The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: January 16, 2014
Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism – Video
Posted: January 16, 2014 at 6:41 pm
Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism
Are you still scarred from being forced to share your toys with the other kids as a kindergartner? Do you view taxation by a democratically elected governmen...
By: Steve Shives
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism – Video
The Brothel King: Dennis Hof on Prostitution, Wild West Libertarianism, and "Pimpin’ for Paul" – Video
Posted: at 6:41 pm
The Brothel King: Dennis Hof on Prostitution, Wild West Libertarianism, and "Pimpin #39; for Paul"
"Nevada #39;s the last of the live and let live states," says Dennis Hof, the self-described "Brothel King" and owner and proprieter of Nevada #39;s Moonlite Bunny R...
By: ReasonTV
Read the original:
The Brothel King: Dennis Hof on Prostitution, Wild West Libertarianism, and "Pimpin' for Paul" - Video
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on The Brothel King: Dennis Hof on Prostitution, Wild West Libertarianism, and "Pimpin’ for Paul" – Video
Libertarianism: Definition from Answers.com
Posted: at 6:41 pm
Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.[4] Although compatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are not logically incompatible, is the most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers,[5] metaphysical libertarianism is discussed, though not necessarily endorsed, by several philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick,[6]Carl Ginet, Hugh McCann, Harry Frankfurt, E.J. Lowe, Alfred Mele, Roderick Chisholm, Daniel Dennett,[7] Timothy O'Connor, Derk Pereboom, and Galen Strawson.[8]
The term "libertarianism" in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[9] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[10][11] Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.[12]
Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.
Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.
Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[13] where he hypothesises that,
In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposesa hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort.
Although at the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[14]Quantum Mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, he stated the logical possibility that if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality.
Nozick puts forward an indeterministic theory of free will in Philosophical Explanations.[6]
When human beings become agents through reflexive self-awareness, they express their agency by having reasons for acting, to which they assign weights. Choosing the dimensions of one's identity is a special case, in which the assigning of weight to a dimension is partly self-constitutive. But all acting for reasons is constitutive of the self in a broader sense, namely, by its shaping one's character and personality in a manner analogous to the shaping that law undergoes through the precedent set by earlier court decisions. Just as a judge does not merely apply the law but to some degree makes it through judicial discretion, so too a person does not merely discover weights but assigns them; one not only weighs reasons but also weights them. Set in train is a process of building a framework for future decisions that we are tentatively committed to.
See the original post:
Libertarianism: Definition from Answers.com
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on Libertarianism: Definition from Answers.com
Wild West Web needs a sheriff
Posted: at 6:41 pm
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Editor's note: Douglas Rushkoff writes a regular column for CNN.com. He is a media theorist and the author of the new book "Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now."
(CNN) -- This week, champions of the "open net" are decrying a U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down an FCC ruling that required Internet service providers to be neutral in their restrictions on bandwidth.
The idea here is that giant bandwidth users, like Netflix or YouTube, will be required to pay access providers, like Verizon or Time Warner Cable, for all that video they're streaming to the likes of us. Maybe they'd even be able to buy themselves a special faster lane on the Internet for their traffic.
Of course, "open Web" advocates see in the court decision the beginning of the end of a free and egalitarian Internet. By striking down the provisions of what the industry calls "net neutrality," the court has also struck down an Internet provider's obligation to let all content through its servers. In theory, they can now legally pick and choose whose media makes it to its subscribers. Which would stink.
But this whole issue, and the instantaneous outcry associated with every move by a court or agency, is more complex than it looks on the surface. By casting this issue in such stark terms, those who would defend Internet freedom from the evil corporations may just be playing into the hands of other corporations whose designs on the Internet are no better.
Douglas Rushkoff
In fact it seems like just yesterday when nearly all the Internet's champions were telling government to stay away from the net. The Web was home to the revival of Ayn Rand and a new spirit of techno-utopian libertarianism. The idea was: The free market will cure any glitches along the way, as technology firms simply compete to bring us the best.
The 1997 Wired cover story, "The Long Boom," argued that the only impediment to technology-fueled economic growth would be the regulation of the marketplace. "Open good, closed bad. Tattoo it on your forehead." This became a credo of Silicon Valley and the net in general.
People acted as if the Internet just emerged out of culture, like a technological extension of the collective human nervous system, rather than a network that was meticulously planned and built by government and, yes, Al Gore.
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on Wild West Web needs a sheriff
Transhumanist Declaration – Humanity+
Posted: at 6:41 pm
Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth. We believe that humanitys potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise. We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.
