Gyroscopic Investing

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:04 pm What’s the alternative? Sparta? Eugenics? Leave Stephen Hawking and his wheelchair on an ice floe?

You can see how Darwin works in that Arctic wolf pack documentary on Nature. That does not look like a fun life.

I have noticed that people don't realize that evolution isn't fun. People seem to think the animals had a choice in being the fittest and surviving, like they could work at it and if they worked hard enough, they'd successfully procreate and live. Or that animals evolve to be the best at something. But the reality is the unfit used to die. And I'm sure they did the animal equivalent of screaming in impotent rage in their last moments. Nothing with a brain ever thinks "well, it's for the good of the species that I die before I have any kids." Ashkenazi Jews didn't develop high IQs because they had a cushy go of it.

Of course the bugs are catching up with our vaccinations, but we’ll have to come up with new vaccines, and new methods. Letting nature sort it out...does not look like fun either.

Yup. It won't be fun. But say a vaccine/cure isn't created. If a shit ton of humans die, like 75% or whatever, that would be awful for pretty much everyone alive. But the ones that survive because they're immune for some reason pass on those genes, and if humans survive, it's like Forrest Gump said, "That's good! One less thing!" And in the future, they won't even think about it, just like we don't think about how we're able to survive diseases that wiped out 90% of the humans who were living in the Western Hemisphere upon contact with Europeans.

More importantly, we’re living healthier lives than we ever have in the history of mankind. Is that so bad?

For individual people, it rocks. But species-wide it seems... sub-optimal if people pass on bad genes, yea.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:30 pm

More importantly, we’re living healthier lives than we ever have in the history of mankind. Is that so bad?

For individual people, it rocks. But species-wide it seems... sub-optimal if people pass on bad genes, yea.

Sure, but:
(1) We're tool users now, where tools include false teeth, vaccines and space suits. The trade-offs are going to the dentist instead of selecting for perfect teeth (at the expense of something else), vaccines instead of waiting around to develop something like sickle cells for malaria, and space suits instead of evolving the ability to get to the moon while holding our breath.

And regarding the sickle cell, there's the anemia side of it. And those with sickle-cell disease have no protection against malaria. Evolution is messy.

(2) We're social animals. We're a network. So while not everyone is born with resistance to this or that, we help each other. Maybe this sub-optimal state forces us to cooperate even more.

I think there was a (3), but it's past my bedtime.

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:04 pm What’s the alternative? Sparta? Eugenics? Leave Stephen Hawking and his wheelchair on an ice floe?

That fate seems acceptable enough for those of us who can budget no more than about $200 a year for health care and who are indignant enough about the alternative (Medicaid) to refuse it. You kind of get used to the idea that at some point your number is up.

But on the bright side, imagine what might happen to the Type 2 diabetes statistics--not to mention the grossly obese subpopulation traversing the aisles of Walmart in motorized wheelchairs equipped with oxygen tanks--if people had to actually DO something about their condition (or risk).

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:19 pm (1) We're tool users now, where tools include false teeth, vaccines and space suits.

The animals that evolved into us were tool users for millions of years.

The trade-offs are going to the dentist instead of selecting for perfect teeth (at the expense of something else), vaccines instead of waiting around to develop something like sickle cells for malaria, and space suits instead of evolving the ability to get to the moon while holding our breath.

Going to the dentist would be more like a... I can't remember the exact term, but a 'fitness masker.' Analogous to bird researchers and "ugly" birds. Researchers took birds where the length of the tail was a marker of fitness, and the birds with the longest tails were most attractive to mates. They attached a tail extension onto previously unattractive birds, who then started attracting the ladies. But the babies of the short tailed birds inherited the deficient genes of the father, and had short tails and other unfitness, like susceptibility to parasites, which long tails normally indicated were absent. So you can mask the deficient genes with tools, but in population terms, it's like putting poison into a pop bottle and thinking it's alright to drink now.

And regarding the sickle cell, there's the anemia side of it. And those with sickle-cell disease have no protection against malaria. Evolution is messy.

Absolutely. There are other ones I've seen, where favorable traits are co-morbid with deficient ones. Tay-Sachs, blue eyes, extremely high intelligence. Native Americans are more susceptible to alcoholism; I haven't seen anything, but I would assume that there is some gene that was favorable in some way that also increases susceptibility to alcohol.

(2) We're social animals. We're a network. So while not everyone is born with resistance to this or that, we help each other. Maybe this sub-optimal state forces us to cooperate even more.

