Winning Gene Pool War

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

I remember a story when a communist leader brought her Mom to his place. She ate expensive caviar, driven in Limo, stay in expensive hotel with gold plated bath. She told her son, “Good for you, but what about if the commies win.”

I chuckle. That sucker commies. They don’t know that some people will be successful anyway. It’s just that not all people can be rich honestly. When winning (=rich) is illegal (in communist countries) then the winners are cheaters.

Latter, I learn that the purpose of life, according to science is to reproduce. I would like to honor my great great great …. 100000000…..th ancestor, a 1 cell organism, that, without failing, have managed to produce lots of unbroken chain of successful reproduction, ended up in me.

My plan was:
1. Make a lot of money. Capitalism allow all of us to achieve this.
2. Attract and sleep with many pretty women. If I have 1 billion dollars and prostitution were legal, this is obviously not a problem. Even if prostitution were illegal, it’s not as tough as you see because women like bling bling which 1 billion dollar can afford.
3. Make many kids.
4. Support those kids through college, give them $1 million to start over.

Obviously all these are consensual and hence victimless. Well, in a sense, at least. If all billionaires are like that, then many males won’t get laid ever but we don’t count uncompetitive people as victims do we?

Wallmart control the whole market share in discount store and drive everyone else away is OKAY under free market. The same way so what if rich males giving more attractive offer to millions of women and drive the rest extinct? That’s just how free fair competition work.

I soon see problems with this plan.

1. I can’t just pay women for sex. There are only 2 ways to lawfully get laid. Free sex when women do it for free. And then marriage where I might lost half of my earning and future earning to someone I mutually hate. Also marriage must be monogamous. That sucks.
2. Make many kids? Hmm… Some nobel prize winner managed to do it by donating sperms. Maybe I’ll try that.
3. Supporting those kids. Well this comes the problem. I’ve heard that the law on child support is that the amount must be proportional to your income. So no matter how rich we are, we cannot afford 1000 kids. Also court says that you cannot make an agreement with women that your child support should not be, say, more than $10k per year, for example. The judge says that the right of the non existent child must be protected (court case?). Wow… So much for pro choice abortion right I guess.

Just like in communist countries, a bunch of prejudice are placed to justify laws against “success”. In communist countries we are falsely told that those who make money are stealing and hurting the economy. Now, religious bigot tell that prostitution, porn, and sex outside marriage are hurting women (despite consensual).

Now I see why wealth, mere wealth, don’t bring much happiness.

Are we like the commies? Is getting successful in gene pool is only reserved for those who cheat?

Selfish Religion

Richard Dawkins, an atheist, in http://www.secularhumanism.org wonder why people are religious.

He made many arguments. To explain why people are religious, we would expect that religions would serve ones’ gene pool survival.

It doesn’t seem to be that way. Religions, for example, teach us how to

…devours huge resources. A medieval cathedral consumed hundreds of man-centuries in its building. Sacred music and devotional paintings largely monopolized medieval and Renaissance talent. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have died, often accepting torture first, for loyalty to one religion against a scarcely distinguishable alternative. Devout people have died for their gods, killed for them, fasted for them, endured whipping, undertaken a lifetime of celibacy, and sworn themselves to asocial silence for the sake of religion….”

Dawkins argues that religions may work as placebo (meagerly). Perhaps, religions promote group selection theory (which is partially true).

Perhaps, religions are just stupid remnants that we still have that used to work. That is true, but only in countries in England, where Dawkins live, as I shall show.

But all his arguments only meagerly touch the surface why people are religious.

You see, one very effective ways to win in a competition is to screw better competitors. In this case, all the stupidity of religions make perfect sense because it is enforced on others!

In many other countries, religious bigots can force their moral ideas to others. Hence, the stupidity of religions will be suffered by others. That will make it easy for the religious to win.

For example, say I am a King, Sultan, or Emperor that wants to have many women. It is toward my best interest to promote and even enforce celibacy for the rest. I would want all the other males to be as asexual as possible. That way, I will get as many women as possible.

Hence, such kings will prohibits all information that may motivate males to seek women, such as porn. A Sultan would rather his subjects to commit jihad, crusade, or whatever to against another countries or minorities rather than wooing women. That way more males will die and there will be more women for the king.

