There's a long way to go but a point I've made about problems which also applies to roads is that the systems we use also adapt to accomodate the advancing technology.

The counterpoint to this is that the vast majority of men will always want to work to accumulate status and resources. Sure, some men will be happy sitting in their basements playing video games, but they are not going to be the ones whose genes are selected for in future generations, the same as it's always been.

UBI therefore has the possibility to exacerbate inequality. Perhaps not purely when measured in wages, but certainly when measured in health and happiness. If paying for UBI means taxing he rich more, then the rich (I include myself in this category) are just going to scale back their work to avoid the highest tax rates. The "wealthiest" will therefore be those who only have to work 2 days a week and can spend an inordinate amount of time on leisure, while the "poorest" might earn the same money, but have to work 5 days to achieve it.

I'm not certain about very much, as I said before. All the certainty about the future seems to be with you, though

We agree after all. Drivers will probably be here for a long time.

You, as a qualified biologist, obviously understand that much of the difference we see between men and women today is far more cultural than it is biological, right?

I don't think it's necessarily true that the vast majority of men will always want to accumulate status and power. That's a highly cultural aspect and something that can be changed, something that should be changed about our society. We shouldn't encourage or reward people to lord it over others as if to prove that they're better. The human supremacy project, whether over other humans, other animals, or nature in general, is the driving force behind essentially all the trauma we suffer.

No. You're certain that it's coming but we dont have to try to get ahead it cos .... I' certain it's coming and it is important we get ahead of it.

we dont agree on leaving it to market forces. I believe in state planning despite the uncertainty. The only certainty about how fast is afterwards.

The end result politically is that we do not agree. I think we need to act with urgency. You're handwaving it away. I believe that handwaving major issues away leads to a rise in racism/etc extemism and catastrophy.

No, I'm not certain that it's coming. See my comments about driverless cars.

Neither did I say anything about leaving it to market forces.

Stop putting words into people's mouths.

I want to see driverless cars highly regulated, and banned from public roads until further notice. I do not wish to see them creep into being and the government only take action when a slew of horrific town centre accidents happen.

Handwaving it away is leaving it to market forces

This is not a debate on driverless cars. This is about a profound change in the value of human labour..

We can agree on this.

What do you think I'm handwaving away?

The profound change in the value of human labour

You said that all jobs will go. I said nonsense, and cited driverless cars as something that may not be acceptable to the public once its limitations become apparent, and suggested new jobs will be created by AI.

I also talked about how I cannot envisage capitalism tolerating a majority of non-working adults being given UBI when that money could instead go to shareholders and executives.

That seems very much like not handwaving away profound changes in the value of humans and their labour, but by all means continue with the chezzing if you wish.

Qed

QED

Indeed.

Chezzing means arguing the case that brexit, our current economic woes etc etc are products of problems built over many decades.

I do wish.

You did not invent the term and neither is it yours to define.

I assume it's a variant of 'cheesing' which is a chess term

I remember when it was first coined. I'm pretty damn sure jalfrezi doesn't.

it's fine as is but I dont care to get hung up on words too much. We could consider the political (and moral) point as it comes up all the time.

Numerous results returned from a search for "chezzing", none of them flattering. Common usage seals it.

Wrong. The vast majority of people pushing the idea that Nature<Nurture are more important for sex differences come from the social sciences, not biology. For example, can you give me some examples of books written by reputable biologists that argue cultural differences are more important than biology? I'm sure there are some but they would be vastly outweighed by biologists who argue for the importance of biology. That's not to say biology is more important or less so. It's complicated. Most sex differences are responsive to culture. However, some differences are so hard wired they replicate across cultures, across time and across species, and people trying to eradicate them using social pressure are going to be sorely disappointed.

Your second paragraph emphasises why sex differences evolve and persist.

Sexual selection is driven by one sex preferring certain traits in the other sex. Differences in physical stature persist as women on average like taller men with broader shoulders. Men compete for and accumulate status as women find higher status men more desirable. This creates social pressure to compete for status, and men who don't have the drive to acquire status get selected against. Men prefer younger, prettier women as these are queues for fertility. This is why women spend billions of pounds every year trying to look younger.

This is a study examining sex differences in mate preference across 37 cultures. If we examined every single culture in the world, I doubt we would see a difference in this pattern of sex differences.



From this we can say two things. 1) Mate preferences are grounded in biology and 2) are responsive to social pressure. It's not clear how much social pressure you would need to apply to eradicate them, but I'm sure the unintended consequences of such action would not be desirable.