I don't think this was the case for most of our history. Furthermore, I think evidence shows that we especially didn't help unfit males. Genetic studies show that historically only 40% of males (and 80% of females) had viable offspring. And 8,000 years ago, 17 females reproduced for every 1 male. I think it's safe to say that nobody was helping out these prehistoric incels.

Until very recently, pretty much everyone on the planet lived very close to a subsistence lifestyle, they simply weren't able, or willing, to help out people who (wow, really sounding evil here) weren't fit to live. There may have been a tribe who were really got into morality, but it stands to reason that people who were very stupid, or had bad eyesight, or who had weak stomachs, or whatever, wouldn't have lasted long anyways.

So for a super long time, those unfit people were pruned. It's not like after millions of years of evolution you end up with a perfected population, either. Mutations are pretty much constant, sometimes they're good, but most of the time they're bad. It's only at our current level of technological sophistication that we're able, and willing, to help out the unfit (again, in genetic/biological terms, not moral).

I'm planning on getting more into this subject this year after I close out my current focus area, so I'm glad you brought it up. Very timely.

Very interesting post! What's wrong with blue eyes- macular degeneration? I think I read something like that for blue and grey eyes.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:32 am

Going to the dentist would be more like a... I can't remember the exact term, but a 'fitness masker.' Analogous to bird researchers and "ugly" birds. Researchers took birds where the length of the tail was a marker of fitness, and the birds with the longest tails were most attractive to mates. They attached a tail extension onto previously unattractive birds, who then started attracting the ladies. But the babies of the short tailed birds inherited the deficient genes of the father, and had short tails and other unfitness, like susceptibility to parasites, which long tails normally indicated were absent. So you can mask the deficient genes with tools, but in population terms, it's like putting poison into a pop bottle and thinking it's alright to drink now.

The part I bolded is new for me. Wow. Now you have me thinking about the discussion in Korea about whether one has the right to know if their would-be spouse has had plastic surgery.

{d}(2) We're social animals. We're a network. So while not everyone is born with resistance to this or that, we help each other. Maybe this sub-optimal state forces us to cooperate even more.

{kr.}I don't think this was the case for most of our history. Furthermore, I think evidence shows that we especially didn't help unfit males.

I agree. Social for a long time, altruistic for a short time. Well, I read something about how altruism was born out of cold, natural forces, including selfishness, and I thought, well, I'll just sweep this under the rug. It may have been in Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, but I'm only 50% sure.

It's only at our current level of technological sophistication that we're able, and willing, to help out the unfit (again, in genetic/biological terms, not moral).

And we should definitely keep going in this direction. I shudder when I think about how the deformed are treated in Japan, although maybe that has changed in recent years.

Maddy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:55 pm Without meaning to fall into the "golden age" fallacy, I do wonder why risks generally thought statistically quite negligible 50 years ago loom so large today. Are people's immune systems shot from all the environmental crap we're exposed to? Have bugs become more virulent?

No. What the H are you all talking about??? Surviving childhood has become an expectation in our society thanks to vaccines, antibiotics, and modern water/sewer systems. Before the modern era, it was not.

I spent several months as a medical student at a mission hospital in rural Kenya. No vaccines and no "environmental crap" to speak of. Food was virtually 100% grown or raised locally, and people lived in communal mud thatched homes that were constantly rebuilt. Sounds healthy, right? Almost every night I was on call, I'd get that tap on the window that meant I needed to get up and watch a child die. That's the thing we're all forgetting: children used to die. A lot.

No doubt there are environmental toxins causing chronic health issues that need to be cleaned up, but let's just get some perspective here. Getting back to measles, yes most cases will recover just fine after a miserable few weeks. It would just suck if your kid was one of the 0.1% with the serious complications though, wouldn't it?

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:58 am Very interesting post! What's wrong with blue eyes- macular degeneration? I think I read something like that for blue and grey eyes.

Yup. People that have blue eyes are more susceptible to eye problems.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:32 am Going to the dentist would be more like a... I can't remember the exact term, but a 'fitness masker.' Analogous to bird researchers and "ugly" birds. Researchers took birds where the length of the tail was a marker of fitness, and the birds with the longest tails were most attractive to mates. They attached a tail extension onto previously unattractive birds, who then started attracting the ladies. But the babies of the short tailed birds inherited the deficient genes of the father, and had short tails and other unfitness, like susceptibility to parasites, which long tails normally indicated were absent. So you can mask the deficient genes with tools, but in population terms, it's like putting poison into a pop bottle and thinking it's alright to drink now.

The part I bolded is new for me. Wow. Now you have me thinking about the discussion in Korea about whether one has the right to know if their would-be spouse has had plastic surgery.

I hadn't heard about that, but it dovetails nicely into the our discussion.

