slaveowner and a vicious Indian fighter. He was, in this view, a very bad American. I support the debunking of Jackson, but not because he was a bad American—rather, because he was a typical crooked Democrat. Jackson established the Democratic Party as the party of theft. He mastered the art of stealing land from the Indians and then selling it at giveaway prices to white settlers. Jackson’s expectation was that those people would support him politically, as indeed they did. Jackson was indeed a “man of the people,” but his popularity was that of a gang leader who distributes his spoils in exchange for loyalty on the part of those who benefit from his crimes.,,, The Democrats were also the party of slavery, and the slave-owning mentality continues to shape the policies of Democratic leaders today. The point isn’t that the Democrats invented slavery which is an ancient institution that far predates America. Rather, Democrats like Senator John C. Calhoun invented a new justification for slavery, slavery as a “positive good.” For the first time in history, Democrats insisted that slavery wasn’t just beneficial for masters; they said it was also good for the slaves. Today progressive pundits attempt to conceal Democratic complicity in slavery by blaming slavery on the “South.” These people have spun a whole history that portrays the slavery battle as one between the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South. This of course benefits Democrats today, because today the Democratic Party’s main strength is in the north and the Republican Party’s main strength is in the South. But the slavery battle was not mainly a North-South issue. It was actually a battle between the pro-slavery Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans. How can I make such an outrageous statement? Let’s begin by recalling that northern Democrats like Stephen Douglas protected slavery, while most southerners didn’t own slaves. (Three fourths of those who fought in the civil war on the confederate side had no slaves and weren’t fighting to protect slavery.) Republicans, meanwhile, to one degree or another, all opposed slavery. The party itself was founded to stop slavery. Of course there were a range of views among Republicans, from abolitionists who sought immediately to end slavery to Republicans like Abraham Lincoln who recognized that this was both constitutionally and politically impossible and focused on arresting slavery’s extension into the new territories. This was the main platform on which Lincoln won the 1860 election. The real clash was between the Democrats, north and south, who supported slavery and the Republicans across the country who opposed it. As Lincoln summarized it in his First Inaugural Address, one side believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, and the other believes it is wrong and ought to be restricted. “This,” Lincoln said, “is the only substantial dispute.” And this, ultimately, was what the Civil War was all about. In the end, of course, Republicans ended slavery and permanently outlawed it through the Thirteenth Amendment. Democrats responded by opposing the Amendment and a group of them assassinated the man they held responsible for emancipation, Abraham Lincoln. Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment securing for blacks equal rights under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment giving blacks the right to vote, over the Democrats’ opposition. Confronted with these irrefutable facts, progressives act like the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client. Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast. “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store. But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.” In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago. You can’t blame us now for the antebellum wrongs of the Democratic Party.” Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? From Democratic support for slavery, let’s turn to the party’s complicity in segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. Democrats in the 1880s invented segregation and Jim Crow laws that lasted through the 1960s. Democrats also came up with the “separate but equal” rationale that justified segregation and pretended that it was for the benefit of African Americans. The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee by a group of former confederate soldiers; its first grand wizard was a confederate general who was also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. The Klan soon spread beyond the South to the Midwest and the West and became, in the words of historian Eric Foner, “the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” The main point of the Klan’s orgy of violence was to prevent blacks from voting—voting, that is, for Republicans. Leading Democrats including at least one president, two Supreme Court justices, and innumerable Senators and Congressmen were Klan members. The last one, Robert Byrd, died in 2010 and was eulogized by President Obama and former President Bill Clinton. The sordid history of the Democratic Party in the early twentieth century is also married to the sordid history of the progressive movement during the same period. Progressives like Margaret Sanger—founder of Planned Parenthood and a role model for Hillary Clinton—supported such causes as eugenics and social Darwinism. While abortion was not an issue in Sanger’s day, she backed forced sterilization for “unfit” people, notably minorities. Sanger’s Negro Project was specifically focused on reducing the black population. Progressives also led the campaign to stop poor immigrants from coming to this country. They championed laws in the 1920s that brought the massive flows of immigration to this country to a virtual halt. The motives of the progressives were openly racist and and