@jfilmmaker Are you saying "This Ain't No Picnic"? ; D

@Vitaliy_Kiselev you may be empirically right, but not in a way that may be comfortable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

Back to your OP, how do you define natural and real? Is natural the way we're born, or how we're raised? By "real" do you mean significant, discernable, or non-equivalent? Sorry if that sounds like I'm picking on your English, but I'm trying to get to the ideas behind the words.

Can any system really be fair?

What about a system that is agnostic to the circumstances we're born into, but does not respect all life decisions?

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Sorry, I thought linking was the most succinct way to illustrate my point. But to spell it out, the conventional wisdom would appear to be that women are inferior in the intelligence department--and that appears to be your assumption too.

But by the most agreed upon yardstick of IQ (although not 100% agreed upon) women appear to have more capacity for intelligence. At least at the extreme, woman has not been surpassed--highest IQ ever is a woman. The latest studies tend to show little difference on average when external influences are controlled for (I have a link to the study, but I won't post another link without your blessing). The smartest person still appears to be a woman, not a man. And current scientific testing is showing the opposite of your belief. Women are about the same or maybe superior in intelligence.

Physically, of course men average stronger. But again, as I said before, there is so much overlap that it's ridiculous. No overlap at the extremes though--the strongest man is still stronger than the strongest woman. However, the strongest women are still far stronger than the weakest men, so I find the differences a poor argument for allowing discrimination in the workplace.

That reminds me of a friend who was in the military and had been indoctrinated to believe that women could not be field deployed on long missions, because they can't go for more than three days without a shower. For "medical reasons". Obviously, this is bullshit--any country with poor access to running water would be full of ill and dying women! And our ancestors certainly didn't bathe regularly the way we do today.

I think that's a good illustration of what happens when too much is made of our differences. It's good to recognize differences, sure. But what do you do with that information? We all notice differences--our brains are hard wired to see patterns, which is just another way of saying differences and similarities. But shouldn't we work to see that we don't do anything weird with that information? Like say enslaving or killing a section of the population? Or even just singling them out for poverty? I mean, hey, don't promote someone to the top for race/gender/religion, but also don't shove them to the bottom because of it?

Isn't that "fair"?

But I think you just got to something there about evolution. You think fairness has been selected as a dominant trait then?

Perhaps evolution is socialist? How tyrannic!

Overall, I think government can attempt to be restrictive of differences, but is only successful in influencing them. No government has ever successfully repressed differences in a meaningful way. They've all failed. Both in repressing change, and existing altogether. They all get swatted down/fail.

There must be some sort middle ground--neither forced ignorance of our differences nor unfair advantage because of them. Isn't that ideal?

Or does "competition" mean finding the unfair advantage and milking it while others suffer, until you have your advantage taken away?

You are obsessed with monkeys. Humans aren't monkeys. That's the problem. How about giving our species some credit? You think a monkey could have hacked the GH2? You think a monkey could fly a F16? Monkeys live in trees and eat live insects.

I am obsessed with logic and science. And I am giving monkeys good credit :-)
As for your questions, answer for both is yes. As people are just slightly advanced monkeys.
And I suggest you to learn more on the subject.

Monkeys references also helps to ground various religion and "we are special" bullshit common to many people.

Ok, philosophy aside, what's the big list of difference in abilities between the sexes?

No no, not just differences. I mean abilities to perform tasks outside reproduction. Where's the difference there?

I am obsessed with logic and science. And I am giving monkeys good credit :-) As for your questions, answer for both is yes.

I know, it's like the argument that given an infinite amount of time, a monkey with typewriter would eventually type out the complete works of William Shakespeare.

As people are just slightly advanced monkeys.

This is an extremely weak claim. It's not really defensible either for or against. Presumably this is some reference to the claims showing 98 or 99% similarity in human and monkey genome. Those same studies also show strong similarity to human and mouse genome. Big deal. Water boils at 212F but not at 210F. Reality is a game of inches not just light years. As it stands you're just making a qualitative judgment. Using monkey behavior as constant test tube of human behavior is going to give crude unreliable results. How many monkeys have you met that can resist primal impulses? When you meet that monkey, introduce him to me with the monkey that is the F16 Pilot.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Fairer != More livable. And I accidentally wrote that if were to allow wealth to travel freely across borders the system would be more fair (wealth already does, with no problem). No, I meant allow labor to travel freely - right now, capital is way way too free in a global ways of travel. Regarding human borders- A big issue is that the person in Africa or in Mexico can't legally just cross the border. They are definitively restricted in a way that appears significantly unfair. Obviously, on a grand scale, if these borders were to be removed, life would be much tougher here in the US, hence less liveable. Nonetheless, it would be more fair, in an opportunity sense.

@Micah Here in the U.S., if you want to take a stable 60 hour week job, and you're a smart guy, the system is cake on a financial level, not including adverse health effects of the stress, etc. (I've had those options, I still have those options, and I refuse to take them). But 1.) I can't apply that logic to most people. The majority of society cannot achieve an elite position in society, otherwise they probably would (I approach this from a deterministic consideration of the universe, separate conversation). The minority are in the position to get these high paying jobs. Therefore, the significant but minority existence of these high paying jobs does not constitute fairness in the system. 2.) If you're trying to get by on 30 hours/week so you aren't a complete wage slave and you don't come from a position of privilege, you're damn right, this ain't NO PICNIC!!! :)

A fairer and more livable system would entail greater redistribution of capital, be it through taxes and public spending, a stipend, or however you do it. That of course wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would alleviate the issues of competition to a significant degree. Further regulation would be needed to bring about sustainability and stability (environmental issues, resource issues, population issues).

My issue with the free market, "free competition" - which in many ways we don't have here in the U.S., etc., is that the system becomes hellish. Unless you're already on the top, with a stabilized position, free time drops down as people continually try to outcompete others, working lower and lower wages, more and more hours, while providing an equivalent amount of hourly value. Nevermind, the efficiencies technology provide reduce the quantity of labor to provide a given set of goods and services (in the general, not completely specific sense - farming, mechanization, etc.). So I feel a more livable system would find ways to reduce the time and raw material inefficiency associated with competition, and at the same time, provide us individually with enough capital/currency to comfortably afford basic needs. The present lack of positive government interference (sufficient public spending to drive up the price of labor, stipends, etc.) has made the US harder and harder to live in. Year by year, cut after cut, the economy worsens, and we further digress towards the conditions of the third world. Conclusion: I want to see a reduction in the need for the individual to compete in society.

I'm mostly for survival of the fittest, nature's law. It weeds out the slackers and creates better humans. better humans create things and can afford charity to those less fit. eeking out a living with marginal intelligence is far more satisfying than receiving a handout.