A political leader can also more easily find justification for war with religions. Rather than waiting for the enemies to be a real threat or a real assholes, which often mean that the enemies are tough, a king, or sultan can simply argue that a minority is evil. What evil? Well, anything. You see, the other side believe that "God like chocolate, which is of course, a heresy because God actually prefer cheese." This must be true as said in some ancient books written by someone supposedly important some thousands of years ago. That books must be credible due to angelic, apostolicity, or whateverolistic succession based on some divine doctrines.

Things sound good. All the other males are death and the harem is full. Oh wait a minute, there is a problem. Our males are reading playboy. They don’t want to die in holy war. They want to enjoy a good life and pursue happy dreams.

What would you do if you were the Sultan? When things don’t go our way, we call it immoral. The Sultan will simply issue a religious edict that playboy is immoral and hence should not be read.

What about the women? Well, many males can often provide good options for women. Some males may offer women with high salary as porn star. Another men may just want to have fun with women outside marriage. Under free market mechanism, many people are rich without having to be politically powerful. That men may want women to be their casual mating partners.

What’s best for a woman is, of course, what the woman choose.

But if woman chooses other males’ offer, then she is less likely to choose religious bigots’ offer, such as marriage, often toward poverty.

Hence, it’s pretty natural then that many religious bigots want to criminalize, porn, striptease, and sex outside marriage.

Truth and Falsehood of Marriage

In ancient time, sex outside life long legally binding marriage is illegal. That effectively rations females in equal share for everyone. The justification is no woman want to share anyway. Not true.

Prostitution is prohibited because no women want to be prostitute anyway. Not true. To the opposite, being a prostitute often pays much more for women with equal beauty than being a wife. Having a right to be a prostitute will give women some bargaining position that ensures that when they do choose to get married, they are reasonably monetarily compensated for their sexual service.

Yes many women want to be prostitute. Many of them have tasted marriage where the males just leave living them with obligation to finance their kids through college on their own. What job do you think would work? The real reason behind anti prostitution law is to ensure that such irresponsible males get a wife anyway.

Rather than prohibiting porn and prostitution because it hurts women (which women?), what’s more likely is that it’s prohibited to prevent competition. The law may be there to eliminate women’s alternative to marriage, hence making all marriage forced marriage. It’s also there to protect ugly women from competing with higher quality porn goddesses.

What about humans’ trafficking that turn women from poor countries into sexual workers in rich countries? Well, many argued that it should be prohibited because all women would rather stay in some messed up country where their clits got clipped rather than serving richer males in more affluent countries with high pay and hence all such trafficking must be non consensual and should be prohibited. Not true. The real reason is probably that ugly women in affluent countries do not want to compete with cheaper prettier higher quality babes from poorer countries.

When laws are there against mutually consensual deals between humans, beware, most likely, its insidious lies. That’s the kind of lies that witch hunters, Nazi, inquisitors, and the rest use.

How to Handle Criticism from Losers?

Option 1. Listen attentively.

Well, that sucks. They’re losers. Whatever they tell you may not be accurate. They’ll lead you to the wrong direction. Also it shows them that yelling and cursing you is a way to get your attention. That means you can expect more.

Option 2. Ignore

That’s tough too. You see, losers demand more attention from others. While winners don’t care if people don’t care about them, losers do. Others’ attention is their ways to assert their self esteem. Expect more cursing if you ignore them.

Option 3. Escape

Whether it’s your family, your wife, your kids or anyone. The best way to deal with losers is to stay away from them as much as possible. Due to various laws and norms promoted by, well, losers, getting rid a spouse may be an expensive endeavors requiring expensive lawyers. It’s worthed.

Option 4. Exterminate

While you have nothing to do with losers doesn’t mean they don’t want to have anything to do with you. The world is full with losers turn bigots opposing free fair competition. They promote various punishments against the productive and successful. There are tons of punishments in store for those who successfully make lots of money or successfully attract many mating partners. Losers gene pool survival depend on screwing those more competitive than them. Unless you fight back.

Measuring Freedom from Lack of Market Distortion

Individual freedoms correlate positively with efficient allocation of resources.

Countries that respect individual freedom are rich and that must because people in those countries realized, often correctly, that their interest match their productivity.

So we wouldn’t make much mistake if we “define” individual freedom by lack of market distortion governments’ create. That’s what we’ll do in this article.

Say government says that you cannot buy orange. Than governments trample on your individual freedom, namely your right to buy orange.

