That sentence is weirdly constructed, isn't it, TOT.

Upon scrutiny, I believe, the sentence is referring thirteen nameless ones borne of the remaining seven. It doesn't seem to specify whether the babies borne or stillborn of the ten who died in childbirth were monstrosities or not.

Okay, then how did Serwa get identified as one of the Few as a three-year-old? Because I might be a tad confused about that. Was she actually attempting to perform sorcery at that age? Did someone think to check using the Wathi Doll or a similar method like Akka did with Kellhus?

As we've surmised elsewhere, Achamian vaguely refers to a test done by the Mandate Pederisk which identifies children Few. It very well might be the Wathi Doll test but it could be as simple as putting three objects in front of a child and asking them to pick out the "different" (Marked) one.

Welcome to the Second Apocalype, Clozee.

We definitely haven't forgotten but as Wilshire said.

Sounds about right .

After my PKD lecture series is over next week, I'll think about pushing for these again as use of my free evening time once a week.

I'd have no problems with that to be honest.

Easier said than done, perhaps.

That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.

I'm sure I'm going to be further unimpressed moving forward in this thread by the way you write but could you please tone it down?

Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.

We already do this to some extent (given parental income) with genomic sequencing (if I have that right).

Any cut-off is arbitrary by definition. Why should abortions only be allowed in the first trimester? Why not the first trimester + 1 week?

I honestly don't have a stance on this conversation but a thought about these questions: many people find it visually disturbing and some find it socially abhorrent. A pregnant woman often is showing in that period and then has to explain to her peers (who, let's just say, can have a very wide range of responses to this topic) what happened to the baby.

This thread needs a new name.

This is fine for now, I think. Ease facilitates conversation and at this point everyone partaking knows where to find this thread - a new title would only serve to direct newcomers. Though, you're largely the "first cause" for this tangential conversation. Any ideas what to call the newly sorted thread?

in fact I think we should do a far better job controlling our population and managing our waste so as to stop the genocide of every other lifeform on the planet (as it'll lead to our own downfall, but whatever, that's perhaps another issue).

It's only the biosphere that enables our survival .

We decide based on prior knowledge about life quality, life potential, potential for suffering etc.
All criteria are ultimately subjective.
Parents in dialogue with doctors should decide, or vice versa, e.g. a doctor might recommend euthanasia if a child e.g. is found to have mutations leading to severe disease and early death.

I think a problem for you in advocating your position here, here or anywhere, is that the actual starting conditions aren't this conversation - you'd spend your whole life consolidating this position (which is what H and Wilshire are asking of you) and then facilitating the social conditions to enact it in the world as it is (fighting the same fight that the "pro-choice" camp has already been fighting for years) but also people would vehemently oppose you with much less grace than is shown here.

I believe that book was mentioned either by Tim Ferriss on his own podcast or by him on The Upgrade podcast. Either way, I've heard accolades regarding that title.

18 even?

I suppose those definitely all don't qualify as "mass" shootings.

EDIT: Gun Violence Archive: Mass Shooting

With fancy numbers.

I honestly have no idea, #2. But as you say, when you're ostensibly a communist dictatorship playing at capitalism, it's much easier to direct your human labour capital as you please.

I know I've in the past been exposed to the idea of controlled Chinese diaspora, in which the government selects or encourages individuals to go out into the world, get degrees/work in tech companies/etc, and then bring that knowledge back to China.

But honestly, I don't have very much insight into China specifically. I remember stories when I was in Japan regarding many Chinese still vehemently hate Japan for historical conflict brutalities (I think during my 2009 trip there was contemporary news of Japanese tourists having stones thrown at them in China).