I dont want to go down the gender roles route but I agree this is the nub of the problem. People's status and self worth are greatly tied to their jobs so we face a massive problem as the value of work evaporates. I dont think it will be possible to keep tricking people into faking this. Something else will have to emerge. Some sort of startified system of self worth/stasis based on rank is an easy path but that would be hideous.

UBI can definitely exacerbate inequality. I can't see how to avoid it completely but I definitely want socialism for all the big stuff i.e health care being socialised rather than us buying insurance with our UBI.

So not about who invented it. hmmmm

I will use it how I like thanks. Feel free to do the same. People who want to undrstand will just have do some chezzing. Not that I imagine anyone really cares about your silly nonsense. The kiddies need to have their fun as well

Well, I was trying to be accurately vague in my choice of words and you haven't really refuted my claim but rather a different version of my claim. In any case, I haven't read any studies or books that pertain mainly to gender, and given this is your wheelhouse I'm not going to try to debate you on this. My understanding was that it was generally accepted that with the exception of the effects of hormones, physiology and culture, there are no neural differences between the genders. It would be good for me if you could enumerate for me the differences between the genders, with a particular focus on appreciating the difference between capacity and tendency.

Surely you mean 'sexual selection is driven by both sexes preferring certain traits in the other sex'?

'Cue' not 'queue', btw.

Even if that graph did account for all cultures, it can't prove anything biological, only cultural, surely? Given the current cultural hegemony coming from the global north, I'd like to see specific counterbalancing data with regards to those surviving hunter-gather tribes.

EDIT: I have read something like half of the selfish gene, so I have in fact read some scientific literature that specifically pertains to gender differences and sexual selection.

[QUOTE=fadanoid;58263492] The main issue with drug consumption rooms is that they are intended to solve a different problem from the one we have in Scotland. Basically the intention is to target rough sleepers with addictions and that isn't something we really have up here. People take drugs in their homes and die in their homes. They won't go to consumptions rooms. Also, we have a huge issue with benzos. Here's part of an article from one of the main recovery charities.

So, whilst there is good evidence for the impact of DCRs, it is worth noting that the data on drug-related deaths in Scotland over the past 5 years indicate that a high proportion of these deaths involve methadone. This would therefore suggest that they are very often impacting drug users who are already in touch with treatment services and not perhaps the “hard-to reach” populations which have been targeted through DCRs in other European cities. There is therefore some uncertainty about the potential impact of such services upon the level of drug deaths here In Scotland.

So therefore, we are unconvinced over whether these plans have been fully thought through from a Scottish context. The majority of the evidence for DCRs comes from large, city centre, using populations in Europe people in Scotland do not engage in this type of congregated drug use. Most people who die from over dose in Scotland do so in their own homes. We use drugs differently to our European counterparts and therefore any DCR should consider the patterns of our use and the difference the established evidence base is built on.

DCRs in local health centres in areas of high deprivation & high mortality make more sense. It also has to be considered that, from a Harm Reduction perspective, there appears to have been little discussion over the potential augmentation of harm that the intervention itself could cause. Instead, there only appears to have been a focus on the number of overdoses that these facilities have been found to have reversed.

However, there does not yet appear to have been a serious discussion over whether the existence of such facilities could actually increase the risks of our overdose as we interpret the situation as one in which we can safely risk overdosing in the presence of professionals. It is even arguable that, & it has been our experience that for some of us, there is a risk-taking attraction. Much more research is required before this is extended any further.

There is also a concern that the political context of the concept of drug consumption rooms is a distraction from more tangible and effective solutions. The high number of deaths involving methadone, suggestive of existing contact with treatment services, seems to be more closely linked to a more fundamental departure from best practice. Methadone, and other opiate replacement therapies, are recommended to be only used in conjunction with psycho-social support. This mortality rate would appear to be more in line with other findings that this prerequisite of psycho-social support is not being provided successfully, if at all. A review of existing knowledge is as important as that on existing powers.

Finally & perhaps most importantly the majority of deaths in Scotland Contain benzodiazepines such as diazepam and etizolam & neither of these drugs can be reversed with naloxone. To administer the antidote flumazenil which can reverse overdose symptoms, for a short amount of time but it has to be considered that benzo overdoses can last several days, requiring repeated dosing of Romazicon & can be extremely dangerous.

We can see from the drug death statistics in Scotland that the majority who are dying are experiencing overdose with benzodiazepines, with other substances involved, such as alcohol, opioids, & other narcotics. So even Administering flumazenil is not suggested in those circumstances, and therefore is not a good choice for someone in need of a benzodiazepine overdose reversal. Its really quite incredible that that so much emphasis is being put on DCRs to stop the deaths when its very clear the Benzo factor in Scotland makes this no more that at best wishful thinking & at worst political football.

I am not sure that this is how rich people normally go about avoiding tax.