But it depends on the punishment. We can’t say the government violates our individual freedom if the punishment is too light.

Say the government says that if you buy orange you need to be fined by $1. Then well, that’s your oppression. $1. Big deal.

Say the market price for apple is $5 and government says that it should be $6. So every time you buy an apple you are fined $1. Tax and fine is the same thing.

That also means that orange suppliers get a subsidy of $1.

Also by being a consumer of orange rather than the supplier, you forgo the $1 subsidy that the orange supplier makes. So that’s another $1 punishment for you for every orange you fail to make. Government has forced everyone to produce orange by not giving them $1 that government gives to orange producer.

The same way free health care is punishment against those who are healthy. Free education is punishment for those who do not have kids. If paid by income tax, that means punishment for those who earn money.

Peaceful Rhetorics from Peaceful Nation

Typical of the comments uttered by Hazony’s demagogic idol: “I want the Israeli Arabs out of here because I don’t want to kill them every week, as they multiply and demonstrate”; “They are germs that are poisoning us. They will not leave us be until they have raped all our women and murdered all our men”; and “I recognize the submachine gun’s right to speak and the knife’s right to speak.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bamford.html

Of course, the other side says something similar.

Does Porn Cause Rape?

The short answer is I don’t know. Correlation between rape and porn is slight … and negative, suggesting otherwise. But slight either way.

Can it? Is it important? Does it matter? Is it what’s really going on? In what sense?

Well, think about it. Males’ main motivation to prevent rape is not really to protect women’s freedom. Their main motivation is to prevent women from falling to other males.

So if porn, for example, do not motivate males to rape women but motivate them to make a lot of money and actively pursue girls, will that satisfy anti porn males. No. They will still call it something negative like rape. When Japanese men hire Chinese prostitute in orgy, poorer Chinese simply declare that it’s “rape” even though the prostitute are paid. The Chinese government put the prostitute in jail. We can check here for more info.

Now, in Arab countries, porn causing rape is used as justification to prohibit porn rather than punishing rapists. It’s not hard to understand. People rape for 2 main reasons. They’re not sexually competitive and they’re militant. That kind of demographic is what controls Arab’s politic. In other word, any politician that want to go up must please that demographic.

Okay, is Arab evil?

Well, evil is relative. Relative to what? In no country in the world I see women are completely and sexually free. If they were free, only alpha males get laid and no countries have the majority of the males’ population take it as a man. The closest I know of is in England, where 50% of the guys don’t have girlfriend.

Even then, I bet in British child support laws are designed to be proportional to a man’s financial capability and hence forcing women to “sale” their reproductive service at higher price to richest males. That’s probably not the kind of pricing schemes most women prefer.

Women Exploitation

When men talk about exploiting women sexually, be it in porn, or prostitution, we mean the pretty….

So why they are so many ugly women that bitch about porn?

They’re not the potential “victim” of exploitation. No body want to exploit them. Ugly women are, for all practical purposes, males. If they work well, then great. But we don’t really look at ugly women as sex objects unless we’re really desperate do we?

Perhaps the issue is not exploitation. The real issue is competition. Those so called exploitations are mutually beneficial as anything consensual.

That’s why many pretty girls don’t mind. And that’s the problem. Males want only the pretty. Deep inside the ugly want to be “exploited” too.
But they’re not getting it and feel envy against pretty goddess that are exploited.

A man with hammer will want to leave in the world where everything is nail. People want the world that match their talent more. If a woman is pretty, they’re more likely to be liberal and support womens’ right to show of skin. I mean they’re pretty anyway. In those world, beauty matters.

If women are ugly, they support burgha.

Sneaky ha?

Different Strains of Creationism and Evolution

In a battle between Intelligence Design and Evolution there seems to be only 2 camps. There are many camps between actually.

For example, from pure Creationism to pure evolution, we can have the following strains.

1.      Intelligence Design. God created every species from scratch.

2.      Incompetent Design. God created every species. However, he’s not so powerful that he got it right the first time. So he created a lot of target practices and then copies the blueprint for those target practices for better masterpieces. These “Gods” maybe genetic engineers from Alien species rather than a Christian God. At least for some species, namely the genetically modified food, we know it’s true.