in the way the immigration restrictions were framed, progressives succeeded in broadening the Democratic Party’s target list of minority groups. While the Democratic Party previously singled out blacks and native Indians, progressives showed Democrats how to suppress all minorities. Included in the new list were Central and South American Hispanics as well as Eastern and Southern Europeans. Many of these people were clearly white but progressives did not consider white enough. Like blacks, they were considered “unfit” on the basis of their complexion. During the 1920s, progressives developed a fascination with and admiration for Italian and German fascism, and the fascists, for their part, praised American progressives. These were likeminded people who spoke the same language, and progressives and fascists worked together to implement programs to sterilize so-called mental defectives and “unfit” people, resulting subsequently in tens of thousands of forced sterilizations in America and hundreds of thousands in Nazi Germany. During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent members of his brain trust to Europe to study fascist economic programs, which he considered more advanced that anything his New Deal had implemented to date. FDR was enamored with Mussolini, whom he called the “admirable Italian gentleman.” Some Democrats even had a soft spot for Hitler: young JFK went to Germany before World War II and praised Hitler as a “legend” and blamed hostility to the Nazis as jealousy resulting from how much the Nazis had accomplished. Yes, I know. Very little of this is known by people today because progressives have done such a good job of sweeping it all under the rug. This material is simply left out of the textbooks even though it is right there in the historical record. Some progressive pundits know about it, but they don’t want to talk about it. Indeed many progressives have been working hard to come up with lies that can be passed off as facts. Progressives have a whole cultural contingent—Hollywood, the mainline media, the elite universities, even professional comedians—to peddle their propaganda. From the television show Madame Secretary to the front page of the New York Times to nightly quips by Stephen Colbert, the progressive bilge comes at us continually and relentlessly. In this bogus narrative, Republicans are the bad guys because Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. For progressive Democrats, the civil rights movement is the canonical event of American history. It is even more important than the American Revolution. Progressive reasoning is: we did this, so it must be the greatest thing that was ever done in America. Republicans opposed it, which makes them the bad guys. The only problem is that Republicans were instrumental—actually indispensable—in getting the Civil Rights Laws passed. While Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the backing of some northern Democrats, Republicans voted in far higher percentages for the bill than Democrats did. This was also true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed with just Democratic votes. Indeed, the main opposition to both bills came from Democrats. Interestingly enough the GOP is not merely the party of minority rights but also of women’s rights. Republicans included women’s suffrage in the party’s platform as early as 1896. The first woman elected to Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. That year represented a major GOP push for suffrage, and after the GOP regained control of Congress, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was finally approved in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year. The inclusion of women in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was, oddly enough, the work of group of racist, chauvinist Democrats. Led by Democratic Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, this group was looking to defeat the Civil Rights Act. Smith proposed to amend the legislation and add “sex” to “race” as a category protected against discrimination. Smith’s Democratic buddies roared with laughter when he offered his one-word amendment. They thought it would make the whole civil rights thing so ridiculous that no sane person would go along with it. One scholar noted that Smith’s amendment “stimulated several hours of humorous debate” among racist, chauvinist Democrats. But to their amazement, the amended version of the bill passed. It bears repeating that Republicans provided the margin of victory that extended civil rights protection both to minorities and to women. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dinesh-dsouza-the-secret-history-of-the-democratic-party This article is excerpted from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book Hillary’s America, which was published this month by Regnery and is accompanied by a film of the same name that opened in theaters nationwide on July 22.
notes:
The Republican Party traces its roots to the 1850s, when antislavery leaders (including former members of the Democratic, Whig, and Free-Soil parties) joined forces to oppose the extension of slavery into the Kansas and Nebraska territories by the proposed Kansas-Nebraska Act. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Republican-Party Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican? - video The south used to vote Democrat. Now it votes Republican. Why the switch? Was it, as some people (progressives) say, because the GOP decided to appeal to racist whites? Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, explains (debunks that false narrative). https://www.prageru.com/video/why-did-the-democratic-south-become-republican/
bornagain77_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

KF
EG, cut the cultural marxist undermining of critical civilisational advancements, please.
