Possible to check this out. Society is polarizing and smart people are now tending to associate with other smart people to an extent that did not occur earlier. How are their progeny performing?
Isn't it true that children regress toward the norm? For example, two very tall people will more likely have a child that is shorter. Or, is that wrong?
> Isn't it true that children regress toward the norm?
There isn't perfect heritability of all traits because they are influenced by multiple genes. Two tall people likely have different genes that are making them tall, and there are likely interactions happening with other genes in their genome. When you get a child, they have some genes from each parent but they also get lot of novel interactions between the genes of tallness and the rest of their genome. This tends to reduce the heritability of traits that are modulated by complex interacting gene networks.
But it isn't a regression to some imaginary norm, it just means that that genes are not simply additive, they context dependent. But if you were to isolate 100 tall people from the population and had them breed for generations, and 100 short people and have them breed for generations, their offsprings likely will continue different in height still, they will never regress to the same "norm" because there are more tall genes or short genes in their respective populations.
There is no such thing as society. There are individuals who have views which may or may not be properly or partially informed. So whose view shall we take on fairness? Whatever let's stop talking about 'what society thinks'.
OK, let's redefine 'society thinks' as - "The prevailing opinion of the voting public in a democratic nation, whom the nation is allegedly run by and for."
Perhaps you'd prefer to use the term 'electorate'.
Regardless, the meaning was clear and your objection rather ridiculous.
Each to their own. I find it depressing to watch yet another clueless director desperately trying to make his reputation as a 'fresh talent in opera' with a stage littered with the paraphernalia of modern life and a cast dressed in track and business suits. We can look forward to space suits I suppose or maybe no clothes at all. Are we too dumb to look beyond our own era?
I'm 'people' as well and am not alienated. Nothing to stop you offering a mini-lecture on PR but for myself, rather you didn't. I can make up my own mind on Kaya as presented.
If Google 'should' pay taxes and have not, why haven't they been taken to court? That's tax evasion. Tax avoidance is what sensible people do. You look at the rules, follow them and minimize your tax bill. Google's shareholders also expect no less.
No one can stop them (Google)? Of course they can. It's up to countries to change their tax laws if they think they are not fit for the job.
It's terrible at night when there's no wind and during the day when there's cloud cover and no wind. So you run the capital intensive parallel generators - and that's called running fully on renewable, is it?
Maybe you could look up the last date when there was no wind across the whole of the continental US at the same time?
>when there's cloud cover
One of the biggest myths about solar panels is that they do not work when it is cloudy. They still produce power under clouds - not as much as a sunny day, but a LOT more than you'd expect.
>So you run the capital intensive parallel generators - and that's called running fully on renewable, is it?
Renewable energy already is transported between countries to handle different levels of load / production (Germany already exports it to France pretty frequently when it's sunny in Germany).
I assume this would continue to handle the different levels of sun, wind and load in various locations both nationally, across state borders and internationally.
Who knows though, maybe one day the whole world will go dark and windless at the same time?
The expression "begging the question" doesn't mean what you think it does.
> I wonder what you have to be, to be special according to the flavor of meaning you just happen to prefer?
The answer is obvious -- no particular form of life is special or supernatural. It's all part of natural selection, changing species adapting to a changing environment. And this isn't just some hypothesis, it's the central idea in evolution, a very well-supported scientific theory.
And our "flavor of meaning" has no part to play, only objective evidence, the evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
