Separate Olympic Games for males and females

We all observe a conflict between males and females on the equality between genders in sports competitions.  The most prominent manifestation we see in the disciplines where competitions are conducted in parallel - same time, same facilities, same organizers. For example, in tennis competitions Roland Garros such inequality is openly articulated. This makes sports competitions unbearable to watch. Sports should be out of politics and all irrelevant issues as absolutely specific, I would say crystal clear, activity. In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts, we have to split males' and females' competitions in time, space, and organizers as it is adopted in football, for example. The Olympic Games have also to be conducted separately in different countries and in different years. It will attract more attention and finances. LGBTQ+ might call their own competitions if needed. Here I would like to express full respect to transgenders and propose separate competitions for both transitions. 

Conservatives do not rule the world. Reason 3

Conservatives have been losing their influence and power due to the satiation of the technical evolution and the creation of perpendicular reality, which is called virtual reality.  These are two reasons I presented before. The third reason is similar, but has a different meaning and potentially may work for conservative thinking in the future. 

The mass production of goods and services has been the driver of technical evolution since the second half of the 1800s. Industrial production created a great demand for scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled workers. All these professions imply exceptional conservatism in everyday practice. These people ruled the world in line with technical progress for more than one century. They tried to transform extremely successful technical development into social progress. But failed. Capitalism is the domain of capital not related to human beings.

Instead of social progress, the conservatives invented an industry of exclusive goods and services for the broader quasi-elites - nouveau riches. To be exclusive is a synonym of having dominance. This is the dream of almost all not included. Exclusiveness means an individual approach - everything has to match the personality.  Mass production does not meet this requirement. Ordinary people feel like ordinary people before the technical progress makes it possible to provide individual solutions for almost everyone in the developed countries. Today, one can get an individual set of goods and services, with the latter growing much faster than the former, judging by the GDP structure in the developed countries. 

It could be the final victory for conservative thinking - this is the technical progress that provides this individual choice. But here we meet another problem. Do people really know what is their personality and what they really want to have?  The progress passed several levels of consumption. At the basic level, people consumed goods like food and clothing. With growing basic consumption and reduction in the everyday life risks, abstract thinking started to create material images like pictures and figures, which people consumed with increasing development in feelings and emotions. With time, people started to produce and consume practical (science) and imaginary (literature, music, philosophy, etc.) ideas. But now, most developed people consume the idea of how they look like when consuming ideas. Rational and spiritual ideas are second-rated now. 

All in all, we have many levels of personal consumption which may reveal personality.  Material and spiritual consumption are mainly conservative as based on the laws of the physical world and religious traditions. The most recent sort of consumption of the image of "how I myself consume various ideas" is absolutely detached from reality. This sort of consumption is not rational. It is even not irrational or spiritual. It is anti-rational and anti-spiritual. Here, this sort of consumption happily meets the liberal way of thinking, which does not follow any rational or spiritual requirements.  

An outbreak of ecstatic feelings is observed. The personality of ordinary people now is essentially the consumption of their own image, how they are consuming liberal ideas. No discussion is needed to feel right. No proof of own exceptionalism or supremacy is required. People are in the virtual world of their own perfection, as described in the post on Reason 2. This new Ubermensch (do not confuse with Uber drivers)  generation took the easiest way to express personality. 

Conservative thinking loses attractiveness because it requires more energy and time to get even to an average level. It does not give room for many people and suggest strict and uncompromised competition. Liberal thinking is open and has no limits: one can change own mind every second. Liberal thinking is attractive because the developed world is not risky and even the most idiotic and counterproductive ideas do not harm the overall technical and social progress. 

So far, so good. 

Conservatives do not rule the world. Reason 2

 The eternal dream of human beings (here I mean the loud majority)  in the developed world turned into reality - the world is not a dangerous place and rescue is so effective that one even puts own life at risk. The conservative progress  - the progress in the predictable and accountable domain of technical inventions and innovations is close to its end. The increment in general utility of everything related to the material world at every next step is considered with lowering enthusiasm - almost everything is granted to the majority.  

People now are looking for alternative sources of growth. The irony of the current situation is that the conservative progress made it possible to extend the growth into the virtual domain. Social networks provide a new opportunity - to get dominance by virtue of crazy or even idiotic behavior. The new measure of influence is the number of likes. Children now dream to become famous video bloggers. The new reality is virtual and the real-world competencies play no role anymore. As a result, conservatives lost a larger part of their influence on the majority of young minds (of course, there are smart young people who use both worlds for their own prosperity).  Liberal thinking much better fits this virtual world where murder is commonplace and violence is welcome. Any conservative restrictions meet fierce repulse. Conservatives created a new world out of their own control. The virtual world can easily kill conservative avatars in social networks.  

Conservatives, do not create monsters!

Conservatives do not rule the world. Reason 1

There are many reasons why conservatives are losing their power in the 21st century. I will try to formulate them one by one.