You have a nice way with hyperbole. Only six people who signed the DOI (a non-binding document) also signed the constitution (a binding document). There is nothing in the constitution about equality. Although it does specifically state that blacks are only worth a fraction of what a white land owner is worth. I know the argument that this was included to appease southern states so that they could have more representation. A compromise, by the way, that was only required because the founding fathers did not believe that all humans were equal. Natives didn’t get the vote until 1924. Blacks didn’t get the vote until 1870, although this was actively repressed in several states well into the 1960s. Chinese Immigrants could not vote until 1943. Jews in Maryland could not vote until 1828. Women could not vote until 1920. And none of these rights were the result of the government simply deciding that it was the right thing to do. These all had to be fought for. To suggest that universal equality was the goal of the people who drafted the constitution is simply turning a blind eye to reality. But I understand why some would be upset at someone who brings this up. To acknowledge reality would be to acknowledge that progressive ideas often advance civilization in a positive way. I’m sure that conservatives of the day criticized these changes as being enacted through the false colour of law. Much like the arguments used against LGBQ laws.Ed George_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Quick quiz for Ed George: 1) Who/what was the driving force and bore the highest cost behind the end of slavery? 2) Who/what was the driving force behind universal suffrage? 3) Compare/contrast the results of a) allowing native societies to segregate and live under their own laws/rules (e.g. Native Americans) and b) requiring native societies to integrate certain precepts of Judeo-Christian Western European rules/belief systems (e.g. Asian Indians). Re: Creativity and Totalitarianism What most people (and every parent!) knows instinctively and through experience is that a) rewarded behavior increases and b) punished behavior decreases. You will always get creativity when the person being creative feels rewarded by the creative act itself and is not punished for it (e.g. Rembrandt, Bach). You will get more creative behavior when the behavior is rewarded above/beyond the act itself. This is why free market capitalist societies are more creative - money! Totalitarian states can be just as creative, as long as they are free market property rights respecting (or at least reward the creator). Nazi Germany is a decent example - while the Fascist regime directed the work of German companies in many cases, the companies still operated on a for-profit basis, and skilled workers were compensated accordingly. China's challenge is the same as that of the old U.S.S.R., however - while they have certainly implemented a number of free market reforms, their economy is still primarily communist, with workers compensation not directly related to their productivity, creativity, or skill. As the U.S.S.R. eventually found out, if you don't reward behavior, "pride in your work" eventually fails to be sufficient reward in and of itself, and productivity (and concomitant creativity) drops off precipitously. Why come up with a new idea if the government is just going to take it and you get nothing? And coming up with new ideas is discouraged anyway, as the government trains youth in "follow orders and be a good citizen" mentality. It's not complicated - reward what you want more of, punish what you don't. It's the reason economies that are capitalist, free market, property rights and rule of law based are the most successful and creative. Socialism and communism stomp on several of those precepts.drc466_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

BobRyan and Kairosfocus at 15, 16, 17 and 18 offered very good responses to Ed George's fallacious claims thus far. But if I may add to their very good responses thus far, Ed George observes that,
I assume you are referring to the revolution that gave voice to far less than 50% of the population. Women need not apply. Asian immigrants need not apply. Indigenous peoples need not apply. Black people need not apply. Non property owners need not apply.
And indeed the founding of America was far from morally perfect. None-the-less, the founding of America was based on the morally perfect principles that find their roots in Christianity. Perhaps the most foundational of all Christian principles being the principle of the equality of all men before God,,, i.e "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,",,, And indeed, America has gone through some very painful and bloody growing pains trying to live up to that specific objective moral principle. And yet herein lies the critical and fatal flaw within Ed George's 'moral reasoning'. Ed George is a Darwinian atheist who has no objective moral basis to appeal to! Yet, although Ed is devoid of any coherent moral foundation, Ed George himself blatantly acts as if it is 'self-evidently true' that we should all intuitively, and unquestionably, know the objective moral principle that all men are create equal,,,,
“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.” - J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide
,,, Although Ed George himself, (a Darwinian atheist), acts as if it it 'self-evidently true' that objective morality must exist, Ed George, within his Darwinian worldview, simply has no objective moral foundation that he can appeal to in order for him to justify his complaint about inequality at America's founding.. Indeed Darwinian evolution itself is based on differences, i.e. based on inequalities. It is most certainly not based on the equality of all souls before the eyes of God.
