gene-wars

Question 1: [1:25] - Most of the time it feels like thinking, but if I'm really honest, most of what I say 'I think' is some combination of other thinkers that I've read or listened to or watched. Maybe this is normal but a problem arises when two different people, whose opinions I value, come to conflicting conclusions. This painfully reveals to me how much of a hidden desire that I have for someone to just 'believe in.' Why is thinking for myself so hard?

Question 2: [31:24] - Do the ongoing Gene Wars (see the r/K Selection presentations for more on this) invalidate the Non-Aggression Principle? The Non-Aggression Principle doesn't work if it's not universal and it's not universal because there are sub species of humans in heavy opposition. We are not all the same so why should the rules be extended across gene sets?

Question 1: [2:10] - Can you provide me some clarification regarding Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) and tell me why people have such a hostile reaction to the idea of universal secular ethics?

Question 2: [56:29] - I've listened to the Gene Wars series on r/K reproduction strategies, and I'm a bit puzzled about one of the repeated characterizations of K-strategy: noting that ancient China was unchanged for centuries. Since K-strategists are supposed to embrace competition and free markets, which are extremely unstable - how does one reconcile these positions?

Question 3: {1:22:05] - I have some criticism of your coverage of the police violence stories, especially with regard to the poor black community. Your stories were well researched and quite accurate, but, as a black person, I thought your focus seemed biased. Both the police/government and the poor black community are in the "matrix", but your focus tended toward hold blacks to a higher standard, while speculating and reasoning out rational justifications for the police.

For many decades, two main reproductive strategies have been recognized by biologists - this is referred to as r/K Selection Theory. When you look at humanity through the lens of reproduction strategies – things quickly begin snapping into place and a battle for genetic survival is revealed.

In the area of public discourse, these two survival strategies battle for ultimate supremacy. In the latest installment of the controversial Gene Wars series, Stefan Molyneux analyses various political positions and attitudes – including how they are shaped and explained through r/K Selection Theory.

Question 1: We are a married couple with three young children, but we fight about everything – including money, household chores, responsibility, etc. I realize now that we probably should have fixed our issues before getting married, but we simply chose to ignore all the red flags. Is there any chance to fix this marriage, or are we just simply too cowardly to let go and face the consequences of divorce?

Question 2: If we accept that the political process is unethical, wouldn’t it be wise to vote for Bernie Sanders, since a socialist president would speed up the eventual economic collapse of the American empire?

Question 3: I have been progressing through the stages of grief that people go through with a loss. I was very depressed and sad for a while as I realized that my religion was not true and all the consequences of that realization. Now, as I am figuring out what it means for me and my family for me to not believe while they do, I am angry at the very real situation created by nonsense stories. How do I channel this anger to keep it from seeping into my relationships? How do I hold back anger against the religion I feel so betrayed by to protect relationships with those who still believe?

If you have enjoyed the Gene Wars series so far – this is the show for you!

Question 1: How can we raise the next generation to respect the body, health and mind, in order to reduce the future financial burdens placed on our society through socialized medicine?

Question 2: In the spirit conjured through your podcast "An Atheist Apologizes to Christians", I have asked myself to evaluate the value of specific institutions that have evolved throughout Western history and have concluded that humanity has a bad habit of throwing the "baby out with the bathwater." Those qualities of Western culture, the institutions that grew, the wealth that we enjoy today relative to the past, evolved from Enlightenment ideals and a protestant work ethic. Today's Conservative party holds late 19th century capitalism and 1950's home life as the gold standard and pinnacle from which we have descended. Assuming of course that a politician actually aspires to do what they say they are going to do. Why not ride a political wave back to the previous state of affairs that marked those times, and then work towards positive moral change going from there. It would seem to be a much easier task than trying to convince an ever growing "r" selected population to think logically. After all, Martin Luther was able to change Christianity for the good without destroying the institution, why can't we? It sounds crazy, but let's vote Republican!

Introduction: Mike’s getting old.

Question 1: I constantly have negative thoughts about a lot of the people around me. I recently caught myself have negative thoughts about strangers immediately after looking at them. How can somebody overcome irrationally negative thoughts towards other people and themselves?

Question 2: I have learned to use my anger as a tool for success, but unfortunately, playing with this fire occasionally burns me as well. How can I become patient, calm and humorous relation to this insane world?

Question 3: As a hypothetical situation: a government is created that is designed to last only 75 years – and then re-create itself based on the relevant policies and issues of the time. What would be the advantages to the individual living in such a situation? How would individual freedoms be affected? What about the infrastructures currently maintained by centralized governments that span generations?

Closing: Major General BlahBlahBlah Returns!

Western civilization is on a path to destruction. In coming decades, economies will shrink, democracy will retreat and nations crumble. The long-term result will be grinding poverty, superstition and disease. This isn't scaremongering it is science. In Biohistory: The Decline and Fall of the West, Jim Penman, PhD, details a revolutionary new theory about why civilizations collapse. For the first time, Penman directly links human biology with the rise and fall of civilizations a cataclysmic relationship that brought the Romans, the ancient Greeks and all other Empires to their knees. It is it already too late to change the course of history? | For more go to: http://www.biohistory.org and http://www.fdrurl.com/biohistory

An examination of the biological and genetic basis for political ideologies: Do genetics determine if you’re a liberal or conservative? What role does r/K selection theory play in the world where we live? How big is your amygdala - and what does that mean about your possible political perspective? Includes a look at the Prefrontal Cortex, Anterior Cingulate Cortex and the impact of dopamine in the realm of political biology.

Question 1: In reference to the Mouse Utopian Experiments by John Calhoun - I believe that mammals must always have something to strive for or else they lose the will to live. Do you think that the belief in finite horizons is a subconscious kill switch, poisonous to the will to live?

Question 2: I feel a very strong sense of apathy in just about every aspect of my life. I hide this behind a false sense of cheerfulness in the face of strangers, and push those very few who are close to me away when they see the state that I am in. How do I make changes when I feel huge lack of interest or passion for much of anything, nor much desire to do the incredible work necessary to heal my emotional wounds?"

Question 3: You dogmatically cling to a belief in Atheism but do not ascribe it the equal responsibility of proving that God doesn't exist, rather than simply admitting you don't know. How can you dismiss with any kind of certainty that religion neither holds value nor truth?