Orange Man Bad.

A new peer reviewed scientific study has suggested that Liberals in Canada are having fewer male babies because they are too traumatised about Donald Trump becoming the US President.

That’s right, Orange man is so bad it caused NPC babies to come out all girly.

The study, published in the scientific journal BMJ Open, claims that Trump’s election can be associated with a temporary shift in the sex ratio of newborn babies, but only in politically liberal areas, and not in conservative territories.

The author of the study Ravi Retnakaran told Wired that he got the idea for the test from reading about how stressful events, such as 9/11, had affected the sex ratio of newborns.

“I felt this apprehension in society that immediately harked back to September 11,” Retnakaran, a clinician at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital, said, adding “And that’s when the light dawned in my head, and I wondered if [Trump’s election] could have the same sort of effect on the sex ratio.”

The study analysed all births in Ontario before Trump’s election, immediately after, and over six months later. The lowest ratio of boys to girls was recorded in March 2017, but only in liberal locales of Ontario, and not conservative parts.

“We were looking for a very specific signal,” Retnakaran noted, adding “The stratification we did based on liberal-leaning parts compared to conservative-leaning surprised us because we didn’t know if that would be there or not.”

Fertility expert Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield commented that “Maybe this research says more about liberals in Ontario. Maybe they should chill out more.”

Noting that while the study only establishes correlation, not cause, Pacey  did concede of Canadian liberals that “if their stress hormones went up in the same way that people react badly to terrorist attacks, then I can see this mechanism operating.”

So there you have it, something else crazy Liberals can blame on Trump. Although being responsible for more girls being brought into the world is probably something the President would be very proud of.

“Facts ignore ideology”

In a set of rather bizarre tweets on Sunday, notorious atheist Richard Dawkins argued that eugenics, the practice of selective breeding supported by the Nazis, would work perfectly well if applied to humans, because it works on animals.

“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” Dawkins wrote.

“Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology,” he added.

It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Okaaaay, Mein Führer.

Sensing that his comments would generate immediate backlash and Hitler comparisons, Dawkins clarified that he wasn’t advocating for eugenics, merely acknowledging that it would be a very effective practice.

“For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,” he said.

“I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.” Dawkins explained.

A eugenic policy would be bad. I’m combating the illogical step from “X would be bad” to “So X is impossible”. It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts & we lose – or at best derail – the argument.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Dawkins has previously made his thoughts on eugenics clear, writing that he suspects “that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.”

“Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular.” Dawkins continued, adding “The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible.”

“But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as ‘these are not one-dimensional abilities’ apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.” Dawkins urged.

“In the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase.” Dawkins further asserted.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?” the evolutionary biologist stated.

Dawkins’ latest considerations on eugenics quickly opened up a torrent of disbelief.

Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, was one of the first to respond:

So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids. https://t.co/jycoxZQJFP

— Greg Epstein (@gregmepstein) February 16, 2020

Others joined in:

This eugenics crap is so dangerous. In the US it lead to forced sterilizations of women in the South — sometimes against their wills, often without their knowledge — that became so common that they came to be referred to as “Mississippi appendectomies.” https://t.co/TKFQGFc0dL

— Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) February 16, 2020

While Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, his science on eugenics is bad. We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer. In fact, many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders.

— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) February 16, 2020

I have literally never seen an argument against eugenics that hinges on the idea of whether or not it "would work." The issue is what would it mean to say that eugenics "works," which you conveniently have not defined. Care to elaborate on what a "working" model of eugenics is?

— Rani "Laura Palmer Eldritch" Baker (@destroyed4com4t) February 16, 2020

You absolute pin-headed simpleton. It doesn't work in practice because too many of the goals turn out to be arbitrary fantasies, and too many of those fantasies are the pet projects of abusive bigots who fuck up any civilization they get their hands on. Are you new here? Christ.

— Scott Lynch (@scottlynch78) February 16, 2020

what does 'work' mean, richard

— Shaun (@shaun_vids) February 16, 2020

You're gonna start talking about 'useless eaters' next. We see you.

— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) February 16, 2020

yes, facts ignore ideology, except in this instance because your definition of “works” would necessarily be influenced *by ideology*

— Avery Edison (@aedison) February 16, 2020

This is racist trash, Richard. The analogy you draw here between the ideology of eugenics and the domestication of cows or horses is false, dangerous, and historically illiterate.

— Dan Hicks (@profdanhicks) February 16, 2020

Device can identify individual faces out of crowds of tens of thousands; Will take mass surveillance to a new level

A new camera with a resolution five times more detailed than the human eye, able to monitor thousands of people in real time and identify individual faces has been unveiled by Chinese scientists, prompting renewed fears about mass surveillance.

ABC News in Australia reports that the new 500 megapixel cloud camera AI system, dubbed a ‘super camera’, was revealed at China’s International Industry Fair last week.

The camera system, equipped with state of the art facial recognition utilities, was designed by Fudan University and Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The designers claim that the system can detect and identify thousands of human faces or other objects in real time and instantly locate specific targets in environments such as crowded stadiums.

Of course, it would work equally as well at protests.

The designers suggested that police could set up the camera system in the center of Shanghai and monitor the movement of crowds, while cross-checking the images with medical and criminal records.

Li Daguang, a professor at the National Defense University of the People’s Liberation Army in Beijing told the Global Times that the system could “very easily be applied to national defense, military and public security.”

Technology like this in the hands of Communist Chinese authorities, who already operate a citizen social credit system, does not bode well for privacy rights and freedom.

“The Party-state has massive databases of people’s images and the capability to connect them to their identity, so it isn’t inconceivable that technology like this is possible if not now then in the future,” Samantha Hoffman, an analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute noted.

The social credit system, which rewards ‘good behavior’ with incentives and punishes disobedience by restricting and banning people from buying travel tickets, is currently enforced using a vast network of over 200 million surveillance cameras, as well as other tracking tools.

However, the 500 million pixel ‘super camera’ would take surveillance capabilities to a different level.

Scientists noted that the current crop of cameras are able to monitor thousands of people at once, but each face is in the wide shot can only be represented by a few pixels, meaning “you couldn’t clearly see your targeted person at all”.

The data from the video will be “fed into a pool of data that, combined with AI processing, can generate tools for social control, including tools linked to the Social Credit System” said the ASPI’s Hoffman.

Of course, this kind of thing is all fine because it’s all the way away in China, right?

Wrong.