Words & Dirt - Quotes 10-21-2015 - by Miles Raymer Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,, So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure. http://www.words-and-dirt.com/words/quotes-10-21-2015/
There simply is no such thing as equality among persons within Darwinian atheism. In fact, the full title of Darwin's book is,,,
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
When presented with the preceding fact, Darwinian atheists often try to claim that Charles Darwin was not a racist in his personal life. And that may very well be so. But "so what?", none-the-less, Darwin himself understood perfectly well that his theory was inherently and violently racist in its implications.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" ? Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178
After writing that particular sentence, and understanding the true implications of his theory, I have no idea why Charles Darwin, (supposedly a strong supporter of equal rights in his personal life), did not immediately reject his theory as being self-evidently false. The world has paid dearly for Darwin's inconsistency in his personal life when compared to the overt racism inherent in Darwin's theory itself:
From Darwin to Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A
Besides Darwin's theory being inherently and overtly racist, Charles Darwin himself also maintained that his theory was inherently sexist. i.e. Women were considered to be biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin's theory:
Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued - “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective. As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/08/darwin-zealots-reign-of-terror/
And again, when presented with the preceding fact, Darwinists will often point out that Darwin himself treated women with great respect during his lifetime, Yet, that does not detract one bit from the fact that Darwin's theory itself is inherently racist and sexist in its implications. That Darwin himself, did not, and indeed could not, consistently live his personal life as if if his theory was actually true, (directly contrary to what Darwinists try to imply about Darwin's personal life somehow trumping the racist and sexist implications of his theory), is proof that his theory cannot possibly be a true reflection of reality as it really is, but that his theory instead MUST BE based on a delusional view of reality: The fact that Darwinian atheism MUST BE based on a delusional view of reality is best illustrated by the fact that Darwin's theory, (when stripped down to its reductive materialistic foundation), denies the objective existence of 'persons', which is, by far, the most certain thing anyone can possibly know about reality. i.e. Descartes "I Think, therefore I am!". There simply is no such thing as a 'person' and/or personhood within Darwinian materialism. Thus, since there are no 'persons', then, of course, it directly follows that there never can truly be equality among 'persons' within Darwinian theory:
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
And yet, although the reductive materialism of Darwinian atheism explicitly denies the objective reality of 'persons', Darwinists themselves act as if they really exist as real persons. Indeed, it is completely impossible for them to live their lives as is they were not real persons.
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Thus in conclusion, the critical and fatal flaw in Ed's 'moral reasoning' is that Ed George, (again a Darwinian atheist), is appealing to objective moral laws. Yet there simply are no objective morals, (nor person's), within Ed's worldview. As Van Till pointed out, Ed needs God to even be able to argue against God in the first place.
"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter
In short, Ed's moral argument against the founding fathers of America self-refutes his entire Darwinian worldview, Ed's 'moral argument' would be a comical farce were it not for the unmitigated horror that his atheistic worldview entails. The unmitigated horror that atheistic Totalitarian regimes have unleashed on man is hard to exaggerate or to even imagine.
A Dehumanizing Ideology Unsurprisingly Catalyzes Violence - Michael Egnor - August 7, 2016 Excerpt: And it is precisely the metaphysical commitments Coyne has championed that have catalyzed atheist violence -- the denial of an objective moral law, the denial of eternal accountability for transgressions, the reduction of human beings to animals or even to meat robots, deprived of free will or of any claim to human exceptionalism. These are all tenets of atheist belief, and Coyne himself is one of the loudest salesman for the dehumanizing ideology inherent to atheism. Just how violent and repressive can atheism be?,,, In the past century, a number of nations have been governed by explicitly atheist governments. Atheist governments murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century.,,, Looking at modern history, we see: Christian culture creates reasonable and tolerant democracies. Islamic regimes create repressive theocracies. Atheist regimes create totalitarian hellholes. The denial of free will and the other anti-human inferences inherent to atheism are not merely theoretical affronts to humanity. The fact is that atheism is the most violent ideology in the 20th century, and given its short run and unprecedented rate of state-sanctioned murder, it is also the most violent and repressive ideology in human history. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_dehumanizing103055.html
Verse:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
bornagain77_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

