Measles Outbreak.

[Don Coyote]

Population density isn't directly relevant unless your theory is that density affects births per capita.

it might also have an effect, but i still believe education to be the main driving force behind populatin figures.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Population density isn't directly relevant unless your theory is that density affects births per capita.

it might also have an effect, but i still believe education to be the main driving force behind populatin figures.

Population density, at least until recently, has been a force in the exchange of ideas. Maybe not education, or direct education, but in urban areas there's lots of different people to talk to. You could sponge someone else's education through conversation, or could conjecture on something by putting your two drunken heads together.

Theoretically the internet would bring that effect into rural areas too, but since the internet seems like a place full of stupid...

[Kai]

Is there an official name for the fallacy of "criticism of A is invalid, because B is so much worse"?

Kai has coined the phrase Dawkins Fallacy for it, which I like, because he's kind of a douche.

Yep. In the Occupy thread. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=30415.msg1103581#msg1103581

Also called it argumentum ad oblitum. But I like Dawkins Fallacy better. Kinda like santorum means "the froth associated with anal sex".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Population density isn't directly relevant unless your theory is that density affects births per capita.

it might also have an effect, but i still believe education to be the main driving force behind populatin figures.

It's clearly indirectly relevant in fostering education (though with urban poverty, density and education may hold inverse relationships) but it is rather problematic to try to increase education through encouraging population density. I think it is relevant to look at the relationship between education and population density, though, because it could give us ideas on improving education services to areas which need it.

[Kai]

Course, it did help that I hallucinated Kai's avatar whispering 'Emergence' into my ear at the time.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I appreciate hearing different viewpoints, but I will mock them if they're totally stupid. I find the "Why, when I was a kid we had polio, rocky mountain spotted fever, and spinal meningitis all rolled into one... half of us survived, I don't see what the big deal is" rhetoric painfully similar to the hipster malaise of refusing to be shocked or disturbed by anything. Being jaded and desensitized to suffering isn't a virtue.

More to the point, and this isn't a dig at anyone...

...Any society that can't be bothered to protect its members when that protection is possible and affordable no longer has the right to call itself civilized.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I appreciate hearing different viewpoints, but I will mock them if they're totally stupid. I find the "Why, when I was a kid we had polio, rocky mountain spotted fever, and spinal meningitis all rolled into one... half of us survived, I don't see what the big deal is" rhetoric painfully similar to the hipster malaise of refusing to be shocked or disturbed by anything. Being jaded and desensitized to suffering isn't a virtue.

More to the point, and this isn't a dig at anyone...

...Any society that can't be bothered to protect its members when that protection is possible and affordable no longer has the right to call itself civilized.

That ties very much into what I believe the purpose of a society is. It is what tribalism becomes when implemented on a larger scale; the expressed ability of the stronger members of society to provide space for the weakest members to contribute, in order to make the whole society stronger. I think that a society is only as strong as its weakest members. A society that allows its weakest to die does not become stronger. You might initially think that is not very Darwinian of me, (and, fairly, I am not a Darwinist) but Darwinism as applied to species has different rules than Darwinism applied to individuals. It can benefit a species, especially in terms of evolution and diversification, to protect its weaker members. It certainly benefits a society, which is an organism in its own right.

[Reginald Ret]

I appreciate hearing different viewpoints, but I will mock them if they're totally stupid. I find the "Why, when I was a kid we had polio, rocky mountain spotted fever, and spinal meningitis all rolled into one... half of us survived, I don't see what the big deal is" rhetoric painfully similar to the hipster malaise of refusing to be shocked or disturbed by anything. Being jaded and desensitized to suffering isn't a virtue.

More to the point, and this isn't a dig at anyone...

...Any society that can't be bothered to protect its members when that protection is possible and affordable no longer has the right to call itself civilized.

That ties very much into what I believe the purpose of a society is. It is what tribalism becomes when implemented on a larger scale; the expressed ability of the stronger members of society to provide space for the weakest members to contribute, in order to make the whole society stronger. I think that a society is only as strong as its weakest members. A society that allows its weakest to die does not become stronger. You might initially think that is not very Darwinian of me, (and, fairly, I am not a Darwinist) but Darwinism as applied to species has different rules than Darwinism applied to individuals. It can benefit a species, especially in terms of evolution and diversification, to protect its weaker members. It certainly benefits a society, which is an organism in its own right.

