a boy and his dog: Japan hasn’t had a moral hysteria about kidnapping like the USA yet. That’s the main difference.
A.B. Prosper: As David said, Non-Diversity, near Homogeneity, is strength. However, a caveat: it’s also highly cultural. Japan is safe and very law abiding, and, barring a very rare sicko, no one would hurt a child. Even some 100% European areas are not as stable.
Isegoria: I don’t think the issue is how many people will help the child, but rather what fraction — and how few are dangerous, scary, etc.
T. Greer: The problem with this article is that it treats Tokyo as typical, but you see the same patterns in Japan’s rural areas, where their isn’t a mass of people to continually rely on or watch the kids in question.
David: “[Japanese] kids learn early on that, ideally, any member of the community can be called on to serve or help others,” he says. So maybe non-diversity is a strength, then, too.
T M: Djolds1. Vermouth. And Vodka. Lots of vodka. Maybe just vodka, forget the vermouth.
Kudzu Bob: If assimilation remains even mildly effective, Hispanics will assimilate to “cultural white” just like all previous waves of immigrants. Steve Sailer and others often cite the work of Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz, who point out in their book Generations of Exclusion that second-generation Mexican-Americans do better than their parents do in terms of assimilation, income, and education, but that afterward third- and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans do worse. For whatever reason,...
Alrenous: Are the superforcasters accurate enough to base real decisions on? The set of easily-measured variables often doesn’t overlap the set of important variables. Favourite recent example: consumer debt is going up. Easily measurable, but what we want to know is how much anguish excessive debt is causing. Have to measure lost utils – good luck with that. Might well be that even superforecasters aren’t good enough to serve unless they have a bias, a propaganda angle, used to support...
Graham: Adams’ reductionism sounds brilliant until one notes that the definition of “useful” is almost infinitely elastic, as is the scale of the other to whom one aims to be useful. Useful to who, and toward what ends, defined by who? And what does one say to the other who becomes threatening because his definition of being useful to some group or person of his choosing may require him to do harm to you, or even do something milder you consider to be contra-useful? And that’s...
Bob Sykes: Nietzsche spent an entire philosophical career analyzing that very question.