Social for a long time, altruistic for a short time. Well, I read something about how altruism was born out of cold, natural forces, including selfishness, and I thought, well, I'll just sweep this under the rug. It may have been in Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, but I'm only 50% sure.

I am pretty sure the book where I read about the bird-tail study, The Red Queen by Ridley, referenced Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I'm going to read it again next month so I'll be able to verify. I added SoFA to my reading list though, looks interesting. Maybe you read about the selfish thing in The Selfish Gene by Dawkins?

It's only at our current level of technological sophistication that we're able, and willing, to help out the unfit (again, in genetic/biological terms, not moral).

And we should definitely keep going in this direction. I shudder when I think about how the deformed are treated in Japan, although maybe that has changed in recent years.

It's definitely comforting to believe we'll discover cold fusion, have unlimited electricity, utilize CRISPR and cyborgitry to transform into demigods, and conquer the stars. I think it's more plausible that once fossil fuels become uneconomical, we'll slowly regress to a level of technological prowess a bit more advanced than the Middle Ages of Europe and China, with concomitant populations subject to Malthusian law.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:48 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:58 am Very interesting post! What's wrong with blue eyes- macular degeneration? I think I read something like that for blue and grey eyes.

Yup. People that have blue eyes are more susceptible to eye problems.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:32 am Going to the dentist would be more like a... I can't remember the exact term, but a 'fitness masker.' Analogous to bird researchers and "ugly" birds. Researchers took birds where the length of the tail was a marker of fitness, and the birds with the longest tails were most attractive to mates. They attached a tail extension onto previously unattractive birds, who then started attracting the ladies. But the babies of the short tailed birds inherited the deficient genes of the father, and had short tails and other unfitness, like susceptibility to parasites, which long tails normally indicated were absent. So you can mask the deficient genes with tools, but in population terms, it's like putting poison into a pop bottle and thinking it's alright to drink now.

The part I bolded is new for me. Wow. Now you have me thinking about the discussion in Korea about whether one has the right to know if their would-be spouse has had plastic surgery.

I hadn't heard about that, but it dovetail nicely into the our discussion.

Social for a long time, altruistic for a short time. Well, I read something about how altruism was born out of cold, natural forces, including selfishness, and I thought, well, I'll just sweep this under the rug. It may have been in Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, but I'm only 50% sure.

I am pretty sure the book where I read about the bird-tail study, The Red Queen by Ridley, referenced Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I'm going to read it again next month so I'll be able to verify. I added SoFA to my reading list though, looks interesting. Maybe you read about the selfish thing in The Selfish Gene by Dawkins?

It's only at our current level of technological sophistication that we're able, and willing, to help out the unfit (again, in genetic/biological terms, not moral).

And we should definitely keep going in this direction. I shudder when I think about how the deformed are treated in Japan, although maybe that has changed in recent years.

It's definitely comforting to believe we'll discover cold fusion, have unlimited electricity, utilize CRISPR and cyborgitry to transform into demigods, and conquer the stars. I think it's more plausible that once fossil fuels become uneconomical, we'll slowly regress to a level of technological prowess a bit more advanced than the Middle Ages of Europe and China, with concomitant populations subject to Malthusian law.

Was the "dovetails" comment an intended pun for this tails discussion?

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:47 am

Maddy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:55 pm Without meaning to fall into the "golden age" fallacy, I do wonder why risks generally thought statistically quite negligible 50 years ago loom so large today. Are people's immune systems shot from all the environmental crap we're exposed to? Have bugs become more virulent?

No. What the H are you all talking about??? Surviving childhood has become an expectation in our society thanks to vaccines, antibiotics, and modern water/sewer systems. Before the modern era, it was not.

I spent several months as a medical student at a mission hospital in rural Kenya. No vaccines and no "environmental crap" to speak of. Food was virtually 100% grown or raised locally, and people lived in communal mud thatched homes that were constantly rebuilt. Sounds healthy, right? Almost every night I was on call, I'd get that tap on the window that meant I needed to get up and watch a child die. That's the thing we're all forgetting: children used to die. A lot.

No doubt there are environmental toxins causing chronic health issues that need to be cleaned up, but let's just get some perspective here. Getting back to measles, yes most cases will recover just fine after a miserable few weeks. It would just suck if your kid was one of the 0.1% with the serious complications though, wouldn't it?

