Atlantium

Lay-people have incomplete information, therefore even if they "win" with common usage their opinion can be casually disregarded. If you are suggesting that I give in to the ignorance of the average human simply because they have numbers you and me have a serious irreconcilable problem.

IQ testing is not how anyone measures intelligence and hasn't been for quite some time. I suspect the problem lies here: Intelligence requires a multi-part definition, to use your analogy, much like swimming. Swimming is defined as the action of moving oneself through water using your limbs. An intelligence definition should include the ability to extrapolate, comprehend and innovate information accurately as far as we can understand the world. The more precisely one can do this and the more depth of knowledge one has the more intelligent one is. A tricky thing to define.

They certainly do. Which means the remainder are split into two groups: 1) Those stupider than average and 2) Those smarter than average.

Average people find him entertaining. Others find him slow, inaccurate and petty.

There is no academically or commonly accepted definition of intelligence. Your confident statement renders everything else you say suspect.

Thankfully the population size is large enough that those of us who prefer competency over "personality" can form teams of our own.

Straw Man noun 1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

My comment speaks directly to to above post as follows: "It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Their website says they're "creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security". Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when it should be human progress."

As for the world being difficult to predict, or to use your phrasing "non-ergodic", it is in fact easy to predict that security will be necessary. It is difficult to predict exactly what the threat to security will be. This uncertainty alone justifies development. Also, DARPA tech is well known for spreading outside of it originally intended remit. Ie the research itself can be of use in other areas.

Many humans are quite aggressive. Pacifists are easily defeated by force. How can you have progress without security?

Whataboutism is far from useless. By comparing similar subjects one can see their traits with greater clarity. When whataboutism is used to deflect from the original subject then it is useless for anyone seeing clarity. Like many tactics it all depends on how it is used.

There are two extremes here. One extreme is excessive work while the other is no work. In between the two lies a range of working hours which is tolerable to humans.

Being uncertain is in the middle. It's a position that too few humans are willing to take on any issue, treating it as if it were madness. If you are uncertain your options are to either ignore the issue or explore all the options.

Yeah, I admit it does use some of those elements. However this is reality. Trying to provide to those less fortunate is a luxury. The idea of creating an equitable society is only possible if the members of that society are ever-learning and hardworking. In our reality people like this are drained from two sides 1) the less fortunate and 2) the greedy. This is pragmatism. The main difference between my views and what you are referencing is that I'm not picking the membership arbitrarily. Competent people HAVE to come first BECAUSE they are needed. You can't drain what you need and give to less fortunate. You can only build your civilization until you can afford to help out others. We are not in that situation currently. Harsh reality cannot be ignored forever.

Value here is defined as the NECESSARY tasks required to maintain the civilization whether they be menial or intellectual. Needs not wants. Tasks that provide food, shelter and the basic life sustaining requirements so that other ventures can be pursued. No civilization can exist without these. People that don't or cannot work are not as valuable. This is harsh but is in tune with reality. People that choose to invest in their own interest form a split. Some when investing in their own interests create value for their civilization. Others do not and in fact drain value from civilization. They do this because they can. Any civilization will have a given amount of drainers and can indeed sustain a certain amount of drainers unless they drain enough resources to collapse the civilization. The other consideration is that while what I have said uses logic, many humans rely of emotional reasoning over logic. In order to make these people provide value a certain amount of emotional manipulation is also necessary,

Of course some peoples "rights" will have to be stepped on. In order to have and maintain a civilization that civilization requires people who are competent at the skills needed in that civilization. These people are the most necessary. The obvious targets for suppression should be the people who provide the least value to society. No other method is practical. It is important to remember that "rights" are imaginary despite grandiose titles such as Universal Human Rights. The universe provides no such framework. Pragmatism has to come first. Providing for the least is a luxury. As far as corruption goes, there is no passive method to prevent overreach. it needs to be actively rooted out. Think of this as error correction. I also think that only small groups of humans could achieve such a system. Expecting this at the country or planetary level at this time in history is delusional.