F/N: Let us clip and annotate a key part of The Great Charter of the Liberties (1215) as written by Archbishop of Caterbury Samuel Langton and imposed at sword-point at Runnymede, i.e. points 39 and 40 in Blackstone's numbering:
"+ (39) No free man [–> recognition of freedom, the further question is, who shall be free] shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions [–> recognition of rights including property], or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him [–> policing power & the sword of state subordinated to justice. NB Rom 13: 3 - 5 3 For [civil] authorities are not a source of fear for [people of] good behavior, but for [those who do] evil. Do you want to be unafraid of authority? Do what is good and you will receive approval and commendation. 4 For he is God’s servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, [you should] be afraid; for he does not carry the [executioner’s] sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an avenger who brings punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject [to civil authorities], not only to escape the punishment [that comes with wrongdoing], but also as a matter of principle [knowing what is right before God]. (Cf. here, on nationhood and government under God.)], or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals [ –> peers, i.e. trial by jury of peers] or by the law of the land [–> rule of law, not decree of tyrant or oligarch]. + (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. [–> integrity, lawfulness and legitimacy of government rooted in the priority of right and justice]"
KFkairosfocus_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

EG, cut the cultural marxist undermining of critical civilisational advancements, please. The tactic is well known: taint critical contributors and contributions [e.g. the breakthrough US DoI, 1776 and doubtless roots in Dutch DoI 1581 and Duplessis-Mornay's Vindiciae etc], poisoning minds and polarising attitudes; thus also opening up the notion that those with a cloak of invulnerability can get away with saying or doing anything. That first creates chaos then leads to a totalitarian imposition in a new order that has forgotten the roots of genuine liberty under just law. And BTW, we are witnessing a major case in point in our headlines at present. Kangaroo courts following Star Chamber tactics and backed by partisan media lynch mobs operating on guilt by accusation are precisely why there is a polarisation spiral threatening to break out of all control just now. The USA in particular has for some years descended into a Bleeding Kansas-lite, 4th generation warfare civil war, with agit prop, media trumpeted street theatre and guilt by accusation lynch mobs with a rising incidence of lawfare. I can only conclude that cultural marxist political messianism feels within grasp of unlimited power and is trying to crush what it sees as doomed opposition rooted in the derided hinterlands populated by the deplorables. Peasant uprisings are the natural result, and resemblance between the US and UK are not coincidental. Where, so far, it has been votes not pitchforks or AR-15s. So far. KF PS: FYI, Archbishop of Canterbury, Samuel Langton's work on Magna Carta is a key step towards just, limited government and recognition of liberty, building on many roots but we must not neglect Alfred of the West Saxons and his epochal Book of Dooms (which literally begins from the Decalogue, Mosaic civil law, the Ac 15 council of the church regarding gentile converts and the Golden Rule as taught in the Sermon on the Mount) and Justinian's Institutes in Corpus Juris Civilis. Between those three we have deep roots of parliamentary representational government, independent judiciary and primacy of justice, as well as the framework of law that dominates the world: British-derived common law and the partly Christianised synthesis of Roman Law (often by way of Code Napoleon). I add, that until we had printing, low cost bills, newspapers and places for reasonably free discussion, backed by printing the Bible in the vernacular and increasing literacy, democratisation and linked reforms were not feasible given the dependency on wealthy, warrior class derived relatively educated power elites and their retainers and clerks. That means, latish 1600's, precisely when we saw the Glorious Revolution and Locke. From this, across the following two centuries we had democratisation with the principles of rights and reform under consensus built on the Judaeo-Christian, biblical framework. It is equally clear that radical revolutions stemming from the French example predictably end up with reigns of terror led by misanthropes who routinely resort to mass judicial murder or even don't bother with the sham courts. In that context, the ongoing abortion holocaust -- 800+ millions in 40+ years and growing at 1 million more a week, the US share being 63 million -- and its enabling by the radicals of our time are the key tell. Lawfare backed mass slaughter of the utterly innocent and defenceless, backed by media agit prop and ruthless lawfare. This is the sign of intent towards Christians who take the Bible and gospel ethics seriously and other deplorables. Unless and until there is a serious facing of this central evil leading to acknowledgement of guilt of holocaust and turning in repentance and reformation, there is no hope of sound reformation. Where, only a manipulated, naive person would take protestations about "rights" and demands to push ever increasingly bizarre radical agendas and demands at face value. Blood guilt is the most tainting, most corrupting of influences and that is what we are dealing with. So, no, get down off that high horse and get to repenting.kairosfocus_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Ed George, if all you see are the negatives, I suggest you place yourself in