3.      Guided evolution. God doesn’t create new species. He just guides evolution. So species show up by it self, and then God says, “Ah ha… I don’t like the Canaanites, so I help the Israelites to slaughter them all.” Perhaps latter He said, “Ah ha, I don’t like the nephilim, here comes the flood.” After a while, the species that survive in the gene pool are the one that God prefer.

4.      Pure evolution. There was never a God. Life happened by it self.

You know what; from all 4 I don’t know what’s right. The option 3 is particularly danger. Imagine if your brother got murdered. The murderer can argue that it happens because God does not like your brother and prefer the murderer to survive in the gene pool.

Attributing atrocities to God rather than aspects we can control, such as lack of punishment toward murderers can leads to extreme situation.

Politically savvy murderers can then murder a lot of people avoiding the natural political costs. That’ll set precedence that’ll eventually make us kill each other.

Guess what, people do use that technique all over the world.

After Muhammad killed a lot of Jews (Banu Nadir), for example, he argued that God told him that the Jews plotted to kill him.

Given lack of evidence against the Jews besides those supernatural claims, many people believe Muhammad anyway.

Of course, to be fair to the Muslim, I must say that the same “trick” is used by so many other religions/atheists too. My Mom, for example, told me that the slaughtering of Canaanites is justified because God said so. The Genghis Khan argued that God granted him a mission to subdue those who refused to submit to him (with the exception of Mamelukes, I guess). Christians witch hunter also used religions to justify killing witches, pagans, and Jews. The Jews themselves had their share of genocide when they’re winning war.

It seems that humans like to kill each other. We just need a good justification for that and religions provide good hard to check justification.

This is the same reason, why many countries are secular. Secular countries protect innocents from unverifiable accusations and hence can more properly align their people’s interests to prosperity. Hence, secular countries, nowadays, tend to be stronger and richer.

Finally, vestigial DNA and vestigial organ suggests that at least one possibility is impossible. Number 1. As I explained in http://genetips.com/2007/08/19/is-life-created/archive.htm.

Is Life Created

Square Water MelonIs Life CreatedThere are obvious similarities between humans and most other creatures. Those similarities cannot be explained just by natural selection or design alone.

For example, if we see two religions, Christianity and Islam, we see some common thread. For example, they both argue that we will go to heaven or hell based on what we believe.

They both claim that the greatest sin is believing in a different doctrine than the official fate.

For example, in ancient time, the Catholic and the Arian duke it out to each other over whether Jesus is similar (Homoi Ousion) with God or the same (Homo Ousion).

The doctrines only differ in one letter. In Islam, those who will never get out of hell are those who believe that God has someone “equal” to him.

This similarity can be easily explained by natural selection. Whatever sells in Europe sells in Arab too.

However, living creatures have many equivalent ways to create amino acids. Also DNA between genes does not affect natural selection in anyway. It doesn’t even affect the phenotype.

Any similarities between the humans and chimpanzees on those areas can then only be explained by common ancestors. Humans’ genes must have been somehow, “copy” of the genes of the Chimpanzes ancestors.

This is simply a stronger argument for vestigial organs. Years ago, proponent of evolution theory points out that vestigial organs show that species are not created independently.

Religious opponents then argue that every vestigial organ have uses. They argue, for example, that humans’ tail bone is very useful.

Many people have had their tail bones amputated without serious problem. Still proponent of evolution theory has a much better weapon now. It’s not vestigial organ. It’s vestigial DNA. DNA that do not affect phenotype in anyway and hence cannot possibly be useful. Any similarities on those DNAs are almost proof that we are not independently created.

Reliance on faith and extreme punishment for believing in a different doctrine is a mark of many best selling religions all over the world.

However, it doesn’t explain other similarities between Christianity and Islam. There are similarities that do not affect natural selection. For example, the usage of Abraham as a prophet in those 2 religions. We can then guess that Christianity and Islam must have some form of common ancestors. We do. Namely, Judaism.

Now, back to the unexplained similarities. We are not independently created. Are we created at all?

Well, I didn’t know. I saw strong evidences that we’re not. At least, until I saw the square watermelon in Japan. That’s the product of genetic engineering.

Yap. Some lives are indeed created by intelligent design. Those genetic engineers are pretty intelligent to me.

So perhaps, we have a creator. Perhaps the creator allows creatures to evolve naturally most of the time. Once in a while, he created a jump. What ever have happened, we’ll know much more about it soon I guess.