Twitch,

Thinking...

Woah, slight paradigm shift here.
I already considered groups to share some of the traits of organisms but you just made me realise that survival of the fittest in this context means survival of the most genetically(and maybe cultural too?) diverse society. I now have a measure for the fitness of any society. Thanks Nigel!

This fits in nicely with the plurality of solutions concept: It is always better to use multiple solutions instead of forcing the use of only one.
Example: money, i've read about some places that allow multiple forms of money to exist and that they tend to have a slightly less unstable economy.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3985-alternative-currencies-flourishing-in-germany

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

[Kai]

I appreciate hearing different viewpoints, but I will mock them if they're totally stupid. I find the "Why, when I was a kid we had polio, rocky mountain spotted fever, and spinal meningitis all rolled into one... half of us survived, I don't see what the big deal is" rhetoric painfully similar to the hipster malaise of refusing to be shocked or disturbed by anything. Being jaded and desensitized to suffering isn't a virtue.

More to the point, and this isn't a dig at anyone...

...Any society that can't be bothered to protect its members when that protection is possible and affordable no longer has the right to call itself civilized.

That ties very much into what I believe the purpose of a society is. It is what tribalism becomes when implemented on a larger scale; the expressed ability of the stronger members of society to provide space for the weakest members to contribute, in order to make the whole society stronger. I think that a society is only as strong as its weakest members. A society that allows its weakest to die does not become stronger. You might initially think that is not very Darwinian of me, (and, fairly, I am not a Darwinist) but Darwinism as applied to species has different rules than Darwinism applied to individuals. It can benefit a species, especially in terms of evolution and diversification, to protect its weaker members. It certainly benefits a society, which is an organism in its own right.

Darwin would have agreed with you, actually. Social Darwinism is a misnomer. In On the Descent of Man, he talks about his concern for the people of Tierra del Fuego and his interest in their status being elevated. And in terms of physical strength, he was not a strong or well person himself. It's believed he contracted chagas disease while on the Beagle, and was plagued with bouts of extreme weakness for the rest of his life.

I know there is a great deal of focus on gene-level selection these days, but multiple levels of selection need to be considered, especially in social animals. MLS theory predicts that when there is competition between populations or communities, selection will act on the /population or community overall/ as well as on the individual and genetic level (because there are of course still selection pressures on those). Since people in human societies rely on each other, the collapse of the society will trump the individual or genetic pressures. Only those cultures that can survive the selection pressures made by other cultures/populations will sustain themselves; those which cannot cooperate internally will disintegrate quickly. Gould and E.O. Wilson have been very strident about these observations. It seems to me that cooperation includes caring for all the members.

[Elder Iptuous]

Chicken Pox Lollipops!

[Jenne]

Chicken Pox Lollipops!

No shit.  Wow.  The world of stupid just got...stupider.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm telling you, there's a reason I hate anti-vaccers so fucking much. They're not just stupid; they're dangerously stupid. These morons would rather their kid expose immune-deficient people and end up with shingles outbreaks in their later years than get a $28 booster shot every 7 years and see the disease completely eradicated.

You know these twats would be doing the same thing with more dangerous diseases too, if they thought they could turn a buck.

[Jenne]

I still tend to see this as an education issue.  The fallacy these anti-vaccinators rely on in their pursuit rests on 2 areas: 1) the lack of potential danger of contracting these what are now seen as "minor diseases" (due to the fact children get them and tend to survive them rather well in today's modern world of better nutrition and hygeine and just overall care) and 2) the faulty information that the side effects cause more harm than the vaccination cures.

If someone sat down (I'm looking at YOU, Pediatricians!) and told them the facts as they stand, showed them pictures of what cherub-cheeked little Johnny would look like all pox'd up or what his testicles would become through contracting mumps...then perhaps there'd be less of this tide against "just cuz the doctors SAY so."

In the end, that's exactly how I see it:  bitches don't KNOW what they're sowing...and the rest of us will reap along with them, thanks to their ignorance and stubborness.

[LMNO]

In related news, there's a whooping cough outbreak in IL.  Which is preventable through vaccination.