http://discovermagazine.com/2012/oct/20-madagascar-settled-tiny-group-refugees-distant-lands

Slightly annoying that they talk about “Indonesians” rather “Austronesians”. It’s like saying that the Americas were first settled by Russians!

http://www.therocksremain.org/2012/08/what-kanzi-didnt-doyet.html

Maybe for a few generations. Sexual reproduction through meiosis is critical mechnism to rid of mutational loads. Without meiosis, genetic meltdown is the outcome.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19827287

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-sci-stem-cells-infertility-20121005,0,5337238.story

I’m a lawyer, so I know a lot of talented women who postponed childbearing until way too late. Hopefully, this technology could be applied to humans in the future.

My idea deals with twins. In modern populations they often develop their own private language as small children. If in a population of Hidelbergensis, a pair of twins was born into a population that had the biological capability for full consciousness, but said population had only partially developed that potential, I think they may have been able to take that next step and develop their own language. The world’s first full language, and hey, they’d have someone to talk to without going crazy.

Hidelbergensis probably had their own primitive form of language already (given that H. Sapiens and Neanderthals both have the FOXP2 gene it’s likely their common ancestor did too), and if said twins were on the border of two language groups and exposed to both they’d be more likely to create their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioglossia

But no worries, my life has never been better, and while the 21st century will be one of gradual quality of life decline in the good ole USA, the singularity is just a century or so away. Better brains got us here and better brains will get us to where we are going and that coming improvement however and whenever it happens shall be what I call the singularity. As Mark Twain said “history doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes.” We are the lucky ones in more ways than one. The timing of when we were born almost couldn’t have been better. If we are more intellegent than most it is because our direct ancestors had a miserable time of it and we are the beneficiaries of the cruelties of survival of the fittest. I owe Razib a lot more than five books he would enjoy reading.

1. Standard (albeit sincere) best wishes to your family.

2. I greatly respect (enviously fascinated by) your knowledge and interest in History. May I ask your opinion about Machiavelli ?
There are two reasons for me to ask about it.

First of all, I do not have enough ability to understand History (and, as a _consequence_, did not have much of interest in it.) The only historic book I ever read in full is “Understanding Human History” by Michael Hart.

Second, I was reading recently couple of books by Barbara Oakley, including “Cold-Blooded Kindness. …”. For some reasons that authoress puts Machiavelli in the same column with Stalin and similar names. I started to refresh what I remembered from reading Machiavelli’s “Prince”.
What I found there were quiet technocratic prescriptions, based on reasonably good (IMHO) understanding of human nature: both, of the governors, and of the governed. He does not discuss, whether this or that social arrangement is either just or serves better the goals of God (or any other entity.) He states that given the existence of governors and of governed, the former ones should better do it in this or that way.

What is your opinion ?

Your truly, Florida resident.

Exactly! My wife who is a Dem/Obama supporter was saying to me before the debate that Romney would “have to” give details of his plans if he wanted to be taken seriously. My reply was, “If he wants to win, he shouldn’t!”

The thing is all Obama has to do as the incumbent is sit back, look relaxed in the Presidential debates and just say, “We’re making progress… things are going to be alright… keep the faith”. Romney on the other hand had to attack and rattle Obama, and in this he was awesome last night!

The reality is both men are similar on some things, they lean centrist on social issues for instance, but they are radically different fiscally, where Obama is a doctrinaire socialist/Marxist – who dreams of taking your money and giving it to others like him – and Romney represents fiscal rationality and sanity.

Romney has had a tough job getting through the Republican nomination process, which forced him to go way right on social issues – something he seemed very uncomfortable with, but now that’s over he can swing back to his more usual centrist stance.

What’s interesting is that Obama got elected on a combination of White guilt and platitudes like, “Audacity of Hope”, rather than any experience or achievement. But Romney has successfully shown that he too can play that game of sloganeering, rather than debate facts and data.

It’s going to be very interesting what happens next. Obviously Obama’s handlers totally miscalculated what Romney would do, and Obama was left looking bewildered and flat in tone and body language – which will hurt him with female voters, minorities and gays, his base. Meanwhile Romney seemed more alive than ever, he looked in charge and relished the debate – all making him look a better leader on the night.

Obama’s handlers will now need to go back to the drawing board and get him back to sloganeering and posturing – which he is adept at. Romney would do well to repeat last night again – I hope he had it in him to do so.

Overall, great theater!

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/jp-rushton-rip.html

Time will tell wether he was some one similar to Galileo or Darwin, who was too much ahead their time.

RIP