that time and remove modern bias. John Paul Jones was born in Scotland and could not captain a British Naval ship. He was limited to be a merchant captain, since he was not born in England to the right family. He became father of the American Navy. You call them rich land owners, but no one in the country was money rich. For a long time prior to war with Britain, the colonists had wanted to mint coins and print paper currency. The British refused and it resulted in trade of goods over using currency. The land owners were called land rich and cash poor. The French Revolution brought true democracy and it's now called The Terror. True democracy has always proved to be short lived and rather bloody. The United States became a beacon to the world, but the French served to strengthen the royals hold. Where are the Madam C. J. Walkers of the world? She became the first self made female millionaire in the history of the world and it took her being in the United States to make it happen. Tesla chose the United States over any other country for a reason. The Chinese who helped build the railroads new their odds were low, but they were leaving a land of war and famine behind.BobRyan_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

ET @ 13 The House of Representatives was meant to be the only part of the process that was democratic in nature, since they were the ones directly elected by those who could legally vote in each state. The House was created to represent the people, but the Senate was created to represent the states through selection of the state governments. It was a good balance and should return to what was.BobRyan_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Ba77 I can't post for a couple of days. Please feel free to answer him. I know that you've got more than enough to do the job. ThanksSilver Asiatic_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

The USA was set up as a (Constitutional) Republic and not a democracy. A Republic is defined as “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” And that is exactly what Ed George has described and it still fits the definition of a representative government.ET_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

BA77
S.A. do you want to handle the glaring flaws in this one?
And what glaring errors would these be? Please enlighten us. Alexander Dumas was writing literary classics in France while his racial compatriots were being whipped and traded as cattle in the country you claim was instrumental in representational government. Let’s face it, the US in its early years did more to restrict representational democracy than most other western countries. The revolution was more about white land owners gaining and maintaining power, and not paying taxes, than it was about equality.Ed George_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

^^^^ S.A. do you want to handle the glaring flaws in this one?bornagain77_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

BA77
Nobody claimed that ancient representational government did not exist. The claim was that Christianity, (more specific still, via the American revolution), “broke down autocratic barriers, giving rise to modern liberal societies.”
I assume you are referring to the revolution that gave voice to far less than 50% of the population. Women need not apply. Asian immigrants need not apply. Indigenous peoples need not apply. Black people need not apply. Non property owners need not apply. The founding fathers did not provide representational government. Representational government was the result of people seizing what they thought they deserved, not because of anything the founding fathers gave them.Ed George_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Nobody claimed that ancient representational government did not exist. The claim was that Christianity, (more specific still, via the American revolution), "broke down autocratic barriers, giving rise to modern liberal societies." i.e.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.",,, - The Declaration of Independence
Relevant quotes:
A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible Excerpt: John Adams SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1,,, George Washington JUDGE; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; “FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY” You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.121 https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/
bornagain77_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

BA77 and SA, the Romans might disagree with you on who invented representational government.Ed George_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, I agree totally. And, given the historical suspicion that Catholics and Protestants often have towards each other, an excellent point that should be repeated often.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 One Body with Many Members 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
bornagain77_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

BA77
The Catholic Invention of Representative Government
As the summary points out, it was a rare and fruitful collaboration between Protestantism and Catholicism that produced the results - so a Christian innovation. Partly due to "creative tension" between the two but overall a good development. Atheism was not a significant contributing factor.Silver Asiatic_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Naturalistic and/or materialistic processes cannot create new functional information. Period! It takes an immaterial mind to create new information, Period! The sheer inability of the materialistic processes of Darwinian evolution to create any new functional information is the main and primary point of contention between ID and Darwinism.