The Transhumanist Declaration was originally crafted in 1998 by an international group of authors: Doug Baily, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita-More, Eugene Leitl, Bernie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding, and Nick Bostrom. This Transhumanist Declaration has been modified over the years by several authors and organizations. It was adopted by the Humanity+ Board in March, 2009.
See the original post:
Transhumanist Declaration - Humanity+
Posted in Transhumanist
Comments Off on Transhumanist Declaration – Humanity+
Transhumanism – Future
Posted: at 6:41 pm
Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human cognitive and physical abilities and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disease, aging, and death. Transhumanist thinkers study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.
Although the first known use of the term "transhumanism" dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s, when a group of scientists, artists, and futurists based in the United States began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers postulate that human beings will eventually be transformed into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".
The transhumanist vision of a profoundly transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters as well as critics from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by a proponent as the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity," while according to a prominent critic, it is the world's most dangerous idea.
In his 2005 article A History of Transhumanist Thought, philosopher Nick Bostrom locates transhumanism's roots in Renaissance humanism and the Enlightenment. The Marquis de Condorcet, an eighteenth century French philosopher, is the first thinker whom he identifies as speculating about the use of medical science to extend the human life span. In the twentieth century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was J.B.S. Haldane's 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of genetics and other advanced sciences to human biology.
Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane's), appears to have been the first to use the actual word "transhumanism". Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature". This definition differs substantially from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.
The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the twentieth century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School for Social Research in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman" (short for "transitory human"). In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the popularization of the concept of "transhumanity" in his book Man into Superman. FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973 to stimulate transhumanly conscious activism.
The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "third way" futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the earth's gravity as they head into space. FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement, and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
In 1988, philosopher Max More founded the Extropy Institute and was the main contributor to a formal transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy in 1990.[ In 1990, he laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:
"Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. [] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies []." In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an organization with a liberal democratic perspective. In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration. The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:
The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic with a high profile in the transhumanist movement.
Read more:
Transhumanism - Future
Posted in Transhumanist
Comments Off on Transhumanism – Future
Neurotech – Transhuman [2014 Version][Lyric Video] – Video
Posted: at 6:41 pm
Neurotech - Transhuman [2014 Version][Lyric Video]
Celebrating 6th Year Anniversary of Transhuman EP ! FREE / name-your-price download: http://neurotech.bandcamp.com/album/transhuman Written / Recorded / Mixe...
By: NeuroWulf
Go here to see the original:
Neurotech - Transhuman [2014 Version][Lyric Video] - Video
Posted in Transhuman
Comments Off on Neurotech – Transhuman [2014 Version][Lyric Video] – Video
Crysis 3 – Speedrun: Welcome to the Jungle! on Post Human Warrior (00:09:37) – Video
Posted: at 6:41 pm
Crysis 3 - Speedrun: Welcome to the Jungle! on Post Human Warrior (00:09:37)
Hallo Leute, hier ein Speedrun in Crysis 3 auf hchster Schwierigkeit (Post-Humaner-Krieger) Dies ist die zweite Mission des Spiels. Ich spiele einen "No Dea...
By: xTaL3N7Zz
Excerpt from:
Crysis 3 - Speedrun: Welcome to the Jungle! on Post Human Warrior (00:09:37) - Video
Posted in Post Human
Comments Off on Crysis 3 – Speedrun: Welcome to the Jungle! on Post Human Warrior (00:09:37) – Video
Post-Human (Post-Human Trilogy, #2) by David Simpson …
Posted: at 6:41 pm
As with so many books these days, this one let me down. Particularly in that the summary implies there is some element of mystery to what happened to the rest of humanity, and instead it's immediately obvious what happened. Really: you know what they're going to find before they ever get home, and it's already pretty clear why they're not dead; connecting the dots isn't hard. The real mystery is why four super-smart people needed a fifth to explain it to them.
Which leads me to this less than her...more
Which leads me to this less than heroic cast. First we have Keats, a hero who slips into a moral abyss before the action even starts. Could they maybe have had the crisis first at least? It takes only a matter of minutes to go from "I'm a moral guy, I can't help my urges but I can be better than them" to "hot damn, nobody will ever know, let's do it". (Less than thirty, in fact, including time to do the deed.) Similarly with "Old Timer" and his micro-affair: apparently in the highly evolved future humans live forever, and they marry forever, but they can rebound from the inconceivable loss of a spouse -- guilt included -- in about a day. Then there's Thel, Keats' extra-marital love interest. Women are apparently rather violent in this future, as she and Djanet believe they have the right to beat up, knock out, or otherwise coerce anyone into doing what they want. The author gets points for having high intelligence breed contempt, but loses far more for having the super-intelligent people (a) be unable to think of a better solution and then (b) be surprised that causing mayhem doesn't make friends. Lastly, there's Rich. His differentiating feature is that he has free reign to insult anyone at anytime, but doesn't have the skin to take it in return, nor the cleverness to do it without being obvious. For most of the book, these are scared, stupid, selfish people. The other four are dependent on Keats to do the thinking for them; when he can't, they resort to the aforementioned belligerence. Yet after they go on a few forced patrols (of which we only see one, and it's spent explaining how Craig has fallen in love), and do a few repairs, they're suddenly ready to sacrifice themselves to save the world. Why? How? Where's the growth and development that would make that plausible?