Well, now, hold your horses, WiseOne. I wasn't comparing today's expectations and outcomes to those of the pre-modern era. For heaven's sake, I'm not THAT old! I was thinking back to the late 50s and early 60s, when the norm (and the standard of care, I'm guessing) was to let nature take its course. Had the prospect of contracting measles, chicken pox, or any of the other "normal" childhood diseases involved risks perceived to be anywhere near as significant as they are perceived to be today, "good" mothers would not have been hosting children's parties for the express purposes of exposing the entire neighborhood at once and getting it over with in a convenient, controlled fashion--apparently with the blessing of these children's pediatricians. So what, if anything, has changed?

I just read the following in ‘Sapiens ‘:

Archeologists have discovered the bones of Neanderthals who lived for many years with severe physical handicaps, evidence that they were cared for by their relatives.

Also potentially if weakly related to the “weeding” of the unfit: bullying and sibling rivalry.

I remember as a kid standing in line at the local high school along with all my family and all of of our neighbors to get the Sabin oral vaccine for polio - on two separate occasions because it required a double dose as best I remember it.

I also remember my brother getting sick and my parents being very worried that he had polio and possibly spending the rest of his life as a cripple or even being in an iron lung.

I don't remember hearing of anyone getting polio after the vaccine.

So even though I am heavily libertarian in my political philosophy I am not very sympathetic to the anti-vaxxers. I would change my mind if they had some reasonable evidence but at this point I don't think they do.

Jackson, I think I see this similarly to how you do, with the exception of being fearful of the precedent set.

Maybe all the vaccines out there now are perfectly safe. Maybe the government now can be trusted to commission, acquire, and distribute them, without covering up any major problems that could crop up.

Handing over the power to force people to inject things into their bodies might be a good idea. But how sure are we all those things will continue to be true forever?

It's similar to a test I try to run mentally for political proposals: if the "other guy" comes to be in charge and have this power, would I still support it? If the "other guy" were the one proposing it, what would my reaction be?

Actually, even now I'm not so sure that some significant problem in a vaccine wouldn't be covered up. I'm pretty sure it would be, as the "powers that be" seem to be absolutely addicted to vaccines. I'm not saying that vaccines aren't great, but I would bet that a lot would be covered up for the "greater good" of not discouraging people from getting vaccinated.

All that said, my kids certainly do get all their shots, and we're nervous around kids who haven't.

In reference to the Darwin/Evolution comments above, this presentation "How Darwin Got It Wrong" by Dr. John Sanford* is something to consider.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUss56QGhMI

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

jacksonM wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:01 pm ISo even though I am heavily libertarian in my political philosophy I am not very sympathetic to the anti-vaxxers. I would change my mind if they had some reasonable evidence but at this point I don't think they do.

Correct, they don't. Most of it's based on a 1998 paper that was retracted because of frankly made-up data. Since then, given the level of concern there have been a lot of serious investigations looking for a link between vaccines and things like autism. Absolutely nothing has turned up. Not to mention epidemiology studies looking at whether the incidence of autism has increased since the 1950s (it hasn't). The problem is that to a non-scientist, it's easy to blame a vaccine for something like autism that usually appears during the time that the child is getting their vaccines. And, to forget about what used to happen to kids before the vaccines were available (yes, even in the 1950s). Things like SSPE used to be common on pediatric neurology services before the MMR was made mandatory. I've never seen a case but we're all bracing ourselves for it because we know we will, probably soon.

I get what Xan is saying though, and it can feel like the vaccine schedule is a bit heavy handed. The real solution is to quit looking at pseudoscience websites and try for something like the CDC's page: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html. Note especially the link to the web page listing vaccine side effects: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Believe it or not, the CDC is as reasonably honest as any human organization could be. The side effect listing is quite thorough and they're not trying to hide anything. It's easy to imagine the government as being naturally dishonest and fascist, but the antivaxxer groups aren't being terribly honest themselves.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:09 am Correct, they don't. Most of it's based on a 1998 paper that was retracted because of frankly made-up data.

Surprise, surprise.

Xan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:06 pm Handing over the power to force people to inject things into their bodies might be a good idea. But how sure are we all those things will continue to be true forever?

It's similar to a test I try to run mentally for political proposals: if the "other guy" comes to be in charge and have this power, would I still support it? If the "other guy" were the one proposing it, what would my reaction be?

Yes. One of the biggest reasons to limit government power.

Two of my favorite "health experts" are Ben Greenfield and Chris Kresser. I use quotes because while they SEEM incredibly smart, I'm not smart enough to sort out fact from fiction. From what I can tell, I think they could out-debate 95% of "medical professionals" on the topics of general health, nutrition, etc, but this is only an impression I get. Both of these guys (I believe) have chosen to not vaccinate for measles, and they offer up what SEEM to be very informed, nuanced arguments for this.