Information Enigma: Where does information come from? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Thus it directly follows that any society based on the metaphysics of Naturalism and/or Darwinian Materialism, as totalitarian states inevitably are, will have markedly less creativity than democracies which are based on Christian principles,,,
Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170 The Catholic Invention of Representative Government Jorgen Moller - January 2019 Modern representative democracy is unthinkable without innovations pioneered by the medieval Catholic Church. Excerpt: A long line of research, stretching back to the German sociologist Max Weber’s seminal work, identifies Protestantism as the sledgehammer that broke down autocratic barriers, giving rise to modern liberal societies. A good example is work by American political scientist Robert Woodberry, which demonstrates that Protestants pioneered a series of innovations that eased the advent of modern representative democracy, including religious pluralism, voluntary associations, printing, and mass education. More generally, the Weberian notion of Protestantism as the midwife of modernity received a great deal of attention during the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017. Often as an accompaniment to these views, writers like Samuel Huntington have portrayed either the Catholic Church itself or aspects of Catholic culture as historical impediments to modern liberalism and modern democratization. But the story about the origins of our political institutions, and the way religious institutions affected it, is much more interesting and complicated than implied by this conventional narrative. In fact, modern representative democracy is well-nigh unthinkable without constitutionalist practices and doctrines pioneered by the medieval Catholic Church.,,,, The passing away of conciliarism at the very point in time where modern democratization began has made students of democratization ignore an important historical lesson: Representative democracy is all but inconceivable without the 12th– and 13th-century Catholic practices of representation and consent and the 15th-century conciliar doctrines about representative government. This fascinating story remains relevant not only for those who wish to understand the origins of our political institutions; it also sheds light on current interactions between religion and politics. In that sense, it is a story worth revisiting for those who are interested in the political dynamics of the 21st century. https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/01/24/the-catholic-invention-of-representative-government/
Thus to repeat, since Naturalistic and/or materialistic processes cannot create new functional information, then it directly follows that any society based on the metaphysics of Naturalism and/or Darwinian Materialism, as totalitarian states inevitably are, will have far less creativity than modern democratic societies that are based on Christian Metaphysics. And indeed this is so. First and foremost, modern science itself was born out of Christianity,,,
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html
Secondly, several studies have now shown that Communism/Totalitarianism stifles innovation
How Communism Stifles Innovation China, Russia score poorly in innovation rankings BY RAHUL VAIDYANATH, - March 1, 2017 Excerpt: Research shows that the political ideology of communism restricts innovation, which is the panacea for economic growth and long-term prosperity today. In broad strokes, the communist tenets of state ownership of business and property, under strict government supervision, lead to a risk-averse culture. People in these societies work in an environment that discourages ambition and creativity. This is the polar opposite of the conditions that foster innovation. The 2017 International Intellectual Property Index, recently published by the Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC), ranks the current bastion of communism, China, as No. 27 and formerly communist Russia as No. 23—behind the smaller economies of Malaysia, Mexico, and Turkey, for example. Stronger protections for intellectual property (IP) are found in more innovative economies, according to the report. In contrast, weak IP protection hinders long-term strategic innovation and development in economies. “A robust national IP environment correlates strongly with a wide range of macroeconomic indicators that fall under the umbrella of innovation and creativity,” according to the GIPC report. Countries that lead in intellectual property are free market, capitalist economies, such as the United States and United Kingdom. First-world, democratic countries in Europe and Asia also rank highly. The report states that Russia’s protectionist moves—local production, procurement, and manufacturing—work to restrict IP rights. Russia also suffers from persistently high levels of software piracy. For China, the report singles out historically high levels of IP infringement. Internationally, China and Russia are the “usual suspects” of cyberespionage against other countries. Stealing IP, the infrastructure for innovation, is one way these nations heavily influenced by communism try to stay competitive globally. The Melbourne, Australia-based agency 2thinknow has been ranking the world’s most innovative cities for the past 10 years. In its latest rankings published Feb. 23, the most innovative city in a communist country, Beijing, ranks No. 30, and Moscow ranks No. 43. Blunting Universities’ Effectiveness According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), not a single Chinese university ranks among the world’s top 30 in terms of the most cited scientific publications.... Communist Interference McKinsey’s 2015 report “Gauging the Strength of Chinese Innovation” noted that the impact of innovation on China’s economic growth declined over the past five years to the lowest level since about 1980. China has a massive consumer market and a government willing to invest huge sums of money—nearly $200 billion on R&D in 2014—and its universities graduate more than 1.2 million