Clearly, then, the characters didn't work for me. Neither did the science. I think this is one of those novels that would have been better off leaving the science as a mystery, because as soon as the author explained how the characters could fly and such, I had trouble suspending my disbelief. It's been a long time since I was a physics student, but I really don't think that would work, and the nuclear power pack pretty much cinched it for me. Even if the science were solid, though, the extreme versatility of the technology made it one heck of a sonic screwdriver: it can solve any problem. It lets them fly, it can be used as a force field, it works as a weapon, and at one point Keats configures his as a cradleboard. All of which is okay up to a point...but these characters are completely dependent on them. They are constantly shifting from one application to another, and having them reuse the same solution over and over again is not only boring, but it means it never really feels like they're in danger. You know they'll just pull another trick out of the magnetic bubble.
Despite all of the above, however, the ending was the biggest problem. Without spoiling anyone who still wants to read this book, all I can say is that the villain was trite and unoriginal, and the happy ending was too perfect, too pat, and too implausible. The ultimate deus ex machina... literally.
As an Amazon prime member, I was able to read this for free from the lending library. I'm glad I did, as it means I found the book far less frustrating -- though no less disappointing -- than if I'd had to pay for it. It also led me to waffle a bit on my rating. However, Simpson has a masters in English Literature, and teaches the subject as his profession. If anyone should know better, he should. (less)
Go here to read the rest:
Post-Human (Post-Human Trilogy, #2) by David Simpson ...
Posted in Post Human
Comments Off on Post-Human (Post-Human Trilogy, #2) by David Simpson …
Post new comment
Posted: at 6:41 pm
US public and foreign policy elites agree the nation should mind its own business
WASHINGTON: The global image of the United States as an advocate for development, multilateralism, liberty and democracy typified by the catalytic role the nation played in creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan that rebuilt war-torn Europe, President Jimmy Carters championing of human rights and President George W. Bushs promise to support democratic movements around the world has never had the unanimous support of the American public. And now, at a time of Americans war weariness and widespread concern about the domestic economy, both the public and the US foreign policy establishment are particularly wary of such idealistic foreign policy endeavors.
In 2013 there is an unprecedented lack of support for American engagement with the rest of the world. The public suggests that the nation does too much to solve world problems: About half of Americans, 51 percent, tell interviewers that the United States is overextended abroad, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. And when those who say the US does too much internationally are asked to describe in their own words why they feel this way, 47 percent say problems at home, including the economy, should get more attention.
The publics skepticism about US international engagement has increased. Currently, 52 percent say the United States should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own. Just 38 percent disagree with that statement. This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the US minding its own business in the nearly 50-year history of pollsters asking this question.
Pew Research: More than half surveyed agree the US should cooperate with the UN, but support is down from 2002.
When it comes to working with the United Nations, the embodiment of the ideal of nations working together, 56 percent of the American public agrees that the United States should cooperate fully with the international organization. But that support is down from 77 percent in 1991 and 67 percent in 2002. And only 37 percent say strengthening the UN should be a top US policy priority.
There is partisan divide on this issue among Americans: Democrats, at 69 percent, are more likely than Republicans, 46 percent, to say the US should cooperate fully with the United Nations. And Republicans or independents who sympathize with the Tea Party are even less likely to want the US to work closely with the UN. Looking forward, 50 percent of Democrats want to strengthen the UN, but only 25 percent of Republicans agree and just 12 percent of Tea Party adherents would strengthen the multilateral body.
Championing human rights abroad, helping improve living standards in developing countries and promoting democracy also rate as relatively low priorities for the American public.
Promoting human rights in other countries is a top foreign policy goal for just 33 percent of the American public. While low, this support is actually up from the 24 percent who prioritized human rights in 2011. Again there is a partisan divide: 41 percent of Democrats, but just 27 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of Tea Party adherents see human rights as a top priority.
Helping boost economies in low-income countries has never been high on Americans to-do list. Nor is it today. Only 23 percent make helping improve the living standards in developing nations a high priority. This includes 32 percent of Democrats, 13 percent of Republicans and just 6 percent of Tea Party sympathizers.
Read the original:
Post new comment
Posted in Post Human
Comments Off on Post new comment