- Sep 2018
Becoming posthuman means exceeding the limitations that define the less desirable aspects of the “human condition.” Posthuman beings would no longer suffer from disease, aging, and inevitable death (but they are likely to face other challenges). They would have vastly greater physical capability and freedom of form
Posthuman beings contradict the human conditions that apply to my life, and every living being for that matter: immortality is non-existent. The passage alludes that the posthuman evolution will oppose the current human condition, and humanity will be redefine its physical form. A reformation in the modern humans understanding of scarcity is entirely different than that of the posthuman. With increased control over the posthumans physical capability are differing in juxtaposition to the human condition in the twenty first century: Prompting our modern society with the question of whether the human condition makes significant biological changes. The change from the former to the latter intertwines technological advancements with physical capabilities, although to what end? The human condition will be a backbone to the technology that manages the posthumans interpretation of reality.
- Jun 2017
Expert communicators may sometimes be perceived as trustworthy because they know a lot about the product they are selling.
Brain Games persuasion experiment: A fake sales person utilizes the halo effect, expert bias, and artificial scarcity to to promote a worthless product to consumers.
- Jan 2017
Word is getting around, and I have more clients than I can handle. I've had to expand my training facilities and hire new trainers, and I still can't meet the demand!
having clients waiting in line to see me
- Dec 2016
- PAP (Painting a Picture)
- CG (Curiosity Gap)
- CTA (Call to Action)
- F (Feature)
- B (Benefit)
- WTC (What’s the Catch Addressed)
- CE (The Common Enemy)
- ET (Emotional Trigger)
- ITO (If > Then Opener)
- AO (Addressing Objections)
- P (Promise)
- RR (Risk Reversal)
- S (Scarcity)
- PP (Problem or Pain)
- SP (Social Proof)
- H (The Hook)
- OL (Open Loop)
- MBG (Money Back Guarantee)
- IG (Instant Gratification)
- KD (Key Desire/Hot Button)
- Mar 2016
Another perspective sees competition as a function not just of funding, but of thebalance between supply and demand of resources, particularly human resources. Inthe current competitive system, young scientists are pitted against one another forattractive career opportunities that are becoming increasingly scarce .Researchers, feeling the pressure to be first to present findings in their fields,employ armies of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and strive to maketheir laboratory groups the smartest and the fastest. The result is a ‘‘postdocbottleneck’’  where the supply for highly educated and trained researchers farexceeds the demand [30–33]. In concrete terms, Donald Kennedy and colleagues have described the structural problem as a source of excess supply of humancapital: ‘‘We’ve arranged to produce more knowledge workers than we can employ,creating a labor-excess economy that keeps labor costs down and productivity high’’(p. 1105). The system produces, they claim, a ‘‘legion of the discontented’’ .They argue that institutional and policy decisions about training scientists should becoupled to placement histories of recent graduates, numbers of intellectual offspringof faculty, and job markets for scientists. Roger L. Geiger  has suggested thatthe imbalance between supply and demand is due in part to deficiencies in graduate
Role of lack of positions. Interestingly, this has been shown by Fang et al to be not reflected in misconduct stats: i.e. the vast majority of scientific fraud is conducted by senior (male) scientists, not job hungry post-docs or grad students.
Analysts differ as to the reasons why competition has intensified. Some see thesituation in terms of money. Tempering the effects of competition is not a primeimpetus behind calls by the National Science Board  and by a recent coalition of140 college presidents and other leaders  for more federal funding for scientificresearch; however, some scientists see such advocacy movements in terms of easingcertain aspects of competition that are worsened by tight dollars. More money, morepositions, and overall expansion of the research enterprise would improve thesituation
role of funding
here are indications, however, that the natureof competition has changed in recent years. Goodstein  argues that this shift islinked to negative outcomes:Throughout most of its history, science was constrained only by the limits ofits participants’ imagination and creativity. In the past few decades, however,that state of affairs has changed dramatically. Science is now held back mainlyby the number of research posts and the amount of research funds available.What had been a purely intellectual competition has become an intensestruggle for scarce resources. In the long run, this change, which is permanentand irreversible, will probably have an undesirable effect on ethical behavioramong scientists. Instances of scientific fraud will almost surely become morecommon, as will other forms of scientific misconduct (p. 31)
relationship of negative aspects of competition to change in funding model that promotes scarcity. See Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct.Academe, 88, 28–31
- Feb 2014
As intellectual property lacks scarcity, and the protection of it fails the Lockean Proviso, there is no natural right to intellectual property. As such, the justification for intellectual property rights arises from the social con tract, and in the case of the United States, the Constitution.
The justification for intellectual property from the social contract established by the US Constitution; it otherwise has no justification by natural right because it fails the Lockean Proviso.
Property Status Conclusions and Implications Intellectual property is neither ‘scarce,’ nor does the taking of it leave “enough, and as good, left in comm on for others” (the Lockean proviso) (Long, 1995, n. pag.; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).
Intellectual property is neither scarce nor leaves enough for the common good. It is not property in the Lockean sense.
these traditional property rights, as suggested by Locke, depend on the scarcity of that property (1995, n. pag.). I f ‘Joe’ owns property and ‘Sue’ acquires it, then Joe no longer has it, and Sue has harmed Joe (by stealing). Joe’s property is scarce.
- US Constitution
- common good
- intellectual property
- traditional property rights
- natural right
- social contract
- Lockean Proviso
- Nov 2013
Insofar as the individual wants to maintain himself against other individuals, he will under natural circumstances employ the intellect mainly for dissimulation.
Seeing the world as a hostile place, we defend with our power to deceive. Competition and survival based in theories of scarcity.
- Oct 2013
Indeed, I think there are scarcely any who can do both things--that is, speak well, and; in order to do this, think of the rules of speaking while they are speaking.
Is that not the point? That it takes skill to learn to do both things at once? So rhetorical strategy should not be used because few can speak well and remember strategy?
- Sep 2013