1. The main reason for the diminishing power of conservative thinking is its extreme success in the previous period. Conservatives used all possible resources (some of them absolutely immoral) to make human lives lengthy, healthy, and less risky. Technical progress and effective social hierarchy, which included well-organized protection of childhood and maternity, made live standards in developed countries extremely high. With time, these standards become an indispensable part of the living environment and now are accepted as granted, i.e. independent of personal efforts. The inherent risk aversion paradigm, which protected mankind for centuries, does not work anymore. For example, life expectancy has been growing in the USA since the beginning of the 20th but the length of healthy life has been decreasing since the 1980s-2000s. People rely on modern medicine and take quite risky actions and lifestyles. Such behavior is a clear indication of the unconditional trust in technical progress. The flip side of the unconditional trust and granted live standards is the diminishing influence of new technical innovations and technical progress as such. Conservative thinking is not attractive. People go for risk which they consider as freedom. 

The conservative thinking won the game - a non-risky world is finally created. Beware of turning dreams into reality.    

Why conservatives do not rule the world anymore?

In the previous two posts, I addressed several problems of liberal thinking. Essentially, they do not know where they go and change direction by a coin toss. The frequent change of freedom/fairness/equality/fairness/etc. meaning creates an illusion of fast progress, but they are actually lost in millions of irresolvable contradictions arising on the way to full righteousness. As I mentioned before, these legal/moral/physical/humanitarian/definitional/empirical/theoretical/etc. contradictions are not only irresolvable but also fully prohibited for discussion. Therefore, it seems that I treat liberals as pure evil in the flesh for social progress.  A reasonable question arises from such an assumption - why conservatives do not rule the world anymore if they are just opposite to the liberals?

Is any direction in liberal thinking a dead-end?

In the previous post, I have compared the methodology of thinking in conservative and liberal minds. Conservatives are simple - anything you are trying to prove should pass a strict testing procedure. The level of difficulty depends on the importance of the proposed change in thinking but any increment is practically irreversible. This makes technical progress based on solid knowledge so fast - new knowledge piles up. 

Liberal ideas do not undergo any strict proofing - just compare liberal mainstream discussions today, five years ago, twenty years ago, and so on. Many previous ideas are forgotten and understanding of freedom wobbles as the earth's rotation axis. This makes me suggest that any liberal idea is a dead-end. In practice, I cannot support the current version of liberal thinking since it will change spontaneously when a new "thinker" of socialism, liberalism, libertarianism, ...ism appears. Since the new path to social happiness is unpredictable and the current one will fade away in the near future it is conservative to ignore all versions of liberalism as leading to a dead-end(s).  The most conservative approach to liberalism would be to consider it as an instrument of dominance rather than an ideology. This is a dangerous instrument easily sharpened by stones of real social injustice and ancient myths of heaven justice. 

Why liberals are getting more and more aggressive. Methodological notes

  I wrote several posts on "liberals" and their comparison with "conservatives". This theme is endless, of course. Here, I address the difference between liberal and conservative approaches from the methodological point of view. 

As a physicist, I have to be very conservative and follow the well-developed scientific methodology in research and publications. Basically, any scientific fact is an observation projected to the domain of all available knowledge (experimental and theoretical), which is verified and falsified by the broader scientific community. (It does not mean that there are no mistakes in the available knowledge and not all physical publications are confirmed later on.) This means, that one has to meet several requirements when studying nature: checking internal consistency of a theory or experiment, finding corroborating observations and facts; prediction, (conduction of new experiments), and testing currently unknown observations, testing the limits of applicability (falsifiability), discussion with colleagues to assess the shortcomings and new ideas. For a scientist, the cost of error in natural sciences is high and this forces them to be very conservative. The error is usually final, i.e. it will never be reestimated as a success, as well as the reputation. A conservative mind is similar to the process of scientific study in hard sciences - it changes by small steps well-supported by practice and theory (aka wisdom). The overall progress in hard sciences is very fast, however. This is the result of a famous saying - do everything fast, i.e. slow but without interruptions.     

My observation of liberal minds and their products, so often in humanitarian sciences and politics, results in a suggestion that they follow some procedures opposite to those adopted in the hard sciences. Literally, one just need to negate all requirement, which I listed above and obtain the working requirements for a liberal mind processing. In the USA, the evolution of liberal thinking reached its ultimate point: no justification is needed for any theory. Just opposite - any justifiable theory is rejected as wrong without broader discussions, which are strictly prohibited. The theoretical domain is represented by small islands of historical dreams. The generation of new ideas and thoughts is rather a stochastic process based on a random combination of liberal bricks. The rate at which new liberal ideas/thoughts are generated is so high that their half-life is counted now in weeks and days. This makes the overall evolution in humanities and the liberal paradigm to be a random walk, with progress and regress equally probable. Essentially, they do not move at all in the fastly growing technical world.

The absence of progress and permanent failure to match any of the requirements adopted in adult sciences and to prove any consistent statement make the adepts of liberal thinking highly disappointed. The currently observed strong growth in aggressiveness is the result of this epic failure. Liberals have only one method to convince people - violence. The USA is the first playground for liberal activists. Conservatives, beware of liberals!