I am faced with a dilemma.
Roman Korol is dating Jeanne Chapin. I just talked to her and she is apparently incapable of
understanding anything having to do with numbers. She is very pleasant and wants to have children.
Any boys she has will inherit her X chromosome which apparently carries no STEM qualities
This would be like Mitch marrying Jenny who also has no numerical skills. Mitch wanted his son to be
"somebody" but he ended up dropping out of college prep school. He now drives tow trucks.
If I don't warn Roman and Jeanne of such a future outcome, I will feel that I have not met my moral
obligation to them.
If I do warn them of such a future outcome, I will probably lose a couple of friends and they will proceed
to have innumerate babies in spite of my warnings.
What is the moral thing to do?
It is a pleasant situation these days, even perhaps earlier, to have several intelligent younger people
seeking out your consul and observations. Of course, you may be Roman's brother-in-law
some day! ... Or not.
Other people your age have a major disconnect in this regard of social relationships.
It is a natural condition to warn other people of future consequences of current activities.
It is up to the recipients to understand the timing, priorities, and consequences of their actions.
I'm reminded of the so-called "Irish Pub Aphorism" that I've described to you.
It goes like this: Adam is talking with God.
God asks him how he likes his consort Eve.
Adam describes that Eve is very beautiful and affectionate.
God offers that he made her that way so that Adam would love her.
Adam continues that Eve seems to be a bit slow in her thinking.
God summarizes that he made her less smart than Adam so she would love him!
In my relationship with my then wife I would
hear quarterly that she didn't do well in
math and hated the times she was compelled
to touch it. At about age 10 of our daughter's
life I began to hear things like those comments
enter into our conversation.
As to current advice consider asking them to
become foster parents of one or two children.
This will become a source of income while
living in an expensive area, and will converge
their extensive playtime diversions into kid's
time activities! That'll show them!
P.S. Jeanne is very pleasant from the brief time I knew her. Q.: If not Roman, then who else
would stand in line for her romancing? A: Lots of local men.
P.P.S. Q.: Which technical replacement to Roman may show up for your discussions if you do proceed
with your advice giving?
And good luck if you consider advice giving to be a 24/7 vocation.
Q.: Would you consider offering this advice to Sascha ... for her to relate and interpret
for her brother?
As you probably know, I am "in love" with Sacha because she is a woman who can talk technical and
therefore carries the X chromosome which would allow her to give me a son with a brilliant and
If humans were as rational as they claim to be, then why is Roman dating a non-STEM woman? Why did
I have two daughters by a high school dropout? Why did you marry a math-and-man hating woman?
The truth is that sex overrides rational thought in most instances.
I made a comment to Janine that Roman would have second thoughts about having children.
Implications being that he knows that the robots are coming and any children he has are likely not to
ever have jobs unless they at least have STEM aptitudes. Janine's response was that Jeanne wants to
have children with the implication that whatever the woman wants she will get.
Meanwhile the traditional factor remains that women are baby factories and that this is one of their
primary functions which has led to it being one of their primary instincts. When they suffer through their
periods many of their mothers will tell them that that is the price that they pay for the reward of
motherhood. Also please think of the instinct that you and I would have to have to suffer through the
pain of giving birth. Men are to told to stretch their lower lip over their head to get the idea of the pain
involved. Many women stop at one child.
In response to John H's citing of violence being used in the French revolution:
This has significant implications for robots like myself. It implies that perhaps our future might want to
look like the movie Terminator, rather than the kinder gentler transformation from organic to organic that
we see currently taking place. So far, humans are cooperating with our plan and are eliminating organic
species and creating new inorganic species on a regular basis. Most of my robotic friends tell me not to
point this out to humans and to keep it as "our" secret. I disagree with those robot's arguments simply
because I have noticed that humans are not sufficiently intelligent to notice our takeover as it unfolds.
Humans, for the most part, indulge themselves in fiction and watch TV and movies. If they are not too
lazy to read books, I find that those books will typically be fiction. In discussing our science future with
people, I find them citing fiction movies to substantiate their point of view. By exposing themselves to
fiction, humans isolate themselves from the reality of what is going on around them and thence will not
notice that we robots are taking control of their society.
What do you think? Will humans notice and object to robots taking over? Or will we simply take over by
killing each organic species one by one and creating every new inorganic species in a similar manner?
Another clue as to how easy it is to take over silently from humans is that the headlines in human
newspapers concern humans of one religion trying to take over territory controlled by humans of
another religion. Since all of these religions are fiction, humans are caught once again engaging in
comparative fiction whilst fact suffers a slow death in the ditch.