-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Infantile Lottery Sterilization
- Thread starter amorrow
- Start date
So, yeah. I am suggesting that in order to protect Nature and avoid population pressures that might lead to eat, that we put at the command decision-making level a machine whose answers come from (to the best that our current technology is capable) pure chose. Maintaining order by surrendering control to a sort or disorder.
So instead of juxtaposing the newborn with a random number generator, let us juxtapose the newborn with armed police. The goal is to at least stabilize world population. I am deliberately being vague. With that, how do we fill in the details with a somewhat peaceful solution. And please: no joke replies about the police shooting the newborn.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
The other issue with this is the issue of reduction in diversity, which necessarily leads to degeneration, along with a slew of other problems such as China is suffering because of their asinine attempts to control population. They're running out of boys.
Somebody really needs to study up on the notion of unintended consequences, because you're messing with forces you cannot possibly comprehend.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I was going to make a joke about shooting the police, but OK.
Somebody mentioned "carpet eater"Austrian TV show called "Eat Carpet"
en.wikipedia.org
Eat Carpet - Wikipedia
Add as many bells and whistles to it as you like - it can be a full on Rube Goldberg contraption obscuring all parts of the process - it won't obscure the responsibility of the people who conceive of it, the people who build it, and the people who press the button to turn it on.
No, let's instead stop inventing new fairy tales and deal with the actual practical and rational ideas already shared in this thread. That's what reason is, after all, no?
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I have a better idea for you to focus on, amorrow, if you're really interested in solving one of the world's deepest problems of ethics:
The trolley problem.
Find me a solution for the trolley problem that works for all its iterations and we'll talk. There's a reason for this, namely that this is what you're attempting to do with all your idiotic splurging, namely solving the trolley problem.
Have at it. Secure your place in history.
The trolley problem.
Find me a solution for the trolley problem that works for all its iterations and we'll talk. There's a reason for this, namely that this is what you're attempting to do with all your idiotic splurging, namely solving the trolley problem.
Have at it. Secure your place in history.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
To save anyone having to go back to read it:
1) True RNGs are based on stochastic natural phenomena, such as radioactive decay;
2) Pseudo-RNGs are based on algorithms to produce a sequence of numbers - however, these tend to repeat after a period of time;
3) Quasi-RNGs are the result of a combination of the two above methods.
What you call a TRNG links the natural phenomenon, such as radioactive decay, to an algorithm - hence it's actually a quasi-RNG.
The problem is, as I explained earlier, the algorithm.
At some point, the sequence it generates repeats.
Also, since you're looking at numbers up to 10 digits long, this exceeds the ability of current so-called RNGs. Further, they generally have a limited range of numbers, rather than the full range - 1 to 10 billion, in this case.
If you read any article on "true RNGs", you'll find that there are all sorts of caveats.
RNGs won't do what you want of them for your population control programme.
Kindest regards,
James
Due to my being about to go out when I typed my previous post, I made a boo-boo, which I've now corrected.
To save anyone having to go back to read it:
1) True RNGs are based on stochastic natural phenomena, such as radioactive decay;
2) Pseudo-RNGs are based on algorithms to produce a sequence of numbers - however, these tend to repeat after a period of time;
3) Quasi-RNGs are the result of a combination of the two above methods.
What you call a TRNG links the natural phenomenon, such as radioactive decay, to an algorithm - hence it's actually a quasi-RNG.
The problem is, as I explained earlier, the algorithm.
At some point, the sequence it generates repeats.
Also, since you're looking at numbers up to 10 digits long, this exceeds the ability of current so-called RNGs. Further, they generally have a limited range of numbers, rather than the full range - 1 to 10 billion, in this case.
If you read any article on "true RNGs", you'll find that there are all sorts of caveats.
RNGs won't do what you want of them for your population control programme.
Kindest regards,
James
I would imagine that RNGs that are implemented in 64-bit software exist. That is not very difficult even on 32-bir hardware. And the RNG often seed their algorithm by using the current clock time. Yes, they do repeat after a long time, but 64-bir integer math would still be a very long time.
I would imagine that a pseudo RNG that uses radioactive decay or something like that re-seeds the algorithm frequently or perhaps even takes the time to reseed the algorithm for every random number produced.
An RNG that repeats after a long time is not a problem for this case because you seed the algorithm again for every newborn. You just want the selections to be reasonably spread out and reasonably fair.
Even in the Vietnam War draft, the government used a crude technique (in part for the sake of transparency) and a slight skew was detectable in the results.
Go look at the scatter plot in
Draft lottery (1969) - Wikipedia
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
You do realize, no kid of rich parents ever went to Vietnam?
As far as PRNGs go, take a look at
en.wikipedia.org
Again, for each newborn, you run the computer program again so the RNG re-seeds from the real time clock. That is more than random enough. Anyway, for the sake of transparency, you would use a traditional analog lottery machine. That is what people are accustomed to trust to be a fair draw.
Mersenne Twister - Wikipedia
Again, for each newborn, you run the computer program again so the RNG re-seeds from the real time clock. That is more than random enough. Anyway, for the sake of transparency, you would use a traditional analog lottery machine. That is what people are accustomed to trust to be a fair draw.
Yeah. They did what Pres. Bush Jr. Did: they joined the Nationaal Guard. Some of the poor went to Canada. OK, maybe some rich families pulled political strings.
No, please stop fantasizing about forcibly sterilizing newborns. It's disturbed.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't some newly mutated anti-abortion schtick, designed to juxtapose as another fundamental violation of bodily autonomy to make it seem tame by comparison.
Sorry, I seem to be whirring my slurds.
Sorry, I seem to be whirring my slurds.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Just really, really wanna knock down that total human population number, huh?