Ben has a recent post on measles vaccines, and here's the book he links to as a great "source" on the matter.

https://www.amazon.com/Saying-No-Vaccin ... bengree-20

I don't have a horse in this race. I find it interesting but it's a rat's nest of nasty comments and accusations so hopefully we can keep it civil.

Xan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:06 pm Actually, even now I'm not so sure that some significant problem in a vaccine wouldn't be covered up. I'm pretty sure it would be, as the "powers that be" seem to be absolutely addicted to vaccines. I'm not saying that vaccines aren't great, but I would bet that a lot would be covered up for the "greater good" of not discouraging people from getting vaccinated.

It's classic Cost/Benefit, or rather Risk/Benefit.

I'm sure there are some out there who believe something like RFID will be injected along with treatment -- not you, Xan. I know you're just talking about the potential cover-up of side effects -- but it's a chance I'm willing to take. I also think there would be plenty of whistleblowers. The initial whistleblowers would be painted as nutcases, and I would assume they are nutcases. But, the truth would out.

We don't even have control over the air that we breathe.

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:12 am

Xan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:06 pm Actually, even now I'm not so sure that some significant problem in a vaccine wouldn't be covered up. I'm pretty sure it would be, as the "powers that be" seem to be absolutely addicted to vaccines. I'm not saying that vaccines aren't great, but I would bet that a lot would be covered up for the "greater good" of not discouraging people from getting vaccinated.

It's classic Cost/Benefit, or rather Risk/Benefit.

I'm sure there are some out there who believe something like RFID will be injected along with treatment -- not you, Xan. I know you're just talking about the potential cover-up of side effects -- but it's a chance I'm willing to take. I also think there would be plenty of whistleblowers. The initial whistleblowers would be painted as nutcases, and I would assume they are nutcases. But, the truth would out.

We don't even have control over the air that we breathe.

I really don't know about this. In the 1950's doctors were injecting pregnant women with radiation. I don't think this came out until the OJ Simpson trial... to crickets... because there was a football player being tried for murder.

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:26 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:12 am I also think there would be plenty of whistleblowers.

I really don't know about this. In the 1950's doctors were injecting pregnant women with radiation. I don't think this came out until the OJ Simpson trial... to crickets... because there was a football player being tried for murder.

On what scale?
"Injecting" -- are you just talking about x-rays?

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:56 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:26 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:12 am I also think there would be plenty of whistleblowers.

I really don't know about this. In the 1950's doctors were injecting pregnant women with radiation. I don't think this came out until the OJ Simpson trial... to crickets... because there was a football player being tried for murder.

On what scale?
"Injecting" -- are you just talking about x-rays?

Oh my you haven't heard about this? I heard a podcast on it and was literally sick to my stomach by the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rad ... xperiments

Numerous human radiation experiments have been performed in the United States, many of which were funded by various U.S. government agencies[3] such as the United States Department of Defense, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and the United States Public Health Service. Experiments including:

feeding radioactive material to mentally disabled children[4]
enlisting doctors to administer radioactive iron to impoverished pregnant women
exposing U.S. soldiers and prisoners to high levels of radiation[4]
irradiating the testicles of prisoners, which caused severe birth defects[4]
exhuming bodies from graveyards to test them for radiation (without the consent of the families of the deceased)[5]

No, I hadn't. There's too much to hear about. Tell me more about this OJ fellow.
J/k, that is truly disturbing information. Ugh!

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:12 am

Xan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:06 pm Actually, even now I'm not so sure that some significant problem in a vaccine wouldn't be covered up. I'm pretty sure it would be, as the "powers that be" seem to be absolutely addicted to vaccines. I'm not saying that vaccines aren't great, but I would bet that a lot would be covered up for the "greater good" of not discouraging people from getting vaccinated.

It's classic Cost/Benefit, or rather Risk/Benefit.

I'm sure there are some out there who believe something like RFID will be injected along with treatment -- not you, Xan. I know you're just talking about the potential cover-up of side effects -- but it's a chance I'm willing to take. I also think there would be plenty of whistleblowers. The initial whistleblowers would be painted as nutcases, and I would assume they are nutcases. But, the truth would out.

We don't even have control over the air that we breathe.

Just to clarify: I don't think there's a cover-up of side effects. But it wouldn't surprise me if there was a strong urge to cover something up. And I would say my primary fear is "what might happen with this power in the future", not that anybody at all is doing anything wrong right now.

Suppose somebody were to propose that in 100 years, your great-grandchildren would be absolutely required to receive whatever injection that "they" say is needed. Would you vote yes or no on supporting that measure? It would have to be no, wouldn't it? Yet that will undoubtedly be the effect of removing all ability to opt out.