engineers each year. Clearly, China has much potential, but it is the United States that has taken the lead in technological dominance.,,, “The country [China] has yet to make an internal-combustion engine that could be exported and lags behind developed countries in sciences ranging from biotechnology to materials,” according to McKinsey, in an article introducing the report. In a 2016 article for HBR, Anil Gupta and Haiyan Wang wrote, “While almost all Western technology giants have R&D labs in China, the bulk of what they do is local adaptation rather than developing next generation technologies and products.” Gupta and Wang are co-authors of the book “Getting China and India Right.” Excessive government involvement often leads to waste and excess—overbuilding and overcapacity. China’s real estate bubble and steel mills are two such examples.,,, Lately, the Chinese government has been trying to spur a wave of new startups by providing them with generous subsidies. But it doesn’t have the savvy to pick winners and losers. Instead, a more efficient use of capital comes from knowledgeable and discerning venture capitalists. Most startups are meant to fail after all.,,, Communism is against private ownership of property. This puts a damper on innovation. “The key to whether China can become a country of innovation is tied to the respect of property rights and the rule of law,” wrote Ma Guangyuan, an independent economist in China. In his blog, Ma cites renowned U.S. investor William Bernstein’s writings, which discuss property rights as being the most important of four factors needed for rapid economic growth. Guangyang wrote, “Entrepreneurs live in constant fear of punishment,” due to the questionable business practices in China, an environment that leads them to lose trust in a viable long-term economic future. Capital flight out of China is one symptom of the problem; another is the preference of wealthy Chinese to send their children overseas for higher education. The loss of Chinese entrepreneurs like Li Ka-shing and Cao Dewang is a sign that greener pastures lie abroad. Former world chess champion and Russian political activist Garry Kasparov wrote in an opinion piece for Reuters: “Communism as a political ideology is as bankrupt as ever.”,,, https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-communism-stifles-innovation_2228620.html
Thus Seversky, as he did in the second post on this thread, can wax poetic all he wants about how he thinks communism is no worse than America in terms of innovation, but, as is usual for Seversky, his love affair with atheism has completely blinded him to the hideous failings of his preferred atheistic worldview when it is, and has been, applied to societies at largebornagain77_{December 23, 2019
December
12
Dec
23
23
2019
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Pollista @ 1 "“Intellectual freedom” has nothing to do with measurable practical creativity. War has always been the main driving force of invention and innovation." In China, one of the most totalitarian states in the world today, it is better to be a good communist than a good engineer. There is no creativity and innovation in China, which is why they steal intellectual property. China has no innovation and must rely on the creativity that does exist in the free world. Most people will never invent anything and those who do must have the freedom to pursue innovation. Innovation is a distinctly human trait and unique to only a small percentage of people. If people are not unique and can simply be replaced by other people, then you should be able to write a novel and paint a masterpiece. The United States has been one of the leading nations in innovation. Name a totalitarian state that either currently exists, or existed, which has created anywhere near what the United States has created. Where is the equivalent of Thomas Edison, Madam C. J. Walker, George Washington Carver?BobRyan_{December 22, 2019
December
12
Dec
22
22
2019
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

Seversky
But how does it follow from naturalism being right that totalitarian states should be just as creative as free ones? How does one measure creativity?
If naturalism is true, then ideas would come from luck or determinism so it should be the same either way. Maybe the measure is the success of new products.
On the other hand, in the Second World War Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union produced tank and aircraft designs that were every bit as good – and, in some cases better – than those produced by the Allied powers so it may not be that simple.
Those societies encouraged innovation in military technology and methods for the benefit of the nation, but not as much with private enterprise.Silver Asiatic_{December 22, 2019
December
12
Dec
22
22
2019
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

What is being done to the Uyghurs in China is every bit as abhorrent as what was done to Native Americans in the Christian-run boarding-schools in North America. But how does it follow from naturalism being right that totalitarian states should be just as creative as free ones? How does one measure creativity? I entirely agree that a society which permits and encourages the development of new ideas should be better than one which suppresses them. On the other hand, in the Second World War Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union produced tank and aircraft designs that were every bit as good - and, in some cases better - than those produced by the Allied powers so it may not be that simple.Seversky_{December 22, 2019
December
12
Dec
22
22
2019
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

"Intellectual freedom" has nothing to do with measurable practical creativity. War has always been the main driving force of invention and innovation. A powerful and goal-directed state can organize research and development better than a loose state. Even in art, "letting it all hang out" gives us ductaped bananas, and tyrannical warring monarchs gave us Rembrandt and Bach.polistra_{December 22, 2019
December
12
Dec
22
22
2019
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply