Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kellan on August 22, 2002, 04:43:10 pm
-
Here's the article that I was looking for earlier. It's from the Guardian, but is culled from the World Bank's 2002 development report. Having looked at the whole thing, it's not terribly different from the article - just a lot drier.
---
New York City in 2022. Half the 40 million people in the swarming metropolis are unemployed, the air is thick with pollution, food and water are as precious as jewels. This was the world of the future as envisaged in the sci-fi thriller, Soylent Green, in 1973. Now, according to the World Bank, it could come true unless there are dramatic and immediate changes to the way we live.
Unlike the Charlton Heston movie, the Bank does not suggest that we will be making food from dead bodies in 20 years' time. But its warning of an increasingly dysfunctional global society, with enormous pressure on basic resources such as water, energy and health, is remarkably similar.
Looking into its crystal ball, the Bank sees a world of nine billion people by mid-century generating a global GDP of $140 trillion a year. This staggering fourfold increase in the size of the world economy would be enough to guarantee a large-scale reduction in the 1.2 billion people living on less than a dollar a day, but the Bank argues that the price will be environmental catastrophe, social breakdown and lower living standards for everyone if policies remain unchanged.
Released to coincide with next week's summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, the Washington-based institution's annual world development report sounds the alarm bell for global leaders as they prepare for 10 days of talks, providing a nightmarish prophecy of what could happen if they fail to turn rhetoric into action.
It's not all bad news. The Bank says that economic growth is vital for tackling poverty, with a 3.6% a year increase in per capita incomes needed in developing countries if the world is to achieve the 2015 targets set by the United Nations of halving the number of people living on less than a dollar a day, reducing infant mortality by two thirds and giving every child a primary school education. It adds, however, that coordinating globally and acting locally will be critical to ensuring that gains in social indicators - such as incomes, literacy rates, or access to sanitation - of the past 20 years are not reversed by population growth pressures and unsustainable economic expansion.
"This growth must be achieved in a manner that preserves our future," said Ian Johnson, vice-president of the Bank's environmentally and socially sustainable development network. "It would be reckless of us to reach successfully the millennium development goals in 2015, only to be confronted by dysfunctional cities, dwindling water supplies, more inequality and conflict and even less crop land to sustain us than we have now."
The report contains a litany of potential ecological and social problems, from slum-ridden urban dystopias to an increase to the 1.3 billion people who already live on fragile lands which cannot sustain them. Already, it says, the "biosphere's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide without altering temperatures has been compromised because of heavy reliance on fossil fuels for energy. Greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow unless a concerted effort is made to increase energy efficiency and reduce dependency on fossil fuels."
Nearly two million hectares of land worldwide (23% of all crop land, pasture, forest and woodland) have been degraded since the 1950s, a fifth of all tropical forests have been cleared since 1960 and one third of terrestial biodiversity is squeezed into vulnerable habitats making up just 1.4% of the earth's surface.
Unsurprisingly, the Bank concludes that these trends cannot continue. "The $140 trillion world of five decades' time simply cannot be sustained on current production and consumption patterns," said Nick Stern, the Bank's chief economist. "A major transformation, beginning in the rich countries, will be needed to ensure that poor people have an opportunity to participate, and that the environment is not damaged in a way that undermines their opportunities for the future."
So what is the Bank's blueprint for sustainable development? It says:
· developing countries should act to clean up their governments, promoting participation and democracy, inclusiveness and transparency as they build the institutions needed to manage their resources;
· rich countries need to be less selfish by increasing aid, offering more generous debt relief, opening their markets to developing country exporters and helping transfer technologies needed to prevent diseases, increase energy efficiency and bolster agricultural productivity;
· civil society organisations should be encouraged to serve as a voice for the weak and powerless, and to provide independent verification of public, private and non-governmental performance;
· private firms should be more focused on sustainability in their day to day activities, and have incentives to pursue profit while advancing environmental and social objectives.
"The world must act to help its poorest people manage their own resources and build their productivity and incomes now, to empower these communities and help them prepare for the demands of the decades ahead," said Mr Stern. "Rich countries can take such a step by opening their markets to developing world exports and by abandoning agricultural subsidies and other barriers to trade that depress prices and limit market opportunities for the very goods that poor people produce most competitively."
Given that the average income in the richest 20 countries in the world is 37 times that in the poorest 20, the Bank feels that the rich west is in a position to make concessions. "It seems to me there is a certain hypocrisy about rich countries telling poor countries to undertake radical reform. The kind of changes we have got to make in the west are much smaller than the kinds of reforms rich countries are asking poor countries to make all the time," Mr Stern told the Guardian.
So far, the willingness of the developed west to abandon protectonist policies has not been much in evidence and, as the Bank recognises in four open questions posed in the conclusion to the report, there are potential pitfalls ahead.
The first is the issue of when consumption is overconsumption. Telling consumers in the west that they have to cut back is not relished by politicians. But the Bank wonders whether consumption will become the modern equivalent of the Cold War arms race; will people in the developing world see the norm as patterns of consumption in the west?
The second vexed issue highlighted by the report is the future of agriculture and of genetically modified organisms. The United States is eager to export GM foods to developing countries, often in the teeth of ferocious local opposition. Should this be encouraged? The Bank is not sure. "Applying the precautionary principle - balancing risks to food safety and the environment against prospects for development and poverty alleviation - will be a difficult task, requiring a broader debate on credible information."
Third, the Bank is concerned about the system of intellectual property rights presided over by the World Trade Organisation. How can the interests of patent holders be balanced against those of the users of products? The system in place has strengthened the hand of western corporations at the expense of poor countries. The potential for unequal outcomes is "worrisome", the Bank says.
Finally, what are the prospects for global migration? The report says that global inequality, combined with demographic trends, will create ever more pressure for migration. "Dealing with this pressure is a challenge worldwide."
The report concludes that the planet will face predictable challenges which will increase in intensity over the coming decades. But the fact that the Bank has no pat answers to its four questions suggests that they will take years, if not decades, to resolve. If the Bank is right, the most precious resource of all over the next half century could be time.
Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World. This report is available on http://www.worldbank.org/wdr
---
Above all else, that is why I dislike America. Now, given that we're all going to be living with this problem for the next 50 years, I'd like to know what you think. :)
-
The human race is the most dangerous virus on Earth. We move into an area, adapt it to meet our needs, drain it of its resources, double our numbers, and move on, leaving behind a large desert behind us. While this is not something we see everyday, this is exactly what we are doing when you look at the planet as a whole, and someday when we run out of resources here we will look to another planet to ruin, presumably Mars.
EDIT: as for the US consuming the more energy than any other nation, the US also produces more energy than any other nation. While polution may be bad in some parts of the US, the US also has more trees than many other nations and many nations (3rd world in particular) are far worse about overpopulation, unimployment, and polution. Two sides to every coin.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Given that the average income in the richest 20 countries in the world is 37 times that in the poorest 20, the Bank feels that the rich west is in a position to make concessions. "It seems to me there is a certain hypocrisy about rich countries telling poor countries to undertake radical reform. The kind of changes we have got to make in the west are much smaller than the kinds of reforms rich countries are asking poor countries to make all the time," Mr Stern told the Guardian.
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
rich countries need to be less selfish by increasing aid, offering more generous debt relief, opening their markets to developing country exporters and helping transfer technologies needed to prevent diseases, increase energy efficiency and bolster agricultural productivity
What's to encourage them to do anything if we keep giving them money?
So far, the willingness of the developed west to abandon protectonist policies has not been much in evidence
Yah, it was called colonialism, we dumped money on countries and expected something out of it. I'd rather nations work on their own problems before shelling out money to other nations
The second vexed issue highlighted by the report is the future of agriculture and of genetically modified organisms. The United States is eager to export GM foods to developing countries, often in the teeth of ferocious local opposition. Should this be encouraged? The Bank is not sure. "Applying the precautionary principle - balancing risks to food safety and the environment against prospects for development and poverty alleviation - will be a difficult task, requiring a broader debate on credible information."
How dare we try and help world hunger by growing foods that are in most senses better, but no one wants them because they're evil, evil foods cause they aren't natural
Finally, what are the prospects for global migration? The report says that global inequality, combined with demographic trends, will create ever more pressure for migration. "Dealing with this pressure is a challenge worldwide."
People are tired of their crap nations and want to move, big shock, maybe if the problems above were solved, this wouldn't happen.
The report concludes that the planet will face predictable challenges which will increase in intensity over the coming decades.
I could have told you that
If the Bank is right, the most precious resource of all over the next half century could be time.
We have all the time in the world, if it takes 100 years, it takes a hundred years, if you mean "before we blow the place up" well that's all we need are more developed countries that want to flex their political might.
Above all else, that is why I dislike America.
Because we were successful and they aren't? You can be sure we're giving a lot
Now, given that we're all going to be living with this problem for the next 50 years, I'd like to know what you think. :)
I don't think you wanna know what I think
-
I think this chaos should continue and wipe out the human race.. and then it'll be all nice and clean and fresh :nod:
-
I agree with most of BL's stuff there. Also, we may be wiping out the so-called "natural" resources of the planet, but I doubt we will be so reliant on them for very long.
-
As an aside, did anyone notice that the title of this topic is (purposefully or not, I do not know...) a near-direct quote from Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? :D
-
Take that Mother Nature!
:lol:
-
Telling consumers in the west that they have to cut back is not relished by politicians.
Congress sucks. Bush sucks. My Government sucks.
Sorry, had to get that out of my system.
I'm beginning to partly understand why the Middle East hates us so much.
-
So let's hate them in return. :D
-
A good percentage of us already does, I think :p
-
lol...but we're not crashing things into their huts, now are we?
-
unless there is some sort of population controle we will never have enough food
starvation I guess is a good fall back, would cull from the weakest amung us, but I would rather have something a little less unpleasent,
we can't do manditory population controle like China, that just isn't right, but it is a little better than mass starvation,
if just the developed contries do it then we'll go extinct before too long (out produced by the poorer nations where large families are a priority),
nope, it looks like there is no happy way out of this
well that's what nukes are for
now I would like to know why everyone is so afraid of geneticly modified food
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
now I would like to know why everyone is so afraid of geneticly modified food
considering that many humans' minds are devoted to religious organizations and various deities....
-
their afraid that it might have adverse side affects, you know like when they said that DDT was harmless?
-
OK what sounds more likely to cause harmfull side effects,
induceing random mutations with radiation
altering a specific gene to make a specific change
useing toxic poisons to kill insects like DDT
adding a gene from a insectisidal bacteria that atacks insects at there base (i.e. non-alciline) digestive system (meaning as long as you use acid to digest you're food you'll be fine)
breeding a poison out of something
cutting it out geneticaly
-
I know, it makes no sense that people are afraid of it. I'm all for it, a plant that defends itself from bugs, makes better tasting produce, and more of it sounds perfectly ok to me...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I agree with most of BL's stuff there.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
What's to encourage them to do anything if we keep giving them money?
Have you seen what happened to Argentina???
The IMF, which is controlled by the usa government, dissaproved a loan that would help them. In one night, their economy crashes. Then, the american governement comes and give them the money. Of course, now the country is obligated to the americans.
Originally posted by Analazon
I know, it makes no sense that people are afraid of it. I'm all for it, a plant that defends itself from bugs, makes better tasting produce, and more of it sounds perfectly ok to me...
And what if it starts defending itself from us? There is a tree in Africa that when a population of plant eating animals starts eating too much, it starts producing a poison, killing the animals. Imagine what would happen if a mutated plant, would develop mechanisms like that.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I agree with most of BL's stuff there. Also, we may be wiping out the so-called "natural" resources of the planet, but I doubt we will be so reliant on them for very long.
We can't destroy the natural world that we are currently so reliant on, on the promise that we'll have some kind of deus ex machina salvation. Besides, given the huge technological requirements of building our own biospheres or modifying our bodies to tolerate the new one, developing countries (and the poor in our own) would probably be left out. You'd be sacrificing billions of people, simply because you aren't prepared to change the way we live now.
nope, it looks like there is no happy way out of this
[/b]
:wtf: Are you crazy? :wtf: You really want to see some Hot Nuke Action™, don't you Bobb? I'm sure that there are many, many more ways that food could be managed and population culled (even something like Death Camps is less harmful to the environment). Besides, in asserting that there's never enough food you're missing 2 things: firstly, that the Malthusian theory of geometric population growth vs. numeric crop yield growth was proved wrong 100 years ago - and second, that most Western countries have too much food. I mean, every time I go to work I see fat people, and when I was in America I actually saw a woman who was in a wheelchair because she was too fat to stand up. :blah:
Oh, and Sandwich - I didn't intend the title to be a FF quote - I never even saw the movie. :p
Blue Lion: without quoting your every word, I think you're wrong. So there.
If the countries that were overpopulated and starving to death simply did so because their countries were deserts, poor for growing crops and so on, we should still have a moral obligation (there's that word again, CP) to help them. Bush is a fairly devout Christian, and yet he walks by on the other side, right?
However, the West has to hold at least some of the blame for the impoverishment of the Third World. When settlers arrived two or three centuries ago, the Third World did not have the problems it did now. In order to get a large local workforce, and seemingly because the land could support it, settlers encouraged natives to have larger families. They also introduced Catholicism, a religion which forbids the use of contraceptive devices. On that note, Western devices like contraceptives are now frowned upon in many African nations because they are something that belongs to "white men".
Throughout the history of colonialism and through to the 21st Century, the settler nations (and America, Japan, etc etc) exploited the Third World by producing goods there at far below the market wage - basically we've used the Third World to get cheap stuff, regardless of the consequences. We also sold them bad loans, knowing that they could not repay them. In effect, we have been taking the money necessary for development from the Third World for years - far more than the aid we have given.
Finally, we don't have time as an unlimited resource. Okay, the world isn't going to blow up or anything, but by doing nothing, more and more people slip below the line of absolute povery (living on less than $1 per day), more will starve and die, environmental damage in our own countries will worsen, with more flooding, smog, etc. I'd hope that at least you can agree that things can't go on as they are without some fairly serious effects.
Anyway - even if I don't agree with you, it gives me an idea of what I'm up against. ;)
-
Everything that study said is true.. So what do you want, to live in a perfect world? Your a part of the Human race so guess what? It's not gonna happen... Maybe there's a chance if enough evolve into Homo-Superior but not bloody likely! Meaning that we went from clubbing animals manually for food and communicating by pointing at each other, To electrocuting cattle for our Whoppers and Internet porn (signs of a technologicly advanced civilization!) , BUT our social evolution hasn't caught up with the physical. We are the undisputed masters of this planet (and our local area of space unless you green guys wanna speak up!) We have the technology to create long term plans for lengthining life spans, reduction of diseases, mining OTHER planets for resources, energy effinciency, blah blah blah. BUT do we band to gether and "Just do It!" (copyright Nike TM), f**k no, cause we are homo-sapiens, just a few chromosones off from homer-Sapien :lol: actually Cro-magnon. What I am talking about is an Internal evolution mentally and spiritually. Where we can set aside our petty differences (skin color,religion, cable or satelite TV, ECT...) and get in there for the species (from my favorite line in Starship troopers). Cause I tell you this much I don't see much hope for 'future' generations if the same old Sh*t just keeps comming around, everyone wants to flush the toilet, but no one want to be the one to plunge it first!
:blah: :blah: :blah:
IS it time for Springer yet (Steve!Steve!Steve!) :cool:
-
you're all a bunch of hippies.
-
First, make your dumbass president ( "misty Bish" ) accept the Tokyo act for the pollution reduction, that would be a little, but real step forward.
-
silly little humans.
1. the hole in the ozone layer is a natural cycle the earth goes through.
2. there is global warming on pluto, but i don't see any smoke stacks there.
3. a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries where there is no industry that could produce pollution.
4. those naturalists say that we are no different from the animals, yet they say we are doing all these bad things to the earth. if we are no different than the animals and are part of nature, than all this pollution and stuff is really just natural.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
First, make your dumbass president ( "misty Bish" ) accept the Tokyo act for the pollution reduction, that would be a little, but real step forward.
Funny, I read articles about this and related topics in this weeks Macleans.
The Kyoto agreement isn't the be-all end-all of pollution limitations, now if enviromentalists stopped with the 'all or nothing' approach and instead encouraged all efforts to reduce pollution we'd get more done.
One hypothetical example used was a company that shut down 25% of its plants to install new filters to reduce emissions would normally have people screaming Why not the other 75%?
Not the most encouraging thing to say, wouldn't you agree? If someone's going to ***** if I fix some of my plants - and probably ***** more because I didn't do all of them than if I just left them alone - I certainly wouldn't be jumping to fix them. It's not cheap, and frankly, environmentalists need to stop treating corporations and scientists (such as those making GE foods) as the enemy. It draws a line in the sand and hampers any efforts to actually tackle the problem.
Oh, and a little fact about the Kyoto agreement... the US Senate voted 95 to 0 against it in 1997. That was barely into Clinton's second term. If you're going to bash Bush, as least get some facts straight first.
-
hey, and what about the last one? not really up to date, Shrike.
And the question is not about people complaining about doing only 25% or whatever, the pb is that 25% is better than nothing. i don't know what kind of weird counter argument that is, but I bet you could have found a better one, heh?
Oh, and I need no reason to bash Bush, just listen to him when he goes "on air", he needs no help to bash himself up :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kellan
New York City in 2022. Half the 40 million people in the swarming metropolis are unemployed, the air is thick with pollution, food and water are as precious as jewels. This was the world of the future as envisaged in the sci-fi thriller, Soylent Green, in 1973.
Distopia is the way everythings' going. Unfortunately, if the current trends are viewed as objects, the "intertia" behind them is nearly unstoppable without a unified response from the worlds population, and we all know how likely that is.
It's not all bad news. The Bank says that economic growth is vital for tackling poverty, with a 3.6% a year increase in per capita incomes needed in developing countries if the world is to achieve the 2015 targets set by the United Nations
Economies aren't flexible enough for the kind of action we need, the whole thing needs to be thrown out of the window and a better system put in place. If the brilliant economic and financial minds of today actually put some effort into thinking differently instead of staunchly defending a broken system, we might make some progress.
Nearly two million hectares of land worldwide (23% of all crop land, pasture, forest and woodland) have been degraded since the 1950s, a fifth of all tropical forests have been cleared since 1960 and one third of terrestial biodiversity is squeezed into vulnerable habitats making up just 1.4% of the earth's surface.
Which means everyone will have to SHUT THE F**K UP about genetic engineering & biotechnology- we need this technology to survive now, and none of your moral arguments will change this fact.
The first is the issue of when consumption is overconsumption. Telling consumers in the west that they have to cut back is not relished by politicians. But the Bank wonders whether consumption will become the modern equivalent of the Cold War arms race; will people in the developing world see the norm as patterns of consumption in the west?
The answer is not fusion power or western levels of consumerism in third world countries - this would simlpy make for a hypermalthusian scenario.
The second vexed issue highlighted by the report is the future of agriculture and of genetically modified organisms. The United States is eager to export GM foods to developing countries, often in the teeth of ferocious local opposition. Should this be encouraged? The Bank is not sure. "Applying the precautionary principle - balancing risks to food safety and the environment against prospects for development and poverty alleviation - will be a difficult task, requiring a broader debate on credible information."
I.E, the "god-squad" (note that god is spelt without a capital "g")
Well, your precious morals will kill us all for no other reason than your inflexibility. pro-GM people are quite happy to take precautions and make intelligent concessions, whereas anti-GM people just want to get in the way - any way they can
Third, the Bank is concerned about the system of intellectual property rights presided over by the World Trade Organisation. How can the interests of patent holders be balanced against those of the users of products? The system in place has strengthened the hand of western corporations at the expense of poor countries. The potential for unequal outcomes is "worrisome", the Bank says.
How can the interests of patent holders be balanced under any rational thought process?
The current IP system is counter-productive and repressive in the extreme, i've been saying this for four years and i'll keep saying it until someone sits up and takes notice.
Finally, what are the prospects for global migration? The report says that global inequality, combined with demographic trends, will create ever more pressure for migration. "Dealing with this pressure is a challenge worldwide."
What about migration to other worlds? pumping up a space program and making some effort to terraform or at least move off this planet would releive population strain (this is a highly long-term view, however)
the most precious resource of all over the next half century could be time.
Or origional thinking and losing the irrational fear of the new.
America is merely the most extreme case of how small-minded western nations, which live by 18th century principles still, have become.
The worst thing is there's no escape, if you don't want to live the way they dictate you can't go somewhere else because all that land is claimed.
There's nowhere left to run and we can't reach the people in charge to make them see what they're doing.
What do you do? thats' the priceless question.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
If you're going to bash Bush, as least get some facts straight first.
You're nitpicking while avoiding the larger issue which transcends these arguments.
Bush..Clinton....the people who pulled the strings said "no" and thus obviously don't have the peoples' best interests at heart, or failing that have become overly-insulated.
Face it, democracy is the stillborn child of feudalism.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Blue Lion: without quoting your every word, I think you're wrong. So there.
Thanks, and I think you're a dreamer, what's your point?
Finally, we don't have time as an unlimited resource. Okay, the world isn't going to blow up or anything, but by doing nothing, more and more people slip below the line of absolute povery (living on less than $1 per day), more will starve and die, environmental damage in our own countries will worsen, with more flooding, smog, etc. I'd hope that at least you can agree that things can't go on as they are without some fairly serious effects.
Maybe you aren't getting the point, people are going to die from starvation tommorow, and the next day, and the next. Telling me people are starving is nothing new, but you will not solve the worlds economic problems overnight, or even in ten years. It's a long process and a lot of people aren't going to want to help, deal.
Anyway - even if I don't agree with you, it gives me an idea of what I'm up against. ;)
Let me remind you of something, every nation that has money, worked for it, even the US :eek2: I did not turn 18 and the government came to me and said "Boy you lucked out being an American eh? Here's your million dollars, your car and your house" No, we all worked for it, everyone earned it, and when it's gone they don't just go into their pockets and pull out more. They aren't going to give their hard earned money to nations who don't have any, out of the goodness of their hearts.
Why am I going to spend my money developing a nation that will turn around and compete with me on the global economy to try and take my money? Do Coke and Pepsi run around forming soft drink corporations to compete againest them out of the goodness of their hearts? We have people here who live below the poverty line. We have enough goddamn problems without the collective weight of the world. I'm very sorry these people are living in **** nations and dying, blame their governments for screwing them over, not me.
-
there will always be people starving to death, if we feed the ones there are now then they will rase there population untill there all starving again
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I agree with most of BL's stuff there. Also, we may be wiping out the so-called "natural" resources of the planet, but I doubt we will be so reliant on them for very long.
Bah....ever compared grass to astroturf? There's your argument against the exploitation of the natural world right there.
-
Firsty, I enjoy being a hippy. Secondly, it's fun to bash Bush - but in all seriousness, I realise that the Kyoto Protocol is just the first tiny step towards climate change reduction. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. It's not the be-all-and-end-all because it won't solve everything. The fact that people can't sign onto an already outdated stepping stone is a bad sign.
Originally posted by Carl
1. the hole in the ozone layer is a natural cycle the earth goes through.
Proof, please.
3. a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries where there is no industry that could produce pollution.[/b]
Now that is naive. In fact, Third World countries do have heavy industries if you take a look - because they have a lot of raw ores, produce our goods, etc. The problem is that their machinery is old and very pollutant because they can't afford the cleaner machinery we have the luxury of. Christ, most of it is pre 1979 oil-powered stuff.
wEvil - this is an article I reproduced unedited not because I agreed with every word, but because I thought it raised some interesting issues, considering it was written by a right-wing financial institution. In other words, it wasn't too lefty like you and I would like to scare off everyone else. :)
Which means everyone will have to SHUT THE F**K UP about genetic engineering & biotechnology- we need this technology to survive now, and none of your moral arguments will change this fact. Well, your precious morals will kill us all for no other reason than your inflexibility. pro-GM people are quite happy to take precautions and make intelligent concessions, whereas anti-GM people just want to get in the way - any way they can[/b]
I never said I was anti-GM - I actually think it's a pretty good thing if it saves lives, and that most of the negative press is scaremongering by people who should know better but are tied to ideological positions by their other beliefs. However, could everyone stop going on about Malthus? He was wrong. He was wrong 100 years ago, and he's wrong now.
Let me remind you of something, every nation that has money, worked for it, even the US I did not turn 18 and the government came to me and said "Boy you lucked out being an American eh? Here's your million dollars, your car and your house" No, we all worked for it, everyone earned it, and when it's gone they don't just go into their pockets and pull out more. They aren't going to give their hard earned money to nations who don't have any, out of the goodness of their hearts.
Why am I going to spend my money developing a nation that will turn around and compete with me on the global economy to try and take my money? Do Coke and Pepsi run around forming soft drink corporations to compete againest them out of the goodness of their hearts? We have people here who live below the poverty line. We have enough goddamn problems without the collective weight of the world. I'm very sorry these people are living in **** nations and dying, blame their governments for screwing them over, not me.[/b]
[/size]
:ha: :ha: :ha:
Of course you were lucky to be born American. There's nothing that makes you inherently American from pre-birth (except having American parents...but you could be anyone from that).
I hope that you realise that competition breeds both wealth and good prices for consumers under a market system. It encourages firms to improve their products to retain market share, and to make efficieny gains. It avoids the pitfalls of monopolies. Consumers get a better deal because prices fall. Therefore, if America was in competition for some products you'd gain in lower prices just as much as you'd lose in lost business.
As for "their governments screwing them over", you have to remember that we also screwed their governments over first. Frankly, the insinuation in your post that Third World countries are on the ropes because their governments are uniformly corrupt and ours are sanguine borders on racism. Anyway, the world is far too interconnected to pin the blame on any one government. The poverty in the Third World is due to a combination of overpopulation, poor land, misgovernment and maltreatment by foreign powers. You can't divorce any country from the world around it in our globalized world.
And besides, disregarding that - what did these people do to deserve such crap land and crap lives? We've already mentioned that people don't, generally speaking have power over their governments. It's no different in Algeria than it is in America. Are you saying that from birth these people somehow deserve their fate, and we're under no obligation to help our fellow man?
Remember that next time you need the care of a doctor or someone - Medicare, preferably. :p
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Frankly, the insinuation in your post that Third World countries are on the ropes because their governments are uniformly corrupt and ours are sanguine borders on racism.
Because I think their governments aren't running things right? They are 3rd world countries for a reason, and the reasons differ. Not because they're a different race. :rolleyes:
The poverty in the Third World is due to a combination of overpopulation
Cause that's my fault these people can't stop having kids that they can't afford
poor land
My fault too
misgovernment
Bingo
and maltreatment by foreign powers.
When you can answer why these nations are mistreated by foreign powers, you'll have your answer. But I'll save you the trouble.....
misgovernment
And besides, disregarding that - what did these people do to deserve such crap land and crap lives?
Do they deserve it? No. is it what they have? Yes
We've already mentioned that people don't, generally speaking have power over their governments.
And who's fault is that? Mine?
It's no different in Algeria than it is in America. Are you saying that from birth these people somehow deserve their fate, and we're under no obligation to help our fellow man?
No, I'm saying they do not deserve my money because they are in a hellhole.
Remember that next time you need the care of a doctor or someone - Medicare, preferably. :p
Yah, I'll pay for it, with my money, not run up to my rich lawyer neighbor and demand money from him cause he's richer than me :rolleyes:
-
We can't destroy the natural world that we are currently so reliant on, on the promise that we'll have some kind of deus ex machina salvation. Besides, given the huge technological requirements of building our own biospheres or modifying our bodies to tolerate the new one, developing countries (and the poor in our own) would probably be left out. You'd be sacrificing billions of people, simply because you aren't prepared to change the way we live now.
It does not matter; if we keep going at even half the current rate of technological advance and destroy the natural resources twice as fast as we are doing now, we will still be fine with lots of time/resources to spare. Heck, we already have the basic necessary things: food (genetically engineered plants), water (we are not going to be able to vaporize all of the oceans even if we tried, and there are methods of purifying the water) and air (this can be extracted from the water). It is now only a matter of engineering, or in other words, to make these things mainstream, which might take a little while, but there is definitely no reason to already start saying "the biosphere is going away; we're all gonna die!" :D
we should still have a moral obligation
Well, we do not. :p :ha:
Which means everyone will have to SHUT THE F**K UP about genetic engineering & biotechnology- we need this technology to survive now, and none of your moral arguments will change this fact.
heh, messing up the environment might actually be a good thing in this way... :D
Bah....ever compared grass to astroturf? There's your argument against the exploitation of the natural world right there.
What is this "astroturf?" And anyway, why do we need grass? (few people actually eat grass)
Are you saying that from birth these people somehow deserve their fate, and we're under no obligation to help our fellow man?
That is precisely what I am saying. First of all, everybody deserves everything and nothing; this whole concept of "deserve" has no absolute meaning. Who is to decide who is "deserving" of something? Secondly, one could argue like this for anything; let me think...how about saying that the prey species in any ecosystem does not "deserve" to get eaten by the predator species? :D
-
Originally posted by wEvil
You're nitpicking while avoiding the larger issue which transcends these arguments.
Bush..Clinton....the people who pulled the strings said "no" and thus obviously don't have the peoples' best interests at heart, or failing that have become overly-insulated.
Face it, democracy is the stillborn child of feudalism.
Not really..... in case you didn't notice it, the comment about Bush was merely added onto the end of my post.
The US government has the best interests of the people at heart - the US people. The priorities may be wrong, but those are the priorities that the people wanted.
The main point of my argument is that there is too much of a divide between 'greens' and 'corps'. We can clean the world up, but both sides need to meet in the middle. We cannot simply dismantle our factories and refineries, but we cannot go on polluting like we are either.
Like everything, we need a compromise, and unfortunately the 'greens' are the main roadblock there.
I suggest you read this article from TIME magazine. It's quite interesting and shows the problems with current environmental groups.
http://www.time.com/time/2002/greencentury/engroups.html
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Now that is naive. In fact, Third World countries do have heavy industries if you take a look
please look again at what i said:
"a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries where there is no industry that could produce pollution."
i did not say:
"a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries. third world countries don't have alot of industry that could cause pollution"
which is what you thought i said for some reason.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Cause that's my fault these people can't stop having kids that they can't afford
In some government(there's at least one in the Balkans) abortion is illegal and thus some have to have children they can't afford. The children end up on the streets, where sniffing glue is common.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
In some government(there's at least one in the Balkans) abortion is illegal and thus some have to have children they can't afford. The children end up on the streets, where sniffing glue is common.
Again that's a local government thing and not a US or anyone elses problem. Stop these parents from having so many kids instead of having us pay for them.
-
So we should stop caring about them?
-
So I should forget the people here in THIS nation with problems to help those in others?
-
We should help as many people as we can. I don't give a damn what anybody's nationality is.
-
Well I do, seems kinda silly to help everyone else and have my own countrymen live worse off.
-
Got a point, strange how the news in our country covers poor people from other countrys and not ours.
Propaganda!
-
there will always be people in our contry with problems, I care but there has to be a cutoff point, lets say 10% of Americans are living in poor conditions (but better than most of the rest of the world), well there are people living in CAVES in western China, well acutaly there not even real caves there more like muddy holes in the ground
I wish we could do something but this is more of something they have to do themselves, it is less the Chinees governments fault (this one particular issue) and more of people haveing kids they can't suport
CP5670- you may not beleve morals\ethics are going to exist for ever but you cannot deny there current exsistance and influence in the minds of people around the world, therefore they are a variable that you must take into acount for the world as it is now
this isn't in responce to anything in particular
-
Of course it is being taken into account, and it is also being taken into account that people's morals can be switched around quite easily, showing the ethical values are constantly changing. As a system that today's world operates on, these ethics can therefore be exploited to get people to do what you want. ;7 :D
We should help as many people as we can. I don't give a damn what anybody's nationality is.
Sorry, but that is not the way the world works today. A government exists for the welfare of the people of its nation only. And anyway, why should we unless we get something out of it?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Sorry, that's not the way the world works.
:lol:
What we need is a new hitler-esque figure who has the worlds goodness in mind (i.e very unlikely....)
By the way... is personality/ambition actually coded in DNA? It seems half of my classmates are afraid we'll clone a "hitler" who'll kill us all :p
-
That would be very nice, but the problem is that if he did not have personal ambition in mind, he would never attain power in the first place; the best solution to put a computer up and have it run the world. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That would be very nice, but the problem is that if he did not have personal ambition in mind, he would never attain power in the first place; the best solution to put a computer up and have it run the world. :D
Then whoever programs / builds / maintains the computer rules the world.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Sorry, but that is not the way the world works today. A government exists for the welfare of the people of its nation only. And anyway, why should we unless we get something out of it?
Looks like I've finally influenced someone with my way of thinking ;7
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
:lol:
What we need is a new hitler-esque figure who has the worlds goodness in mind (i.e very unlikely....)
By the way... is personality/ambition actually coded in DNA? It seems half of my classmates are afraid we'll clone a "hitler" who'll kill us all :p
DNA did not make Hitler an arsehole. Life and people made him that. Theorehtically, one could go back in time, and somehow change the course of events in Hitler's life to make him a nice cuddly dictator who loved everyone including the jews.
-
Originally posted by vyper
...change the course of events in Hitler's life to make him a nice cuddly dictator who loved everyone...
:wtf: :nervous: :wtf:
-
Originally posted by vyper
DNA did not make Hitler an arsehole. Life and people made him that. Theorehtically, one could go back in time, and somehow change the course of events in Hitler's life to make him a nice cuddly dictator who loved everyone including the jews.
Or, just make sure he died from being gassed in WW1 :nod:
-
Someone said that "a lot of pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries where there is no industry that could cause pollution." May I remind this person that since we all live on the one big ball that is called the Earth, we are all subject to the same effect, called weather. Which includes things such as currents, both air and water, which happen to carry thigs from one place to another. The recently discovered dirty cloud hanging over much of Asia helps to illustrate that point - some of the cloud is over the ocean, yet the ocean has no industrial capabilities. Please let us know if that comment should now be "a lot of pollution seems to originate in...."
Another person had a charming little patriotic rant about how their nation worked for their money, then went on about fearing competing economies as if it were more important than the factor of survival. What about the little countries that these bigger countries step on? Would manufacturers of those overly featured sports shoes still be as successful if they used cheap Asian labour in overseas sweat shops?
Someone also mentined the fact that the ozone layer hole is a natural cycle. What is there to say that the hole isn't being artifically provoked? Would this personc are tor efute the amount of ozone depleting pollution being introduced into the atmosphere, or deny the very checmical process that occurs to break down ozone?
A mention was made of 3rd world countries having large families, and that this contributes to their problem. Why do they have large families? Because they keep dying, that's why. What's the use of having only one or two kids that will most likely die due to their envorinment, when having more kids means the chances of at least one surviving can be increased. Of course having less children would be a benefit, but something has to ve done about their surroundings to ensure the survival of the single child.
Early in the piece someone said that the US has more trees than many nations, but does the US also partake in excessive logging, like in countries such as Australia, to the point where the trees are being destroyed faster than they are being replaced? Though I'm sure some people won't worry - they're sitting back and hoping that technology can take over in the form of CO2 scrubbers big enough to service entire nations. At least, before the trees all get taken out...
One thing that particularly struck me was a person saying that someone was a dreamer for thinking in a hippy-like manner. Why is this the case? Why isn't that person the dreamer for believing that things are going to turn out alright just the way they are? For that matter, why is dreaming such a problem? Where else are ideas and ambitions to actually do something going to come from?
To get to another included subject, GM foods can potentially hold the answer to some problems. However there is still much work that needs to be done. Much work in studying the effects that modifications create (natural modifications have had a long time for the effects to become prominent, and often the changes are small), as well as making sure procedural controls are in place. Anyone catch word of the UK's recent "issues" with GM testing and resulting contamination? Similar events, such as contaminations and outbreaks have happened with far deadlier stuff, remember that this stuff happens with GM and non-GM stuff alike.
Now I shall get off my box/high horse and wait for the howls of hippie and dreamer :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:wtf: :nervous: :wtf:
Alright, so not all my ideas are practical... :rolleyes:
-
I'm all for GM crops but there is caution to take with them, if you breed some kind of organism that kills off bugs that try to eat it you can cause serious ecelogical harm, not just killing insects but having a "super-crop" spread across the planet destroying almost any ecosystem because of its lack of natural population control. Not likely that square watermelons will destroy the earth but its a possibility that we could be unleashing things that are too good at survival.. like us :D
Im not sure if this is even possible but could it be possible to speed up evolution of other animals by altering one organism?
For example: what if you have a crop that excrets a chemical that kills its natural preditor, eventually one of those predadors will somehow survive and pass that gene on so could multicellular life evolve at a faster rate?
-
Oh and speaking global catastrophe... did anyone read that article in Discover Magazine about how global warming may actually cause an ice age? I wont even try to explain it because I would probably explain it wrong :)
-
Then whoever programs / builds / maintains the computer rules the world.
The best way to overcome the problem of a biased programmer that designs the computer software would be to have several guys all working on the project, but all of which are bitterly opposed to each other and are at each other's throats at all times. That way, there will not be anything in the program to favor one party because another party would then find out. :D (Hitler used a similar technique when picking his top officers)
Looks like I've finally influenced someone with my way of thinking ;7
hey I have always been like this but I loved that statement of yours a while ago: "governments exist to protect their people." :D
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Because I think their governments aren't running things right? They are 3rd world countries for a reason, and the reasons differ. Not because they're a different race. :rolleyes:
Yes, but - you are suggesting that all of their governments in the course of history have been uniformly corrupt or incompetent. Whilst I'm not saying that you're attributing it to "because they're black" soley, there is the suggestion that this may be a reason if you make such an exculsivist statement.
Cause that's my fault these people can't stop having kids that they can't afford[/b]
1. As Kazashi said, their kids keep dying. So they have a lot.
2. We forced a religion called Catholicism on them - which forbids contraception.
3. Contraceptives are expensive in African countries an have the patina of apartheid.
4. Don't bull**** me about abstinence. I mean it.
My fault too[/b]
It's not your fault that they have crap land, but it's not their fault either. So what, you gonna let them rot on it just because we were lucky enough to be born where the land is better, and not so important for survival?
Bingo[/b]
It's a factor, not the be-all-and-end-all. We could have reduced the potential for mismanagement by governments if we didn't sell them weapons when we know that they can't feed their people, or sell them bad loans, oil-powered machinery etc.
Do they deserve it? No. is it what they have? Yes. And who's fault is that? Mine? No, I'm saying they do not deserve my money because they are in a hellhole.[/b]
Again, no. But it's not theirs.
I have a question for you. Do you give to charities? Y'know, help the elderly in the community, or guide dogs, or something like that? Ever, in your life?
By applying the logic you have to the Third World, allow me to extrapolate.
1. Do blind people deserve my help, or the forbearance of society because they're blind? No.
2. Do sick people deserve the help of others to get them to a hospital or the help of a doctor to cure them? No.
3. Did the victims of September 11th deserve our help to save their lives? No.
Which, I guess just goes to prove CP's point that the concept of deserving is meaningless. :p
It does not matter; if we keep going at even half the current rate of technological advance and destroy the natural resources twice as fast as we are doing now, we will still be fine with lots of time/resources to spare. Heck, we already have the basic necessary things: food (genetically engineered plants), water (we are not going to be able to vaporize all of the oceans even if we tried, and there are methods of purifying the water) and air (this can be extracted from the water). It is now only a matter of engineering, or in other words, to make these things mainstream, which might take a little while, but there is definitely no reason to already start saying "the biosphere is going away; we're all gonna die!"[/b]
Of course we all won't die. That's idiotic. But how many people will die before we get the situation under control?
The main point of my argument is that there is too much of a divide between 'greens' and 'corps'. We can clean the world up, but both sides need to meet in the middle. We cannot simply dismantle our factories and refineries, but we cannot go on polluting like we are either.[/b]
If you'd care to look, most greens aren't demanding that we shut down all our factories now, and return to the soil. That'd be madness. Like most greens I know, I advocate using new and existing clean technologies to reduce pollution - as part of a slow phase-out of old methods. I'm not so economically illiterate as to think that we can turn around the economy like that.
Don't use the views of a minority to implicate the majority. Otherwise I'll call you a fundamentalist Christian because I know there's at least one in Canada. :lol:
please look again at what i said:
"a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries where there is no industry that could produce pollution."
i did not say:
"a lot of the pollution on earth seems to be in under developed third world countries. third world countries don't have alot of industry that could cause pollution"
which is what you thought i said for some reason.[/b]
No - I understood you, but I was pointing out that Third World countries do have heavy industries, regardless. And that they're much more pollutant than our comparable ones because we don't offer them the technology to change cheaply.
-
If the humans are going to surivive as a species, we have to move out and begin to colonize Sol within the next 20-50 years.
If this is not done, it is highly probable we will eliminate ourselfs, this globe, and the many tousands of other species on it, in a huge global conflict.
We really dont need earth or any other planet anymore, so I'm suprised we are still here.
There is an infinety of resources in the Sol system, not for talking about the rest of the galaxy.
I belive the humans are ready both technically and resourcably to start colonization within the next 20 years.
The only thing we lack to do this, is the initiative.
The tech has been around since the 50's.
Stargazer.
-
With respect, I think that it'd be harder than you think. The Earth has a lot more life-support systems than space which I think you would miss when a micrometeorite punctured your space-suit or a solar flare gave you a lethal dose of radiation.
At present I think that any life on other planets would represent great hardship for colonists compared to the situation on Earth that few would accept. Besides, current space-faring vessels don't hold many people.
And I think that humans could survive as a species almost as well as cockroaches. Just not in their present comfy state or numbers.
-
Originally posted by Kazashi
Another person had a charming little patriotic rant about how their nation worked for their money, then went on about fearing competing economies as if it were more important than the factor of survival. What about the little countries that these bigger countries step on? Would manufacturers of those overly featured sports shoes still be as successful if they used cheap Asian labour in overseas sweat shops?
If that was directed at me, please note I'm not American.
-
It was directed at Blue Lion.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
If that was directed at me, please note I'm not American.
Yes you are. :D Just not in the way that most of the world thinks of an "American". :wink:
-
I hope a violent alien race comes and extermintes the virus known as man (Hey Cylons! Over Here!!!:eek: )
Cause if a peaceful race shows up we'll just end up corrupting them and then spreading like a cancer through the universe.
On a lighter note I'm writing a fanfic for my campaign at fanfiction.net in the anime crossovers (macross/FS2)... Chapter1 should be up by Monday called The Nexus Chronicles. L8tr ...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yes you are. :D Just not in the way that most of the world thinks of an "American". :wink:
At least someone around here thinks straight! :yes:
-
Originally posted by Star Dragon
I hope a violent alien race comes and extermintes the virus known as man (Hey Cylons! Over Here!!!:eek: )
Cause if a peaceful race shows up we'll just end up corrupting them and then spreading like a cancer through the universe.
*aliens land*
we come in peace, we bring you cures for desises, world peace, and imortality
*first human arives on the sceen*
I'll give you $20 for it
*aliens look at him with confusion*
what is this "$20"
*human responds*
cash, you can use it to get anything you want, like this candy bar
*pulls out bar, thoughs it to alien*
*alien looks at it*
you eat it!!
*alien eats it, muters something incoherent*
*another alien* Malcec, let me try, let me try
NO! this is my... can-dee
*man yells*
not unless you give me what we agreed on
*alien*
oh, yes
*throughs a box to the man*
*aliens return into there ship, while fighting over the candy bar*
*ship flies away, slightly out of control*
**three weeks later sky fills with light after the insueing inter-galactic war**
-
My God... It was all so simple (holds head in hands).
Shivans come! Stop us NOW!!!
[Brought to you by the Shivans for Galatic Domination Committee]
(Sponsored by 1-800-how-smy-fly-ing)
-
Global warming is a lie. That's all I can say.
-
Another person had a charming little patriotic rant about how their nation worked for their money, then went on about fearing competing economies as if it were more important than the factor of survival. What about the little countries that these bigger countries step on? Would manufacturers of those overly featured sports shoes still be as successful if they used cheap Asian labour in overseas sweat shops?
By the time the time the "little countries" die out this sort of work will be fully automated anyway, though. :D
Of course we all won't die. That's idiotic. But how many people will die before we get the situation under control?
It is? You didn't seem to think so a few months ago in that other topic. :D :D I do not know about the actual numbers, but not nearly so many will be lost that humanity cannot continue its forward progression at at least the current pace. Besides, this is still a couple hundred years away, at which point cloning should have become more mainstream and it would be easy to manufacture more people as necessary.
1. As Kazashi said, their kids keep dying. So they have a lot.
They could just wait until the existing ones die before having new ones... :rolleyes: :D
It's not your fault that they have crap land, but it's not their fault either. So what, you gonna let them rot on it... ?
of course! :D
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Global warming is a lie. That's all I can say.
Then you're an ideological conservative who has bought into the anti-environmental propaganda. Global warming is real. In the last century, the composition of the atmosphere has changed more radically than in the previous ten thousand years. It is generally agreed that this is because of man-made pollution (flourocarbons, smog, etc.) being put into the atmosphere.
In the last century, the average global temperature has risen almost a degree and a half. Now that might not sound like much, but when you consider that if it rises by another three or four degrees, that would be enough to melt the polar ice caps to raise the ocean's level by ten feet worldwide. That's more than enough to flood the North American continent to put Washington state, Oregon, California and the entire Eastern Seaboard underwater.
And what possible motive would people have to lie about it? What would it gain them?
Codedog, what proof do you have that global warming is a lie?
-
global warming will cause an Ice age in a few years anyway, so we won't have to wory about that, in fact it would probly lower the sea level by quite a bit,
but most of europe is going to get hard frozen...
hey, most of europe is gona get hard frozen, yay!!!
it's gona be a bombtastic century :nod:
-
Su-tehp's post: :yes:
We are all in this together on Earth. I won't hide the fact that I despise nationalists. To me there is just a human race.
Why would anybody lie about global warming? Not everybody's a terrorist, believe it or not.
Isn't there something that can break down CFCs? I know its catylist, so it is unchanged after each reaction, but there has to be something other than high energy radiation or something that can break it down.
Bobboau post: it will be AT LEAST 500 years before that starts to happen, we'll be dead b then unless we do something.
-
This a war against our own stupidity and ignorance.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
They could just wait until the existing ones die before having new ones... :rolleyes: :D
That's morbid in so many ways it's not even funny. Right now I feel like shooting you in the head.
-
yesss... you just keep on think'n that :devil:
-
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html
CO2 from coal burning all around the world counts for 0.013% of greenhouse gases.
-
acording to this site set up solely for the perpose of debunking global warming
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Yes, but - you are suggesting that all of their governments in the course of history have been uniformly corrupt or incompetent. Whilst I'm not saying that you're attributing it to "because they're black" soley, there is the suggestion that this may be a reason if you make such an exculsivist statement.
I never mentioned previous governments, I mentioned the governments now that are instituting the policies now that are screwing over their people now
1. As Kazashi said, their kids keep dying. So they have a lot.
You'd think people would realize, if your children are dying, they are dying for a reason, please stop having more than you can handle.
2. We forced a religion called Catholicism on them - which forbids contraception.
I don't recall catholics equaling the US government. If you wanna blame the church, make them pay for it, not me
4. Don't bull**** me about abstinence. I mean it.
Mean what? All I'm saying is only have as many children as you can adequately afford to keep healthy, if that's 1, 2, 100 kids, whatever. But if you cannot afford them, do not have them and then expect me to chip in.
It's not your fault that they have crap land, but it's not their fault either. So what, you gonna let them rot on it just because we were lucky enough to be born where the land is better, and not so important for survival?
Yes? Is it my responsibility to? No. Is it my choice? Yes, and I choose not to.
It's a factor, not the be-all-and-end-all. We could have reduced the potential for mismanagement by governments if we didn't sell them weapons when we know that they can't feed their people, or sell them bad loans, oil-powered machinery etc.
It is not our fault their governments are stupid. If they wanna spend their money on weapons and not food, it's their own damn fault people are starving. I don't blame gun makers for war because they sell their guns to militaries.
Again, no. But it's not theirs.
So how is that my responsibilty?
I have a question for you. Do you give to charities? Y'know, help the elderly in the community, or guide dogs, or something like that? Ever, in your life?
If I want to, not when I'm told to
By applying the logic you have to the Third World, allow me to extrapolate.
1. Do blind people deserve my help, or the forbearance of society because they're blind? No.
2. Do sick people deserve the help of others to get them to a hospital or the help of a doctor to cure them? No.
3. Did the victims of September 11th deserve our help to save their lives? No.
Which, I guess just goes to prove CP's point that the concept of deserving is meaningless. :p
You just asked and answered your own question, am I damned for all time because I don't help homeless kids in Africa? I don't think so
Another person had a charming little patriotic rant about how their nation worked for their money
Are you implying we didn't work for it?
then went on about fearing competing economies as if it were more important than the factor of survival.
Are you trying to tell me that bringing nations, as they stand, to a level comparable to ours is good for me?
What about the little countries that these bigger countries step on? Would manufacturers of those overly featured sports shoes still be as successful if they used cheap Asian labour in overseas sweat shops?
Why don't you go ask the leaders of these Asians countries who let their children be used as slaves? Nike did not come in with guns and say "Make shoes using slave labor or we kill you"
-
That's morbid in so many ways it's not even funny. Right now I feel like shooting you in the head.
In other words, you don't have any arguments left. This is the second time now. :rolleyes: :D
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
That's morbid in so many ways it's not even funny. Right now I feel like shooting you in the head.
Because he has no sympathy for people who torture children merely by having them?
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Why don't you go ask the leaders of these Asians countries who let their children be used as slaves? Nike did not come in with guns and say "Make shoes using slave labor or we kill you"
No, Nike didn't come in with guns, but they're still profiting from slave labor and no American should be able to do that. Otherwise, we're just saying that freedom is an ideal that applies only to us.
Is freedom a universal ideal or isn't it? If we say it is, then profit from slave labor, whether organized by us or someone else, that makes us hypocrites and makes the Constitution a lie.
I didn't spend my entire life becoming a lawyer just so I could watch the very thing I'm dedicating my life to become a hollow lie. If any of you reading this live in the United States of America, either you believe that freedom is a right that applies to everyone everywhere in the world or you're not really an American, even if you say you are.
And if any of you are European and you don't believe that freedom, self-determination and liberty are universal ideals that apply to everyone equally, then you're a disgrace to Western civilization.
Don't even get me started on the Middle and Far Easterners who still have outdated tribal values like legal rape....
-
If us Americans get it, than everyone should.
Once again, I don't give a damn about being an American, only as a member of the human race.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
No, Nike didn't come in with guns, but they're still profiting from slave labor and no American should be able to do that. Otherwise, we're just saying that freedom is an ideal that applies only to us.
Not everyone has your ideals and places a high a value on human life. Is Nike breaking the law?
If any of you reading this live in the United States of America, either you believe that freedom is a right that applies to everyone everywhere in the world or you're not really an American, even if you say you are.
Do I want little kids making shoes? No. Is it my job to free them? No
-
I own Reebok, I therefore am morally clean
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Not everyone has your ideals and places a high a value on human life. Is Nike breaking the law?
Profitting from slave labor? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty illegal...
But even if it isn't, Nike runs the risk of getting sued by civil rights lawyers and if Nike loses the case, it could be liable for millions of dollars in damages.
Then there's the fact that people could be (and probably are) organizing a boycott of Nike products, which will also wind up hurting Nike financially in the long run.
I've seen lots of people get really worked up and successfully organize boycotts over less.
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Do I want little kids making shoes? No. Is it my job to free them? No
I know it's not your job to free them. It's not like the US could invade every country to force them to stop providing slave labor to American companies with plants and factories overseas. What is your job is to stop buying products from companies that profit from slave labor. Choose a different brand and buy your stuff from someplace else. Otherwise, if you tell people that you value American ideals, yet refuse to care about people being hurt because you couldn't be bothered to give a damn and buy a different brand of sneakers, then everyone you meet will dismiss you as a hypocrite, a liar and a fool.
If you go that way, it will be a reputation that you will easily deserve, Blue. I'd rather keep a fellow American from going down that road.
-
Notepad and Word pad only save as .RTF no matter what option I choose, since I don't have WORD (mistaken I thought Wordpad counted as word). It won't let me upload chapter 1. So until futher notice no story for you!
As for 'slave labor' America was built on the backs of others. I don't like it and certainly don't want to see anythig like it in the future BUT you can't deny that it happened and that as Americans (all of us) benefit from that history. That said, what about India (not wanting to pick a fight , but hey that's what opinions are for). I would think that the cigarette industry there (Bidi's) enslave more children (in there own homes chained to the bed) rolling ridiculous amounts of cigarettes per day or else! I think there is a good place to start. Kill the Bidi owners, arrest the parents and free the children (so Sally Struthers can feed them!).
[Loading up the mech, ETA 2 Hours, it's clobberin time!]
:mad2:
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Not everyone has your ideals and places a high a value on human life. Is Nike breaking the law?
Do I want little kids making shoes? No. Is it my job to free them? No
So you say that if you would have lived 150 years ago, you would help the Souths, fighting against the liberation of the african slaves your people were using.
-
This thread is really depressing the hell outta me.
Why has nobody pointed out the logic behind third world people actually wanting large families? Most of them are sustenance farmers. More children = more free labour.
OK so you're going to point out also that there are more mouths to feed so that's a stupid point but consider that a relatively successful sustenance farm can support a considerable amount of people but a poor farm can hardly support one or two. More workers (children) ends up having a better survivablity chance for the family as a whole.
Another point that I find ridiculous is the 'computer control' concept; No one would want to implement it, no one would surrender control to it and logic is not how the human race operates. Deal with it.
I agree with Shrike on the concept of 'small steps'. Everybody's not going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly do everything that they can to help the world as a whole. You've heard the expression 'every penny helps'? It doesn't just apply to money, every small positive step leads to an overall positive result. One of the biggest positives would be breaking down nationalist ideals. I also dislike staunch nationalism, it is its own worst enemy in any case.
When all the people in these stupid third world countries die where are you going to get your Nike's?
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
You'd think people would realize, if your children are dying, they are dying for a reason, please stop having more than you can handle.
I'm sure that'd be nice and easy to believe if you didn't live in a country where your child died after less than a year of life. Of course you seem to have overlooked the point that children will still die whether the family has one child or five.
Mean what? All I'm saying is only have as many children as you can adequately afford to keep healthy, if that's 1, 2, 100 kids, whatever. But if you cannot afford them, do not have them and then expect me to chip in.
I hope you realise that this scenario also applies to "civilized" countries. Of course, to avoid chipping in for these people, you'd have to stop paying tax.
Yes? Is it my responsibility to? No. Is it my choice? Yes, and I choose not to.
So how is that my responsibilty?
If I want to, not when I'm told to
You just asked and answered your own question, am I damned for all time because I don't help homeless kids in Africa? I don't think so
All theological discussion aside, if you don't feel sorry or guilty about not lifting a finger, then so be it. Here's hoping that you don't find yourself in a similar situation. I'm sure there will be people willing to help, but then again there will be lots of people sitting there watching the 32nd series of The Simpsons, now purchased and produced by a Chinese company
Are you implying we didn't work for it?
Not really, I was more amused at your attitude, as I continue to be. I must admit, it reminds me of the dole bludgers who appeared on radio to state their case that the country owed them a living. A question for your question: who is "we"? Is a political boundary that important that you can refer to people within as "we"? Why is that "we" so different from the "we" as defined by the surface of this planet? Did you personally work to shape and forge your nation? Ok, so that's probably a hypocritical surmisation on my part since I'm a disabled pensioner....
I present another part of that argument - does your question imply that 3rd world countries don't work as hard? Of course! Since they don't have enough water available they must not work as hard to tend their farms! Hmmm, sarcasm tags would be great right about now.
Are you trying to tell me that bringing nations, as they stand, to a level comparable to ours is good for me?
If you're so concerned about money, then it won't be good for you. It seems as though many people can't see past the competition aspect of economics - doesn't matter if it helps the whole because it might take away our customers. I guess that comes with the country you live in though: if the government can bend world trade rules to suit itself then it must be ok for the regular citizens to play by the same rules. If the betterment of your own country means the economic destruction of another, is that fine with you? Must be made easier since you don't have to look at them directly, TV's can be turned off, newspapers thrown out or burned, the internet can be filtered.
Why don't you go ask the leaders of these Asians countries who let their children be used as slaves? Nike did not come in with guns and say "Make shoes using slave labor or we kill you"
Quite often the leaders don't know. Quite often the parents of the children don't know. Nike didn't need guns because they could get away with doing everything quietly. Did Snipes enter the NTF by stepping in guns blazing and demanding to be placed in a ranking position?
Do they actually broadcast the documentaries of sweat shops, interviews with the workers, standover tactics of the companies etc on US television? The workers are given "promises" of good pay and fair treatment before being seperated from their families, only to find out the harsh reality not long after. Many South Korean "entertainment" facilities used to serve US G.I.'s also used the same lines to recruit South-ease Asian women as "waitresses", only to force them into being whores for those troops. In typical fashion, the G.I.'s don't care about how the women are treated because they get the good end of it.
-
I have been reading some of the posts here about rights; since when did anyone have any rights whatsoever in that sense? The only rights people have are the ones that they have the power to uphold, and these materialize in the form of national laws. Beyond that, how could anyone say what "rights" people have? (whatever that means anyway) I could say that every human has the "right" to do whatever he pleases if he has the material capability, including deny the rights of others, and who is to say whether or not I am right? And also, how is it that the humans must have rights but, say, ants or even computers do not need rights? In the end, everybody has no rights and all rights.
Another point that I find ridiculous is the 'computer control' concept; No one would want to implement it, no one would surrender control to it and logic is not how the human race operates. Deal with it.
You think it must come about all that willingly? :D
One of the biggest positives would be breaking down nationalist ideals. I also dislike staunch nationalism, it is its own worst enemy in any case.
The only way to do this is to completely eliminate the system of independent nations and unite everyone under a common government. This will happen at some point anyway, but it could be peaceful (gradual cohesion of nations, e.g. the EU) or violent (one nation conquers the world). Either way, once a united government is in place, it would solve quite a few of these problems. Also, many of these problems can be traced to the corporations of today in some way or another, and if a true communist system is put in place, these will cease to exist.
When all the people in these stupid third world countries die where are you going to get your Nike's?
As I said, automation. I don't doubt that robots will become cheaper than humans in the long run due to their much increased efficiency.
-
US television is pretty infamous for its' lack of interest in foreign affairs.
And while we're on the subject of america - it's not your fault, but it is.
Before you say "huh" and stop reading - let me explain this statement.
It is the fault of your leaders, and the people you allow to control you. Obviously the onus is on them for the apparent behaviour of your country, however the general publics' continued reluctance to have so much as an iota of interest outside their own immediate lives means that by doing nothing you automatically accept a part of the blame.
What must you do to absolve yourselves? In order:
Get interested in whats going on around you
Get Educated in whats going on around you
Get flexible about your viewpoints - an argument that ends the same place its started is an excersise in futility.
Finally, get other people interested in it.
If everything goes well, then you'll wind up with a large body of people capable of taking a well informed interpretation of events and capable of making intelligent decisions from those events, as opposed to the useless knee-jerk reactions we've seen from the twin towers incidents and hundreds of others that receive less media coverage. I'm british, but trust me, we have just as many idiots as every other country does.
But really, in terms ot attempting to change anything small steps won't work, this has been evidenced by the controlling classes being able to make counters to this. And if you're happy with the way things are, then quite frankly you deserve to be shot.
Change for the better will only come about by a catastrophic collapse of the current hierarchy and structure, because in all other scanarios the pattern is built in too strong to be anything other than self-perpetuating.
-
I agree with you that the current cultural, economic and political systems of today are in a complete mess, probably well beyond repair, but this is exactly what is needed to put the final nails into the coffin of this structure and to bring about a new form of human existence from scratch.
Also, the entire concept of individuality and all related ideas (including that of fun or leisure) must completely fade out of today's culture if this so-called equality is to be upheld; otherwise, people will not and "should" not have an interest in anything that does not directly concern their affairs. Even then, individual lives will be of no importance in themselves (and rightly so); what will count is the well-being of the society insofar that it contributes to the progress of knowledge.
-
I beleive its' possible to have a rational society that embraces individuality, they aren't mutually exclusive concepts, after all.
Anyway, it might help to expand on your concepts of individuality and conformism before you scare vehemently indivdual oddballs like me away!
-
Originally posted by Kazashi
I'm sure that'd be nice and easy to believe if you didn't live in a country where your child died after less than a year of life. Of course you seem to have overlooked the point that children will still die whether the family has one child or five.
No actually I haven't, if your children are dying, stop having more :rolleyes:
I hope you realise that this scenario also applies to "civilized" countries. Of course, to avoid chipping in for these people, you'd have to stop paying tax.
Sha-boing, you're getting the idea now. You have no idea how much I hate the 18 year old hooked on crack living in downtown Baltimore who keeps having babies, those she can't afford to keep with foodstamps, welfare and the like, she puts up for adoption. The same applies for them, stop having kids you can't afford.
All theological discussion aside, if you don't feel sorry or guilty about not lifting a finger, then so be it. Here's hoping that you don't find yourself in a similar situation. I'm sure there will be people willing to help, but then again there will be lots of people sitting there watching the 32nd series of The Simpsons, now purchased and produced by a Chinese company
If it does, it does, such is life. But I'll be damned if I'll run to rich people and try and guilt them into it. **** it, maybe I just have too much pride.
Not really, I was more amused at your attitude, as I continue to be. I must admit, it reminds me of the dole bludgers who appeared on radio to state their case that the country owed them a living.
No one owes anyone anything, this is the basis of my argument :wtf:
A question for your question: who is "we"? Is a political boundary that important that you can refer to people within as "we"? Why is that "we" so different from the "we" as defined by the surface of this planet?
:lol: You've missed the point entirely, you wanna know who "we" is? "We" is me, my dad, my mom, my friends, my co-workers. Everyone who grew up, looked for a job, got one, went in and work 8 hours a day, to pay their bills so they could go into work again. Yes, I do work 50 hours a week, yes it is manual labor. You know what? So do my parents, so yes they did jolly ****ing well work for where they are today. They earned where they are today and I am grateful to them for it. And to show them how grateful I am, I will hold my own job, work my ass for myself and my kids when I get them. And no one will be able to tell me I didn't work for where I was today. There are people who worked for their jobs here, in Canada, in Mexico, in the Sudan, in Iraq, you know what? THEY deserve it, they worked their asses off to get it and deserve all that they've worked for.
I present another part of that argument - does your question imply that 3rd world countries don't work as hard? Of course! Since they don't have enough water available they must not work as hard to tend their farms! Hmmm, sarcasm tags would be great right about now.
Did they use all the water already? Was there an abundance of water there 10 years ago that I stole? No, it's these people are living in poor environments that can't support them. Blame their parents who had them and their people for staying there, stop blaming me. Blame god.
If you're so concerned about money, then it won't be good for you. It seems as though many people can't see past the competition aspect of economics - doesn't matter if it helps the whole because it might take away our customers.
Yah, silly me being concerned with money. Shame it pays for my house, truck, food, bills.
I guess that comes with the country you live in though: if the government can bend world trade rules to suit itself then it must be ok for the regular citizens to play by the same rules.
:lol: what rules have I bended?
If the betterment of your own country means the economic destruction of another, is that fine with you? Must be made easier since you don't have to look at them directly, TV's can be turned off, newspapers thrown out or burned, the internet can be filtered.
If you mean destruction by not giving charity to these people, then yes that is fine with me. If you mean destruction by the Nikes I'm wearing were made my some little boy in god knows where for 3 cents a day, that's not my fault. Please explain to me how that is my fault and I owe these people money.
Quite often the leaders don't know. Quite often the parents of the children don't know.
Again, that is misgovernment, blame them
Nike didn't need guns because they could get away with doing everything quietly.
Doing what quietly? If you mean paying governments to let them do this, see my above statement.
Did Snipes enter the NTF by stepping in guns blazing and demanding to be placed in a ranking position?
I'm assuming Nike=snipes and these governments are the NTF? That's a pretty poor analogy
Do they actually broadcast the documentaries of sweat shops, interviews with the workers, standover tactics of the companies etc on US television?
Yes they do
The workers are given "promises" of good pay and fair treatment before being seperated from their families, only to find out the harsh reality not long after.
And I can see how this forces me to help them.
Many South Korean "entertainment" facilities used to serve US G.I.'s also used the same lines to recruit South-ease Asian women as "waitresses", only to force them into being whores for those troops. In typical fashion, the G.I.'s don't care about how the women are treated because they get the good end of it.
You know what? That's our fault, doesn't mean you go to England and ask them to pay for these women, which is what you'd be asking.
-
*sigh*
Originally posted by wEvil
US television is pretty infamous for its' lack of interest in foreign affairs.
Know why? Cause we don't really care.
And while we're on the subject of america - it's not your fault, but it is.
Before you say "huh" and stop reading - let me explain this statement.
Good, cause that made no sense
It is the fault of your leaders, and the people you allow to control you.
What is?
Obviously the onus is on them for the apparent behaviour of your country, however the general publics' continued reluctance to have so much as an iota of interest outside their own immediate lives means that by doing nothing you automatically accept a part of the blame.
So.......the fact a woman that gets raped outside my house is my fault because I didn't stop it?
Get Educated in whats going on around you
I don't care, educating me all you want is not going to make me care.
Rather than quote everything else you just said, I'll make it fairly simple. I am not required to do anything, it is not my fault they live there, just as much as it is not my fault I live here. I'm going to get up, go to work, come home and go to bed. If that makes me guilty of whatever, throw me in jail.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Know why? Cause we don't really care.
Well...that says it all then.
So.......the fact a woman that gets raped outside my house is my fault because I didn't stop it?
To put it bluntly, yes. I can't really beleive anyone could stand by and let that happen.
I don't care, educating me all you want is not going to make me care.
If you stopped arguing against everyone just for the sake of it and tried to understand what we're about you would.
But fine, just go ahead an stick your head up your own arse like the other 5 billion morons in the world. It not just yourselves you'll be punishing though, but you don't care about anyone else - so thats' OK.
*edit * and its bent, not bended.
-
I beleive its' possible to have a rational society that embraces individuality, they aren't mutually exclusive concepts, after all.
Anyway, it might help to expand on your concepts of individuality and conformism before you scare vehemently indivdual oddballs like me away!
Think about it, though...all of the "problems" mentioned in this thread stem from the fact that individuals compete with different goals in mind. The entire concept of individuality implies a kind of chaos when multiple individuals coexist; that is the whole essence of individuality. If instead there is one super-organism of humanity, then and only then can it work towards a common purpose at full efficiency, and this is true rationality. As an analogy, think of what the cells that make up our bodies are capable of when working alone, and compare that to what they can do as an assemblage i.e. the human. Also, the so-called totalitarian governments throughout history are not good examples, since what happened there was that while most people lost their individuality, a select group of equally stupid people gained more individuality, and as we have seen, the gap between the two was what steered the nations into disaster. However, we can see that today's system of individuality is not much better.
Blame god.
:D :yes:
Rather than quote everything you just said, I'll make it fairly simple. I am not required to do anything, it is not my fault they live there, just as much as it is not my fault I live here. I'm going to get up, go to work, come home and go to bed. If that makes me guilty of whatever, throw me in jail.
Very good point here. This is simply the way that today's system works, and trying to throw some silly popular ethics in there is just going to make an even bigger mess. Individuals have no logical reason to do anything that is not in their own interests by the very nature of the individual.
To put it bluntly, yes. I can't really beleive anyone could stand by and let that happen.
Well, he has a point. It is not his problem; it is the government's job to take care of that and thus hold things together, and if it is not, well, too bad.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
:D :yes:
;) :lol:
-
If everyone then lost that individuality to be absorbed by a super-organism then it pretty much defeats the object of being sentient at all?
Its the same argument....it wouldn't be worth knowing anything if we didnt have the individuality to apply to it. Its our frame of reference in a relative universe that makes surviving worthwhile.
If you can't enjoy yourself once in a while whats' the point of bothering to breathe in and out?
blame god
I don't beleive in god and therefore refuse to blame it.
Well, he has a point. It is not his problem; it is the government's job to take care of that and thus hold things together, and if it is not, well, too bad.
Any system of govornment or a society will have to start with you. If you don't care, there's no point in anyone else caring because you clearly are not interested in any greater good and would be useless and ultimately destructive to whatever society or ideal you subscribed to.
In essence it just comes down to your moral laziness. And apathy seems to be the greatest tool to keep everyone down in recent history.
-
If everyone then lost that individuality to be absorbed by a super-organism then it pretty much defeats the object of being sentient at all?
This is the thing though: there is nothing that precisely defines sentience. I could argue that the table in my room also has some degree of sentience. However, in the way we think of it, we can classify objects into different levels or stages of sentience; the difference between the level of sentience in the human and the society (the kind I talk of) is as great as that between the cell and the human.
Its the same argument....it wouldn't be worth knowing anything if we didnt have the individuality to apply to it. Its our frame of reference in a relative universe that makes surviving worthwhile.
If you can't enjoy yourself once in a while whats' the point of bothering to breathe in and out?
No, no...the only reason we want to obtain knowledge is that all other objectives are logically contradictory, and frankly, we exist in this universe and we have to do something. (it is impossible to do truly nothing) Besides, happiness can easily be obtained by just using some narcotic brain stimulant, and this happiness would be great enough to make all other forms of happiness useless. They have already been able to instill the feeling of pleasure into a mouse, and in the future I have no doubt that the same can easily be done for a human. We can then all attain absolute happiness at all times, but what do we do after that?
Any system of govornment or a society will have to start with you. If you don't care, there's no point in anyone else caring because you clearly are not interested in any greater good and would be useless and ultimately destructive to whatever society or ideal you subscribed to.
In essence it just comes down to your moral laziness. And apathy seems to be the greatest tool to keep everyone down in recent history.
That is my whole point; the entire concepts of "I" and "you" cannot exist in the culture at all if this is to be true; there should only be "one." You cannot count on this "moral activeness" to have people acting in this "good" way.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
In essence it just comes down to your moral laziness. And apathy seems to be the greatest tool to keep everyone down in recent history.
And?
-
The society you describe is probably more of an ultimate form of what we might evolve into - to be honest it looks rather too far into the future to be fully practical.
The model I describe can be determined as an interim step, although no less radical.
Plus there's the slightly alarming fact that total determinism is by definition impossible in a quantum universe - I don't beleive it Is possible to simulate something as complex as the universe without first having to create an identical copy.
Are your ideals fully applicable? I don't think they are since they fail to embrace fallibility and take into account emotional states - both of which are very important in most peoples' definition of "being human".
If we were to evolve or redesign ourselves into something you described we would have turned into something entirely different - this is not something i'd be entirely happy with.
Blue Lion - if you don't have anything useful to say then don't bother spamming the thread. You obviously dont care so why should you even make the huge effort to read this? let alone the heartbreakingly massive effort of managing to type four characters into your keyboard.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Blue Lion - if you don't have anything useful to say then don't bother spamming the thread. You obviously dont care so why should you even make the huge effort to read this? let alone the heartbreakingly massive effort of managing to type four characters into your keyboard.
:lol: Because you're telling me it's my fault and I have a moral obligation to pay these poor people. I am telling you it is not. It's only useful if I rally behind your little flag? It's spam because my views are different? :lol:
-
Because you're telling me it's my fault and I have a moral obligation to pay these poor people. I am telling you it is not. It's only useful if I rally behind your little flag? It's spam because my views are different?
Because by your warped concept of even having to PAY for anything.
You're not even thinking in different terms to the ones you've been brought up in, you're viewing my concepts through contaminated lenses.
And helping someone who's getting mugged or raped is rather different to paying 5 pounds, euros, dollars....whatever to some trust fund that may or may not be actually helping people. In this respect your arguments have been consistently muddled.
If you don't have a moral obligation to do anything, why don't you find a nice metal box, weld yourself inside it and never do anything? I'm not attacking your and my current way of life, although I wish I could, i'm attempting to point out feasable alternatives, whish is what I thought this thread was about. If you're going to sit here and consistently argue that being greedy and selfish is OK you might as well not bother, because It's been evidenced in both the short and long term that such tendancies are detrimental in every case.
and your use of laugh smilies...well, i really can't be bothered to argue with you if you're going to take down the tone of the conversation and make a joke out of it all.
On a personal level it shows you're a tosser (technical terminology) and on the level of this argument it shows you have nothing new to bring to the conversation.
-
The society you describe is probably more of an ultimate form of what we might evolve into - to be honest it looks rather too far into the future to be fully practical.
Not all that far away actually; I would estimate it at a couple thousand years at most if we keep progressing at our current rate. But I am just giving that example to show that individuality and its implication, happiness, are meaningless.
The model I describe can be determined as an interim step, although no less radical.
We will certainly have interim steps (or more than that actually: a fully continuous change), but I do not think that morals will really be involved in there, since a truly moral society cannot exist for very long if independently-operating individuals are also involved.
Plus there's the slightly alarming fact that total determinism is by definition impossible in a quantum universe - I don't beleive it Is possible to simulate something as complex as the universe without first having to create an identical copy.
Of course, it is possible that anything will happen; as I said before in this thread, it is possible for Vasudans to come from space and take all our headz exactly two days from now, but that does not make it probable. What I am describing there seems to be one of the more probable outcomes, next to a few other possibilities, and therefore we can assume it to be true for the purposes of further deduction unless evidence comes up to the contrary. Also, one can indeed simulate the universe; granted, the simulation is not "perfect," but it is close enough that for all practical purposes, it can be considered perfect.
Are your ideals fully applicable? I don't think they are since they fail to embrace fallibility and take into account emotional states - both of which are very important in most peoples' definition of "being human".
The emotional states are quite predictable on large scales, though and follow fairly simple rules, and these large sweeps are what determine human affairs in the whole.
If we were to evolve or redesign ourselves into something you described we would have turned into something entirely different - this is not something i'd be entirely happy with.
This is happening constantly though, you see, even as we post here. You could say that the mega-organism I spoke of is not a human, but then again, how are we any more "human" than it is? In fact, people far in the future who have radically changed into something different would probably think of themselves as the "true" humans and would find it hard to believe that we were humans. ;) :D
-
All I can say is that i'm human at this point in time, and through the small 70-odd year window i'm alive thats what i would define as being human.
Obviously by the time we've diversified into a few different species and met a few aliens the term will become meaningless, being replaced by sentience.
anyway...i'll have to type more up later.
-
Sure, but the guys in the future could say the same thing, even being completely different than you are today. :D
-
I don't think I can effectively or intelligently respond to CP's posts about individuality, the evolution of society and all that other esoteric stuff. It confuses the hell out of me.:confused:
But then again, I've known CP for a while and when he gets started on an argument, it takes a looooooong time for him to wind down again. By that time he's usually won the argument by confusing everybody else.:lol:
Still, I think wEvil is giving CP a good run for his money here... :) :D
(BTW, CP, e-mail me right away, I have a way to give you the DatDB stuff, but you need to get in touch with me via e-mail ASAP.)
As for Blue Lion, I'm sorry to say that he seems utterly bereft of compassion or empathy. If all he cares about is himself, then I don't envy the life he is going to have. Yeah, maybe he's get married and have kids and make enough money to keep himself and his family happy, but in the end, when everyone gets judged about how they made the world a better place, Blue won't have anything to show for it.
If Blue can proudly state (or even claim with a non-comittal straight face) that he would watch a woman get raped outside his own house and not be moved to do anything, then he's going to wind up alone and unloved. Anyone that bereft of empathy is little more than a sociopath.
Blue Lion isn't human.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
If you're going to sit here and consistently argue that being greedy and selfish is OK you might as well not bother, because It's been evidenced in both the short and long term that such tendancies are detrimental in every case.
I never said being greedy or selfish was ok, that's why I'm laughing, at you completely missing the point. I think it's rather funny.
You're not even thinking in different terms to the ones you've been brought up in, you're viewing my concepts through contaminated lenses.
And you're viewing mine through yours, what's your point?
Because by your warped concept of even having to PAY for anything.
[/b]
Well what would you have me give? My moral backing? Will that help these people? The only things I can give are my time and money, and you already know where I stand on that.
If you don't have a moral obligation to do anything, why don't you find a nice metal box, weld yourself inside it and never do anything?
I am in a sense, it's called living my life
i'm attempting to point out feasable alternatives, which is what I thought this thread was about.
And I'm pointing out these attempts are not feasible. The average American, European, or the like, can give two things, time and money. Now most people do not have the time or money because they have thier own problems that are more pressing. Everyone here has their own problems to deal with, if people want the world to be a better place, solve your own problems. If all your problems are solved, then you've reached a higher point than I have.
If you're going to sit here and consistently argue that being greedy and selfish is OK you might as well not bother, because It's been evidenced in both the short and long term that such tendancies are detrimental in every case.
[/b]
I've never said being greedy and selfish was ok, I said I will not help these people while their own governments **** them over. I disagree that these people need our help. I believe these governments can handle it themselves, but prefer to continue to abuse their own people for the power it gives them. If they can't do anything without our help, you have to ask yourself why.
-
This hypothetical future "human" (lets call them that for the sake of argument) would have the benefit of hindsight.
Unfortunately i'm not prescient and can't see the future, and as I said before the nature of the universe is that its' not fully predictable.
All I have to extrapolate on is the paltry 6,000 years of current stored experience, and while you might think its' acceptable to overlay abritrary logic and calculations (a la Asimov "psychohistory"), I do not. Of course there needs to be some method of self-determination, but that needs to come from the sum of individuals involved, not from a borg-like hive mentality that is so far removed from our current way of thinking it is hardly imaginable.
An individual does not have to be an unpredictable and dangerous thing - and until we reach a similar mathematical epiphany to the one you may have reached we aren't likely to transcend into some super-sentient gelitanous/crystalline mass.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
If Blue can proudly state (or even claim with a non-comittal straight face) that he would watch a woman get raped outside his own house and not be moved to do anything, then he's going to wind up alone and unloved. Anyone that bereft of empathy is little more than a sociopath.
Blue Lion isn't human.
I never said sit and watch, but if there are 10 guys with guns raping her, I'm not gonna get killed in the process. And to condem me for not putting my life at risk to help others is ridiculous. Am I required to be a hero? If you say "Why don't you call the police?" Remember this is an analogy for the world, there is no higher position to call to to help 3rd countries.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
And you're viewing mine through yours, what's your point?
Mine are more objective
Well what would you have me give? My moral backing? Will that help these people? The only things I can give are my time and money, and you already know where I stand on that.
Your moral backing and time are so hugely valuable to the point comparing them with money is almost insulting.
And I'm pointing out these attempts are not feasible. The average American, European, or the like, can give two things, time and money. Now most people do not have the time or money because they have thier own problems that are more pressing. Everyone here has their own problems to deal with, if people want the world to be a better place, solve your own problems. If all your problems are solved, then you've reached a higher point than I have.
My plan for world domination :ha: is that you eliminate the "average" person by grabbing them and making them aware of whats going on.
So you won't help them while their govornments continue to misgovorn them, well - eliminate the misgovornment.
I feel you've missed my point because i've been simultaneously been arguing with CPS about something totally divorced from the near future.
The reconciliation between these two arguments is that the nation-state simply has to go - you cannot categorise the human race any longer because it would be species-wide suicide to do so. Those people have the potential to do well if they were just given the life you've had - I'm not asking you to give them most of your pocket-money every week - I'm asking you to eliminate the inefficiencies in your own govornment.
Its about making sensible economies, not about living frugally.
Either way, I can't even be sure you're actually reading this and taking it in. I'm not trying to say my way is better or that I, in any way, am superior to anyone else that might post in this thread - what I want is to find some way thats acceptable to everyone and is better.
But the greed (I.E money), has to go. Its been a deadlock for the past 400 years with hardly any social progress....and it can't last much longer or the whole thing might turn degenerate (if it isn't already).
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
I never said sit and watch, but if there are 10 guys with guns raping her, I'm not gonna get killed in the process. And to condem me for not putting my life at risk to help others is ridiculous. Am I required to be a hero? If you say "Why don't you call the police?" Remember this is an analogy for the world, there is no higher position to call to to help 3rd countries.
Chances were if you walked out there with a couple of broken bottles they'd all run away.
But heroics aside, its' the example and the intent behind it that counts.
You have to ask - what kind of society produces people that want to do that? Rape women, kidnap & murder children, generally wreck their environment and be cruel to animals?
For me that says barbaric - for all our technology and intelligence we still refuse to do anything objectively good.
And whats' good for our planet is good for us as a species and is good for you - whether you're out for yourself or a true philanthropist in the end your actions will be the same if you've thought it through.
-
For everyone who is bashing BL for being "unjust," how is he any universally "worse" than the most moralistic guy in the world? (who is to judge?) They are all at the same level, that is, an indeterminate level.
Also, greed/selfishness have been one of the primary motivating forces for the formation of human civilization; it all came out of self-interest and that alone. Once people start to cohese into higher communal systems, these traits, along with all other personal emotions, will effectively become nullified.
This hypothetical future "human" (lets call them that for the sake of argument) would have the benefit of hindsight.
Even with that hindsight though, they will still find it very difficult to accept. The point I am trying to make is that, while people may not realize it, humanity is a constantly evolving, completely fluid unit, and the rate of change appears to be going in a constant direction in only one way: the progress of knowledge.
All I have to extrapolate on is the paltry 6,000 years of current stored experience, and while you might think its' acceptable to overlay abritrary logic and calculations (a la Asimov "psychohistory"), I do not.
So...what are you trying to say? That we should already assume that it is impossible to discover the principles on which reality works? If this is the case, what then is there left for us to do?
Of course there needs to be some method of self-determination, but that needs to come from the sum of individuals involved, not from a borg-like hive mentality that is so far removed from our current way of thinking it is hardly imaginable.
Hardly imaginable to you perhaps (along with most people today), but that is simply because you have grown up and lived in a certain type of society and thus it automatically seems the most natural. As I said, anyone who is a part of this hive-mind would consider our lifestyles hugely inferior and almost barbaric compared to theirs; it is just a matter of getting used to the new ideas and system. (as Planck said though, this can take more than one generation)
An individual does not have to be an unpredictable and dangerous thing - and until we reach a similar mathematical epiphany to the one you may have reached we aren't likely to transcend into some super-sentient gelitanous/crystalline mass.
Wait, when did I say that the individual is either unpredictable or dangerous? I merely said that the individual human is far from being the best solution to discovering knowledge due to flaws inherent in him (check out Koestler's ideas here), and it is thus irrational. A much better solution to the problem is the mega-organism.
It confuses the hell out of me.
and here I thought I was putting my ideas into plain words that others could understand... :p :D
But then again, I've known CP for a while and when he gets started on an argument, it takes a looooooong time for him to wind down again. By that time he's usually won the argument by confusing everybody else.
;7 :D
(BTW, CP, e-mail me right away, I have a way to give you the DatDB stuff, but you need to get in touch with me via e-mail ASAP.)
I would do that but it seems that I cannot get into the flairmail thing for some reason. (I stopped using that service because it was unreliable and logging in only sometimes worked) I would try to meet you on ICQ but there is the same thing with the stupid passwords again... :p
How big is this file? If you can upload it somewhere I can just get it from there.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
For everyone who is bashing BL for being "unjust," how is he any universally "worse" than the most moralistic guy in the world? They are all at the same level, that is, an indeterminate level.
I prefer the analogue scale myself ;)
Even with that hindsight though, they will still find it very difficult to accept. The point I am trying to make is that, while people may not realize it, humanity is a constantly evolving, completely fluid unit, and the rate of change appears to be going in a constant direction in only one way: the progress of knowledge.
I understand this concept, and actually beleive in it - We live in a constantly changing universe, not a static one after all.
Being a pessimist, however, i'd say the progress is that of entropy.
So...what are you trying to say? That we should already assume that it is impossible to discover the principles on which reality works? If this is the case, what then is there left for us to do?
We can always keep trying ;)
Hardly imaginable to you perhaps (along with most people today), but that is simply because you have grown up and lived in a certain type of society and thus it automatically seems the most natural. As I said, anyone who is a part of this hive-mind would consider our lifestyles hugely inferior and almost barbaric compared to theirs; it is just a matter of getting used to the new ideas and system. (as Planck said though, this can take more than one generation)
It'll take a helluva lot more than one generation - try upwards of a thousand. I'm saying i'm not adverse to it happening eventually, i'm adverse to it happening tomorrow (relative to my interpretation of spacetime)
Wait, when did I say that the individual is either unpredictable or dangerous? I merely said that the individual human is far from being the best solution to discovering knowledge due to flaws inherent in him (check out Koestler's ideas here), and it is thus irrational. A much better solution to the problem is the mega-organism.
Or her :p
The mega-organism is the best solution, but for the moment, at least, its not the right solution. We aren't ready for that yet.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
I never said sit and watch, but if there are 10 guys with guns raping her, I'm not gonna get killed in the process. And to condem me for not putting my life at risk to help others is ridiculous.
I can respect you not wanting to get killed. And since I've started law school, I've learned that there is no legal obligation for you to get involved; certainly you can't be prosecuted for doing nothing if you witness a crime.
But it's not ridiculous to condemn you for being apathetic when you're witnessing a felony.
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Am I required to be a hero? If you say "Why don't you call the police?" Remember this is an analogy for the world, there is no higher position to call to to help 3rd countries.
Let me tell you a story. I hope you have the time for this story, Blue. It might be a true story or it might be fiction, but we can consider it real enough for our purposes. Stuff like this goes on all over the world all the time. Hell, stuff like this goes on every 24 minutes here in the USA.
A young woman named Kitty Genovese was walking home through the streets of New York when she is grabbed by an unknown assailant and pulled into an alley. The assailant then raped her and murdered her by stabbing her at least 24 times. After the police began their investigation, it was discovered that at least 30 people heard her cries for help. Not a single one of those people yelled at the rapist from their window. Not a single one called the police. Not a single one did anything except close up their ears to stifle out Kitty's cries for help.
Tell me, Blue, can you honestly say that none of these people had an obligation to help this poor woman? Can you honestly tell me that you actually want to live in a world populated by such uncaring neighbors? This is in effect what you're saying: if you can't be bothered to care about other people, then those other people can't be bothered to help you when you get into trouble. It works both ways, Blue.
Tell me the truth, Blue. What is your honest opinion about those neighbors who let Kitty Genovese bleed to death not 100 feet from their homes? Can you really say with a straight face that you wouldn't feel the least bit angry or upset at these people?
When you watch the world news at night, do you feel anything for the starving, the dead and the wounded on your TV screen?
Do you ever get moved to contribute to someone else just for the sake of giving or is your life just about keeping yourself happy?
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I can respect you not wanting to get killed. And since I've started law school, I've learned that there is no legal obligation for you to get involved; certainly you can't be prosecuted for doing nothing if you witness a crime.
The pathetic thing is in the UK I could be prosecuted for attempting to apprehend an offender, beleive it or not.
A few months ago I cought some scum breaking into my shed. I watched him throw a big chunk of concrete and break down the door.
I then proceeded downstairs (in my underwear, i might add) and opened the door and asked what the hell he was doing.
He then ran away.
After taking my statement, the police then told me had I attempted to apprehend him by anything other than tying him up (IE, hitting him over the head with something) i would have been prosecuted myself.
But this is a whole new can of worms (one that shouldnt exist) about the right to defend ones property.
Overlaying it on Su-tehps' story one might ask had I, in my vigilante role, have damaged the assailant would I be next up?
This highlights a major failing in our society, however nobody seems to agree on how to deal with offenders.
-
I prefer the analogue scale myself ;)
eh? :confused:
We can always keep trying ;)
Exactly...and so it also applies to predicting the actions of humans. :D
It'll take a helluva lot more than one generation - try upwards of a thousand. I'm saying i'm not adverse to it happening eventually, i'm adverse to it happening tomorrow (relative to my interpretation of spacetime)
Nah, two should probably be enough; all that needs to happen is that the people of the new generation should start up in the new lifestyle as soon as they are born, and then they will find it fully natural and consider their parents' existence very strange. :D I would like it to happen tomorrow, but that is of course next to impossible.
Or her :p
Alright, I will put in him/her/it instead from now on. :D
The mega-organism is the best solution, but for the moment, at least, its not the right solution. We aren't ready for that yet.
uh...what's the difference? The best is the right one, even at the moment I would say, if it was somehow hypothetically possible to bring it about immediately.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Nah, two should probably be enough; all that needs to happen is that the people of the new generation should start up in the new lifestyle as soon as they are born, and then they will find it fully natural and consider their parents' existence very strange. :D I would like it to happen tomorrow, but that is of course next to impossible.
To practise that would cause intolerable friction and probably a number of extremely violent outburst, possibly a sustained rebellion. And thats' If it was even a practical suggestion given current social trends and technologies.
How about turning it around - you had a bunch of inefficient bipeds attempting to reverse-engineer your macro organism into something like them? I dont think the MO would like it much! (this is, of course, assuming the bipeds had way superior technology)
Certainly any practical and realistic shift will be over a long amount of time.
uh...what's the difference? The best is the right one, even at the moment I would say, if it was somehow hypothetically possible to bring it about immediately. [/B]
I'm talking about something at least marginally possible.
-
To practise that would cause intolerable friction and probably a number of extremely violent outburst, possibly a sustained rebellion. And thats' If it was even a practical suggestion given current social trends and technologies.
Sure, but who would emerge the victor? These hordes of disorganized individuals would not really be able to compete with the super-organism, since it could think, build and progress faster by several orders of magnitude.
How about turning it around - you had a bunch of inefficient bipeds attempting to reverse-engineer your macro organism into something like them? I dont think the MO would like it much! (this is, of course, assuming the bipeds had way superior technology)
Well, if they have the intelligence to make all the great technology, they would also be sensible enough to see that MO is the best solution possible to the problem, and even if it was not, attacking it would a futile effort.
After taking my statement, the police then told me had I attempted to apprehend him by anything other than tying him up (IE, hitting him over the head with something) i would have been prosecuted myself.
:wtf: you serious? But that is more of a prblem with current laws...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
In other words, you don't have any arguments left. This is the second time now. :rolleyes: :D
I suppose you think you won the other time?
It wouldn't surprise me if you did.
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Because he has no sympathy for people who torture children merely by having them?
Exactly. What should I do instead, hug him for having such opinion? Say that the world would be a much better place if everyone acted like that?
-
Unfortunately i must label myself as a traditionalist in the case that I'd like us to remain imperfect bipeds for quite some time.
If you're going to go the MO route you can get onto all kinds of fantastical (and theoretical) life-forms - including ones that aren't matter-based at all or reside outside our entropic, decaying universe.
And I doubt that the growing mega-organism would be able to think as well, at least not to start with.
If it was designed, it would not be more complex than us (most likely due to our imperfect thought processes or more likely our own hubris at being the most intelligent known life form) and if it came from elsewhere it would probably some exotic weapon.
-
I suppose you think you won the other time?
It wouldn't surprise me if you did.
Yes, of course I do. When the other guy stops with solid, objective arguments and starts with petty insults, you know you have won. :D
Exactly. What should I do instead, hug him for having such opinion? Say that the world would be a much better place if everyone acted like that?
It would indeed be a better place if everyone acted like that. What's your point?
Unfortunately i must label myself as a traditionalist in the case that I'd like us to remain imperfect bipeds for quite some time.
Sure you would, as would almost everyone else in the world up to the time that it actually occurs. The rule of resistance to change is a major determinant of the human's likes and dislikes. ;)
If you're going to go the MO route you can get onto all kinds of fantastical (and theoretical) life-forms - including ones that aren't matter-based at all or reside outside our entropic, decaying universe.
Possibly, yes, which would be nice.
And I doubt that the growing mega-organism would be able to think as well, at least not to start with.
It would start at the highest level of human thought, and would progress on from there. It would still always be some steps ahead of the individual human.
If it was designed, it would not be more complex than us (most likely due to our imperfect thought processes or more likely our own hubris at being the most intelligent known life form) and if it came from elsewhere it would probably some exotic weapon.
Well, yes, it would, because we would be its constituent parts. But it does not need to be complex to be effective at its task.
-
@ CPS - why am I not surprised you're a Virgo? ;)
-
A Virgo? Isn't that a constellation or something? (and a wing name in FS2 that I use frequently :D)
-
I view astrology as a great tool for categorising personality types ;)
-
Ah I see, but if I remember correctly, (just to give an example), aldo has the same birthdate that I do but our personalities are rather different. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, of course I do. When the other guy stops with solid, objective arguments and starts with petty insults, you know you have won. :D
By your own point of view, you win when the other person is so confused that can't argue with you anymore. Someone said that, and you agreed with it. The last time I was left without an answer after expressing several times how your posts didn't make sense. You didn't understand what I was saying, although other people did. Therefore I can just assume that it's not a problem of me expressing my ideas unclearly, but rather that you fail to understand them.
You keep mumbling about how a super freaking organism would be the better option for survival, and still you think you don't need to help other people. Tell me, isn't caring for the species as a whole the first step to unite it in one single being?
-
By your own point of view, you win when the other person is so confused that can't argue with you anymore. Someone said that, and you agreed with it. The last time I was left without an answer after expressing several times how your posts didn't make sense. You didn't understand what I was saying, although other people did. Therefore I can just assume that it's not a problem of me expressing my ideas unclearly, but rather that you fail to understand them.
Um, no. You put in a rolleyes, then some very strange comments consisting of a few words that were unrelated to the topic at hand (three points? wtf?), and did not reply when I asked for further explanation.
You keep mumbling about how a super freaking organism would be the better option for survival, and still you think you don't need to help other people. Tell me, isn't caring for the species as a whole the first step to unite it in one single being?
Yes, but you are not going to get people to care just like that by preaching out ethical crap to them. This organism can only form in the same way that our current civilization has formed: a mutual self-interest. And I am talking about the survival of the whole; not the survival of petty individuals, especially those that will not really contribute to the progress of knowledge. If half the population of the world dies out, the whole is still 50% intact, and besides, more people are coming into the world much faster than they are dying out.
-
the general idea is each sign/planet carries certain attributes.
While you exhibit some distinctly Virgo traits (a certain attention to detail for one and an analytical mind for another), such major (or sun-sign traits) can be significantly "diluted" by things such as moon signs and rising/ascendant signs.
And finally after you get into houses and nodes it adds a great deal of information. I've found it fairly useful at any rate.
-
I see. How does one establish a direct logical connection between human affairs and the planet/constellation locations? (since it could be like that stork theory posted in the very first religion thread, that the number of storks in a nation is proportional to birth rate from two observations)
nodes
jump nodes? ;7 :D
-
This is the reason why astrology isn't viewed as a science - it offers no evidence that is categorically works.
It works for me in the vast majority of cases I apply it to (more than..say..phsychology)
As for a direct logical connection for large-scale crowd and sociological trends - those trends are hard enough to establish, usually being a purely subjective interpretation of non-representative statistics produced by research companies for commercial purposes.
You'll have to do your own research into this at any rate. I'd like to explain more but doubtless someone will be having a good laugh about it - never mind the fact i'm no authority on astrology anyway.
*edit*
i'm not even sure what nodes are - but they're a "recent" addition to astrology (i think) that add some extremely new-age concepts into the whole mix....which is why I didn't pay a huge amount of attention.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Um, no. You put in a rolleyes, then some very strange comments consisting of a few words (three points? wtf?), and did not reply when I asked for further explanation.
You got confused by your own principle. That certainly shows us something.
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but you are not going to get people to care just like that by preaching out ethical crap to them. This organism can only form in the same way that our current civilization has formed: a mutual self-interest. And I am talking about the survival of the whole; not the survival of petty individuals, especially those that will not really contribute to the progress of knowledge. If half the population of the world dies out, the whole is still 50% intact.
Not caring for those petty individuals makes certain your own individuality. Someone like that would never be as interested in forming a single being along with everybody else as in keeping its own individual will. If the whole is just 50% intact, it isn't the whole anymore.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Ah I see, but if I remember correctly, (just to give an example), aldo has the same birthdate that I do but our personalities are rather different. :D
No ****, sherlock :D ;7
I think the whole thing about astrology is that how effective it is at predicting stuff depends entirely on how much you believe. Personally, I think it's a load of hippy crap, so I tend to look at horoscopes and feel smug when nothing there applies to me... someone who believes it, though, would probably say 'ooh... i had something like that happen to me!". So you can;t really measure it objectively.
Of course, horoscopes are always - in the papers, et al - incredibly vague et al. And normally give some pretty obvious advice rather than predictions.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
No ****, sherlock :D ;7
I think the whole thing about astrology is that how effective it is at predicting stuff depends entirely on how much you believe. Personally, I think it's a load of hippy crap, so I tend to look at horoscopes and feel smug when nothing there applies to me... someone who believes it, though, would probably say 'ooh... i had something like that happen to me!". So you can;t really measure it objectively.
Of course, horoscopes are always - in the papers, et al - incredibly vague et al. And normally give some pretty obvious advice rather than predictions.
If you generalised anything it would have to be that vague - at any rate its only the astrologers' interpretation of the measurements they make.
The way I view it is that its' been around for roughly 5,000 years and still going strong - it must be doing something right!
If you were both born exactly the same second at the same place you may well turn out to be similar (although that means you'd be twins and therefore could argue its genetic and social rather than astrological)
As with most faith-based things, if it works for you - do it.
I'm working on a more logic-oriented theory for it, though ;)
-
You got confused by your own principle. That certainly shows us something.
Three points, eh? Followed by a couple of "oh boy"s? Since when was that my principle? (heck, since when was it a principle in the first place?)
Not caring for those petty individuals makes certain your own individuality. Someone like that would never be as interested in forming a single being along with everybody else as in keeping its own individual will. If the whole is just 50% intact, it isn't the whole anymore.
First of all, everyone alone is a petty individual, including me, so I don't see what you are trying to make of it. Secondly, the sum of the parts is not alone the whole; this is what you do not seem to understand. You are no merely uniting with everyone else, but forming a part of a greater unit, and yes, there is a difference. Also, if 50% die out, it does not matter if they can all be replaced quickly (if that is even necessary to continue working towards the objective).
If you were both born exactly the same second at the same place you may well turn out to be similar (although that means you'd be twins and therefore could argue its genetic and social rather than astrological)
That happens all the time in the world, though. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Three points, eh? Followed by a couple of "oh boy"s? Since when was that my principle? (heck, since when was it a principle in the first place?)
If you really don't understand, try harder.
Originally posted by CP5670
First of all, everyone alone is a petty individual, including me, so I don't see what you are trying to make of it.
You seem to have trouble at that.
Originally posted by CP5670
Secondly, the sum of the parts is not alone the whole; this is what you do not seem to understand. You are no merely uniting with everyone else, but forming a part of a greater unit, and yes, there is a difference. Also, if 50% die out, it does not matter if they can all be replaced quickly (if that is even necessary to continue working towards the objective).
You distracted from the core of my argument. How do you expect people to unite, or form a part of a greater unit, whatever, if while they are still individuals no one cares for the others? The first thing you should do to work towards the objective is to work to the well being of the species. There's no other way.
-
If you really don't understand, try harder.
Okay, I tried. Now can you explain it?
You seem to have trouble at that.
Yes, but you don't seem to be able to explain further either. :p :D
You distracted from the core of my argument. How do you expect people to unite, or form a part of a greater unit, whatever, if while they are still individuals no one cares for the others? The first thing you should do to work towards the objective is to work to the well being of the species. There's no other way.
Because they see a gain for themselves in there. I said this already: that is how the current civilization was formed. You think that man started off all good and ethical? For more details, see my posts in this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,9241.0.html) thread. And notice that you said the well being of the species (whatever defines that anyway), not the well being of the individuals; today's morals are all about the well-being of the individuals.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, I tried. Now can you explain it?
No.
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but you don't seem to be able to explain further either. :p :D
Oh, I am able to explain. I just don't want to. What fun would it be?
Originally posted by CP5670
Because they see a gain for themselves in there.
Would they see a gain for themselves or just the loss of their individuality? Keep in mind that they're almost drowning in arrogance, as this thread showed so well. They wouldn't want to form anything with people they don't even care about.
Originally posted by CP5670
I said this already: that is how the current civilization was formed. You think that man started off all good and ethical? For more details, see my posts in this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,9241.0.html) thread. And notice that you said the well being of the species (whatever defines that anyway), not the well being of the individuals; today's morals are all about the well-being of the individuals.
You are forgetting that our current species (as it is now, not as it might someday become) is formed by induviduals alone, and nothing more. By working for the well being of the individuals, you would be directly working for the well being of the species, thus being closer to the supposed super organism.
-
Oh, I am able to explain. I just don't want to. What fun would it be?
In other words, there exists no explanation. :p
Would they see a gain for themselves or just the loss of their individuality? Keep in mind that they're almost drowning in arrogance, as this thread showed so well. They wouldn't want to form anything with people they don't even care about.
Why not? As long as they benefit personally, they would go ahead with it. Besides, they already have done this once.
You are forgetting that our current species (as it is now, not as it might someday become) is formed by induviduals alone, and nothing more. By working for the well being of the individuals, you would be directly working for the well being of the species, thus being closer to the supposed super organism.
Not necessarily. It is sometimes true, but recall that I said that the whole is not simply the sum of its parts and if considered merely as such, important properties will remain unseen. Take this analogy: would helping a human's cells automatically help the human? Maybe, but not always. (e.g. you would not want to make a defective cancer cell or something healthy) Similarly, helping individuals may or may not do anything good for the society. (e.g. helping criminals get out of jail will allow them to commit further crimes) If it is just a matter of having at least x number of people in the society, that is no problem, since the humans reproduce quite fast.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
In other words, there exists no explanation. :p
So you're telling me that just because you can't understand something it doesn't exist?
Originally posted by CP5670
Why not? As long as they benefit personally, they would go ahead with it.
Would they? Right now they're in a superior position, they have more power than others. If they joined the rest in a single being, they'd have exactly the same amount of power. Would they consider this loss of power benefitial?
Originally posted by CP5670
Not necessarily. It is sometimes true, but recall that I said that the whole is not simply the sum of its parts and if considered merely as such, important properties will remain unseen. Take this analogy: would helping a human's cells automatically help the human? Maybe, but not always. (e.g. you would not want to make a defective cancer cell or something healthy) Similarly, helping individuals may or may not do anything good for the society. (e.g. helping criminals get out of jail will allow them to commit further crimes) If it is just a matter of having at least x number of people in the society, that is no problem, since the humans reproduce quite fast.
I see a misconception here. If you want to help criminals, you do so by teaching them how to live away from crime, not by setting them free. The same principle applies to the individuals we're talking about. We shouldn't help them simply by giving them money, that wouldn't be much of a help. If you help individuals correctly, it will be benefitial to the society as a whole.
-
So you're telling me that just because you can't understand something it doesn't exist?
No, it does not exist because you do not "want" to explain. :p
Would they? Right now they're in a superior position, they have more power than others. If they joined the rest in a single being, they'd have exactly the same amount of power. Would they consider this loss of power benefitial?
How would they lose any power? If you mean liberty, sure, but people are quite willing to forsake their freedoms for more material gains, or else civilization would not have formed. In this case, they will effectively become gods over time, possibly without a "free will," but they never really had that in the first place. I do not expect everyone to agree with this system, but even if a handful start it up, they will advance so far ahead of the rest so quickly that they will essentially alone become representative of human civilization for all purposes. (just like the tribal savages on some tropical islands todays are of no consequence; the individuals would become the tribals, while the unified organism is the developed civilization)
I see a misconception here. If you want to help criminals, you do so by teaching them how to live away from crime, not by setting them free. The same principle applies to the individuals we're talking about. We shouldn't help them simply by giving them money, that wouldn't be much of a help. If you help individuals correctly, it will be benefitial to the society as a whole.
How is that helping them at all? Let's say that a guy got into jail because of an attempted bank robbery, it means he wants money, he does not want to work for it in the conventional way, and teaching him not to engage in crime is not going to help him one bit in attaining his goal. And don't say that it is not benefitting him, because only he will know what is and what is not beneficial to him based on whatever objectives he has.
-
This is leading to absolutely nowhere, but I know you'd claim victory if I stopped replying, so...
Originally posted by CP5670
No, it does not exist because you do not "want" to explain. :p
How can you be so sure that something does or does not exist? Your point of view doesn't see the situation from all perspectives.
Originally posted by CP5670
How would they lose any power?
They would lose power by no longer having more power than the others. It's a relative loss.
Originally posted by CP5670
If you mean liberty, sure, but people are quite willing to forsake their freedoms for more material gains, or else civilization would not have formed.
People are willing to forsake their freedoms for more material gains if these gains are for their own. The question is: would they give away their own individuality for gains that everyone else would also have? Seeing how they don't want to simply help others now, without losing any major privilege, I'm not so sure.
Originally posted by CP5670
In this case, they will effectively become gods over time, possibly without a "free will," but they never really had that in the first place.
What are you talking about?
Originally posted by CP5670
I do not expect everyone to agree with this system, but even if a handful start it up, they will advance so far ahead of the rest so quickly that they will essentially alone become representative of human civilization for all purposes. (just like the tribal savages on some tropical islands todays are of no consequence; the individuals would become the tribals, while the unified organism is the developed civilization)
Would they represent the human civilization or would they separate themselves from it, becoming something else? If just a few formed this organism, I don't doubt it would be rejected by the rest of the society.
Originally posted by CP5670
How is that helping them at all? Let's say that a guy got into jail because of an attempted bank robbery, it means he wants money, he does not want to work for it in the conventional way, and teaching him not to engage in crime is not going to help him one bit in attaining his goal.
Pay attention to what I say. I didn't say that we should teach criminals how to stay away from crime, I said we should teach them how to live away from crime. If they could make a living without committing any crimes, they would no longer be criminals, but regular citizens. That helps both them and the society.
Originally posted by CP5670
And don't say that it is not benefitting him, because only he will know what is and what is not beneficial to him based on whatever objectives he has.
It might be beneficial for him in his point of view, but is his point of view correct? Is freeing him the best thing we can do for him?
-
It is? You didn't seem to think so a few months ago in that other topic. I do not know about the actual numbers, but not nearly so many will be lost that humanity cannot continue its forward progression at at least the current pace. Besides, this is still a couple hundred years away, at which point cloning should have become more mainstream and it would be easy to manufacture more people as necessary.[/b]
If I ever gave the impression that the human race in general was doomed, then I was not making myself clear enough. Given its inventiveness, I’m sure that it will exist for a long time to come. However, I was making the point that the lives of those in the poorer nations was under threat.
Humanity may well be able to continue at the current pace of development with these losses, and cloning may well become more prevalent. That will not bring back the unique individuals who have died because we did not do what we could have. Who, then, is ‘deserving’ of this die-back? As you yourself have said time and again, individuals do not perceive societal need. I expect those who are selected by being in the wrong places will be pretty pissed off.
of course! [/b]
That’s sick. But given it’s you, fully understandable. :blah:
I agree with Shrike on the concept of 'small steps'. Everybody's not going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly do everything that they can to help the world as a whole. You've heard the expression 'every penny helps'? It doesn't just apply to money, every small positive step leads to an overall positive result. One of the biggest positives would be breaking down nationalist ideals. I also dislike staunch nationalism, it is its own worst enemy in any case.[/b]
I was always disappointed that I woke up on Jan 1st 2000 (and 2001) to find that the new millennium hadn’t brought about some future perfect society with shiny jumpsuits and hovercars. :p
I guess you have a first-hand experience of what staunch nationalism does, Maeg. :doubt:
I present another part of that argument - does your question imply that 3rd world countries don't work as hard? Of course! Since they don't have enough water available they must not work as hard to tend their farms! Hmmm, sarcasm tags would be great right about now.[/b]
There are people who worked for their jobs here, in Canada, in Mexico, in the Sudan, in Iraq, you know what? THEY deserve it, they worked their asses off to get it and deserve all that they've worked for.[/b]
So there are people in poor Third World countries who work hard – as hard as you do – and yet they deserve to have their pitiful lives, and should accept them with no hope of anything better?
Wow, the American Dream, eh? :rolleyes:
Did they use all the water already? Was there an abundance of water there 10 years ago that I stole? No, it's these people are living in poor environments that can't support them. Blame their parents who had them and their people for staying there, stop blaming me. Blame god.[/b]
Ah, but we don’t let them emigrate to our countries unconditionally, do we – which, as you acknowledge would be the best thing for them to do.
Well, he has a point. It is not his problem; it is the government's job to take care of that and thus hold things together, and if it is not, well, too bad.[/b]
Ah yes, but demos crates, CP. Government by the people. If we’re going to pretend that we live in democracies, we should at least act that way. :)
For everyone who is bashing BL for being "unjust," how is he any universally "worse" than the most moralistic guy in the world? (who is to judge?) They are all at the same level, that is, an indeterminate level.[/b]
I feel that a court of law, or a group of peers, would react differently. :D
Although it is true that you can’t be prosecuted for being immoral, I was trying to bring a moment of levity to the conversation. Besides, you can be ostracized…
A young woman named Kitty Genovese was walking home through the streets of New York when she is grabbed by an unknown assailant and pulled into an alley. The assailant then raped her and murdered her by stabbing her at least 24 times. After the police began their investigation, it was discovered that at least 30 people heard her cries for help. Not a single one of those people yelled at the rapist from their window. Not a single one called the police. Not a single one did anything except close up their ears to stifle out Kitty's cries for help.[/b]
Su-tehp, this is a true story. The Kitty Genovese murder is cited as the principal motivator for the research of Piliavin et al in the mid-seventies. Further to that, the residents reported when interviewed that they thought it was just a lover’s fight, or that they might get hurt, or that she was making it up. Basically, they lacked a connection with her so did not feel the need to help – essentially the same principle that makes people more willing to help a friend than a stranger, and a person you can physically see/touch than say, one on the phone.
But this is an aside.
-
This is leading to absolutely nowhere, but I know you'd claim victory if I stopped replying, so...
Exactly. :D Actually, I'm not really sure if you are worth it, but this is fun nevertheless. :D
How can you be so sure that something does or does not exist? Your point of view doesn't see the situation from all perspectives.
You are changing the subject. Tell me why you do not "want" to explain it. A probable reason is that you have no explanation.
They would lose power by no longer having more power than the others. It's a relative loss.
But they would have much more power than the others unless everyone joins in and thus there is nobody to compare with, which is highly unlikely.
People are willing to forsake their freedoms for more material gains if these gains are for their own. The question is: would they give away their own individuality for gains that everyone else would also have? Seeing how they don't want to simply help others now, without losing any major privilege, I'm not so sure.
They have done it perfectly up to this point, so I do not really see any reason why they will not continue with it, albeit slowly and gradually, just as the cells did.
What are you talking about?
eh...what was so confusing in that part?
Would they represent the human civilization or would they separate themselves from it, becoming something else? If just a few formed this organism, I don't doubt it would be rejected by the rest of the society.
Well, if you ask these islanders I was talking about earlier, they would say that they alone represent humanity, and everyone else is primitive. The only real way to determine who is "really" humanity is to see the differences in accumulated knowledge; if one side has a better understanding of reality, then it represents the "new" humans. And sure it would be rejected by the rest, but so what?
Pay attention to what I say. I didn't say that we should teach criminals how to stay away from crime, I said we should teach them how to live away from crime. If they could make a living without committing any crimes, they would no longer be criminals, but regular citizens. That helps both them and the society.
But suppose their objective is not to do this. What if they want to commit crimes? (and yes, there are people like this today) You then would not be helping them.
It might be beneficial for him in his point of view, but is his point of view correct? Is freeing him the best thing we can do for him?
Technically, neither is. Practically speaking though, his point of view is correct, because it concerns him alone and only he knows himself best. Who are we to decide what is and what is not helpful to him in an absolute sense? A better solution is to just get rid of all these guys; who says we need to "help" them at all. :p
Humanity may well be able to continue at the current pace of development with these losses, and cloning may well become more prevalent. That will not bring back the unique individuals who have died because we did not do what we could have. Who, then, is ‘deserving’ of this die-back? As you yourself have said time and again, individuals do not perceive societal need. I expect those who are selected by being in the wrong places will be pretty pissed off.
Since when are these individuals all that unique? One individual can easily be changed around to be like another one, especially with cloning techniques. I said earlier that everyone is deserving of everything and nothing. And even if those "not selected" are annoyed, what can they do?
That’s sick. But given it’s you, fully understandable.
No, saying anything to the contrary is "sick," mentally speaking. :D
Ah yes, but demos crates, CP. Government by the people. If we’re going to pretend that we live in democracies, we should at least act that way.
Well, frankly, that is just a myth to keep the people quiet. We are effectively in oligarchies run by the richer class.
Alright, I need to go now, but I will back in a few hours as usual. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, frankly, that is just a myth to keep the people quiet. We are effectively in oligarchies run by the richer class.
Alright, I need to go now, but I will back in a few hours as usual. :D
I know. Live the lie, though. Basically what I mean is that if people are going to go on about how our political systems are better than country x, y or z they should at least try to act as the ideal of that system dictates. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly. :D Actually, I'm not really sure if you are worth it, but this is fun nevertheless. :D
Am I not worth it or are you getting tired of it? In the beggining you didn't say anything about me not being worth it.
And if this is your concept of fun I feel sorry for you.
Originally posted by CP5670
You are changing the subject. Tell me why you do not "want" to explain it. A probable reason is that you have no explanation.
It's simple. I don't want to explain because this way's more fun than if I did explain. If you really want to know, you should be able to figure out by yourself. Didn't you say sometime ago that the best way to learn is by one's own? This is a good time to prove your opinion.
Originally posted by CP5670
But they would have much more power than the others unless everyone joins in and thus there is nobody to compare with, which is highly unlikely.
Big mistake. If they were to join each other, the collective goal would be to obtain power. To obtain power the organism would need to grow bigger, trying to make everyone join. When everyone joined, there would be nobody to compare with, thus it would lose all its power and the initial goal wouldn't be reached, making the whole thing a big failure.
In an almost related note, you have got to play System Shock 2. Trust me.
Originally posted by CP5670
They have done it perfectly up to this point, so I do not really see any reason why they will not continue with it, albeit slowly and gradually, just as the cells did.
They didn't do anything so far that could be even compared to a complete loss of individuality like you're proposing. They might even do it, but for that the individuals would have to be already bounded in a true commitment to protect the species as a whole. You call this bound morals and ethics, I call it a natural survival strategy. You say governments make it useless, I say it is the foundation of every government. Take it away, you have no government and no control, and the probable end of the species.
Originally posted by CP5670
eh...what was so confusing in that part?
Talking about humans becoming gods with no free will from the first place is quite uncommon.
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, if you ask these islanders I was talking about earlier, they would say that they alone represent humanity, and everyone else is primitive. The only real way to determine who is "really" humanity is to see the differences in accumulated knowledge; if one side has a better understanding of reality, then it represents the "new" humans.
So if an extraterrestrial race showed up with more knowledge than us, they'd become the true humanity?
Originally posted by CP5670
And sure it would be rejected by the rest, but so what?
Rejection leads to hatred. If the organism was rejected at its initial stages, it's not unlikely that the rest of the society would find a way to eliminate it.
Originally posted by CP5670
But suppose their objective is not to do this. What if they want to commit crimes? (and yes, there are people like this today) You then would not be helping them.
If they want to commit crimes you help them by keeping them in jail. They might not understand it, but it's better for them this way.
Originally posted by CP5670
Technically, neither is. Practically speaking though, his point of view is correct, because it concerns him alone and only he knows himself best. Who are we to decide what is and what is not helpful to him in an absolute sense?
Children like to eat dirt. Their parents tell them it's not good for them, and don't let them eat it. The ones who have a more advanced view of reality know what is better for the others. In this case, the society knows what's better for the criminals, by knowing what's better to itself.
If the criminals were to be set free and kept commiting crimes, sooner or later they'd run onto someone who didn't accept the way they acted, which would lead to the criminals' death. So it's better for them to stay in jail.[/B][/quote]
Originally posted by CP5670
A better solution is to just get rid of all these guys; who says we need to "help" them at all. :p
This whole thread is about that. Nobody says you have to help them, but you should nonetheless. It's better for them, which is better for society, which is better for you.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Codedog, what proof do you have that global warming is a lie?
Wish I could find the article, but it was of two pictures that shows a massive glacier from back in the 20's. Then a recent picture that showed the same glacier 1/3 it's size. The little green ppl gave it to one of the London newspapers and said that's our proof of gobal warming that this glacier has slowly wasted away. The newspaper actually did it's research on that glacier and found that the galcier had melted to 1/3 it's size back in the 20's! And has been the same size ever since. And what's this? Global warming on Pluto! Holy ****! Our pollutants are screwing up Pluto as well!!! But wait...there are no people on Pluto nor the SUV's and factories either. We've only studied the climate for what? A little over a century and just because the average temperature has risen ONE WHOLE DEGREE and it hit 95 IN NEW YORK YESTERDAY!!!!! Everybody thinks...IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING!!! HOLY **** THE SEAS ARE GOING TO DROWNED US ALL!!!!!
Don't you think that by just some sliiiight chance the climate could be changing because it does that constantly? Because if you look at history the climate never stays the same.
And the hole in the ozone. Remember awhile back THERE IS A HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER WE ARE GOING TO KILL EVERYTHING IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS IF WE DONT DO SOMETHING NOW! Ever hear anything about it now? No...you don't. CFC's ARE GOING TO DESTROY ALL THE OZONE MOLECULES! Please, they are created in the atmosphere by the sun and not even the biggest fire truck could put that big ball of hydrogen and helium out.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Chances were if you walked out there with a couple of broken bottles they'd all run away.
Chances eh? Well I'm sorry, but anyone raping a woman is a sociopath, not me.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
But it's not ridiculous to condemn you for being apathetic when you're witnessing a felony.
It would be less apathy and more self preservation.
Tell me, Blue, can you honestly say that none of these people had an obligation to help this poor woman?
No, I've stated before, they do not have an obligation to. You said so yourself, it's not a crime to.
Can you honestly tell me that you actually want to live in a world populated by such uncaring neighbors?
No, I wanna live in a world without rapists, I'd love to see everyone of those people call the police and catch the guy. But I will not punish them for doing nothing.
This is in effect what you're saying: if you can't be bothered to care about other people, then those other people can't be bothered to help you when you get into trouble. It works both ways, Blue.
When I ask for help, you can be the first one to beat me with a stick. Ask anyone who knows me, I will refuse help on anything
Tell me the truth, Blue. What is your honest opinion about those neighbors who let Kitty Genovese bleed to death not 100 feet from their homes? Can you really say with a straight face that you wouldn't feel the least bit angry or upset at these people?
I'll tell you what I feel about them, they had their reasons. Would I send them to jail? No.
When you watch the world news at night, do you feel anything for the starving, the dead and the wounded on your TV screen?
Do you ever get moved to contribute to someone else just for the sake of giving or is your life just about keeping yourself happy?
Are you ready for this? This is gonna blow your ****ing mind. Yes, I do care, a lot. Yes, I do give, a lot. To lots of people. For no other reason than it makes me feel good. I've given complete strangers money for things. I've bought homeless men things. I've volunteered hundreds of hours helping my community, asking for nothing and refusing any form of payment. If you don't believe me, I guess I'll have to get them to call you or something, but I hope that's not needed. I've given thousands, literally thousands of dollars, just this year, to random people and things. I'm not rich, I'll make like 15k this year, and I've given away maybe 2k already. My parents hate when I do that, because they'd rather I spend it on my bills. But it makes me smile to see their smile.
So why the hell am I arguing right? I do not give because I have to, I give because I want to. Do I think any less of people who don't give anything? No, it's their choice. Are they any less human? No. Would I stop a woman from being raped? You're goddamn right I would. Is it my obligation to? No, it is not. Do I think I should be punished if I didn't help? No. Will I help her? I'll be the first one there to kick his ass.
If you need proof of some of this, go to www.warpstorm.com and you'll hear a lovely story of how giving I am, and maybe, just maybe, you'll change your mind about me. I'd give all I had to anyone who needs it. I'd move to Africa and build houses for people if I wasn't concerned about caring for myself afterwards when I came home.
So I do these things? Yes I do. Is it my responsibilty to? Am I somehow subhuman if I don't? No I am not. THAT'S what you need to learn.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Wish I could find the article, but it was of two pictures that shows a massive glacier from back in the 20's. Then a recent picture that showed the same glacier 1/3 it's size. The little green ppl gave it to one of the London newspapers and said that's our proof of gobal warming that this glacier has slowly wasted away. The newspaper actually did it's research on that glacier and found that the galcier had melted to 1/3 it's size back in the 20's! And has been the same size ever since. And what's this? Global warming on Pluto! Holy ****! Our pollutants are screwing up Pluto as well!!! But wait...there are no people on Pluto nor the SUV's and factories either. We've only studied the climate for what? A little over a century and just because the average temperature has risen ONE WHOLE DEGREE and it hit 95 IN NEW YORK YESTERDAY!!!!! Everybody thinks...IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING!!! HOLY **** THE SEAS ARE GOING TO DROWNED US ALL!!!!!
What are little green people? You mean environmentalists? I thought you meant Martians or something. I have a hard time taking seriously any argument that mentions Martians. ;) :D
But seriously, one whole degree of the average global temperature may not sound like alot, but as I mentioned before, it's enough to cause severe drought in some parts of the world and monumental flooding in other parts of the world. Natural catastrophes of magnitude not seen in a century are occurring today. There's a big brown cloud over Southeast Asia that is 90% man-made and will be affecting the health of India, Pakistan and other countries there for years to come.
With so many environmental diasters looming, doesn't it make sense to try to contain the damage?
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Don't you think that by just some sliiiight chance the climate could be changing because it does that constantly? Because if you look at history the climate never stays the same.
Nature occurs in cycles, true, but who is to say that the intensity of the cycle will stay constant, especially with all the environmental changes Man has made in the last century?
Are you willing to risk millions of lives just because you think that global warming is a lie? Why is it not better to err on the side of caution?
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
And the hole in the ozone. Remember awhile back THERE IS A HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER WE ARE GOING TO KILL EVERYTHING IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS IF WE DONT DO SOMETHING NOW! Ever hear anything about it now? No...you don't. CFC's ARE GOING TO DESTROY ALL THE OZONE MOLECULES! Please, they are created in the atmosphere by the sun and not even the biggest fire truck could put that big ball of hydrogen and helium out.
The Sun can only replenish ozone at a certain rate. If we add more CFCs to the atmosphere that lessens ozone faster than the Sun can replenish that ozone, simple mathmatics will tell you that the ozone in the atmosphere will diminish.
It's like pouring water into a sieve. If the hole at the bottom of the sieve is bigger than the faucet pouring the water in, then no matter how much water you pour in, the sieve will never be full because all the water you pour in will be lost.
As above, so below.
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
Exactly. What should I do instead, hug him for having such opinion? Say that the world would be a much better place if everyone acted like that?
No, you should talk to this woman and ask why she is having more children when clearly she can't support them and they_are_dying.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I can respect you not wanting to get killed. And since I've started law school, I've learned that there is no legal obligation for you to get involved; certainly you can't be prosecuted for doing nothing if you witness a crime.
But it's not ridiculous to condemn you for being apathetic when you're witnessing a felony.
Let me tell you a story. I hope you have the time for this story, Blue. It might be a true story or it might be fiction, but we can consider it real enough for our purposes. Stuff like this goes on all over the world all the time. Hell, stuff like this goes on every 24 minutes here in the USA.
A young woman named Kitty Genovese was walking home through the streets of New York when she is grabbed by an unknown assailant and pulled into an alley. The assailant then raped her and murdered her by stabbing her at least 24 times. After the police began their investigation, it was discovered that at least 30 people heard her cries for help. Not a single one of those people yelled at the rapist from their window. Not a single one called the police. Not a single one did anything except close up their ears to stifle out Kitty's cries for help.
Tell me, Blue, can you honestly say that none of these people had an obligation to help this poor woman? Can you honestly tell me that you actually want to live in a world populated by such uncaring neighbors? This is in effect what you're saying: if you can't be bothered to care about other people, then those other people can't be bothered to help you when you get into trouble. It works both ways, Blue.
Tell me the truth, Blue. What is your honest opinion about those neighbors who let Kitty Genovese bleed to death not 100 feet from their homes? Can you really say with a straight face that you wouldn't feel the least bit angry or upset at these people?
When you watch the world news at night, do you feel anything for the starving, the dead and the wounded on your TV screen?
Do you ever get moved to contribute to someone else just for the sake of giving or is your life just about keeping yourself happy?
You see, the only reason Blue Lion would react against the criminal, would be only for showing to his other neighbors that he had a better and more advanced gun, or because it would be his best interest to kill him and not because he was raping that woman.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
You see, the only reason Blue Lion would react against the criminal, would be only for showing to his other neighbors that he had a better and more advanced gun, or because it would be his best interest to kill him and not because he was raping that woman.
Do me a favor and read my last post on the previous page before you open your mouth like a retard. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Mine are more objective
Says you, that's hardly objective.
My plan for world domination :ha: is that you eliminate the "average" person by grabbing them and making them aware of whats going on.
I'm fully aware of what's going on, however it isn't my responsibiity to help.
So you won't help them while their govornments continue to misgovorn them, well - eliminate the misgovornment.
[/b]
That isn't Americans putting their noses where it don't belong? I thought we weren't supposed to be meddling with other nations governments?
The reconciliation between these two arguments is that the nation-state simply has to go - you cannot categorise the human race any longer because it would be species-wide suicide to do so.
[/b]
Actually the nation state system by itself is pretty good, the problem is the people running it. A properly run democracy, or hell even a dictatorship, that helps everyone is possible.
Those people have the potential to do well if they were just given the life you've had - I'm not asking you to give them most of your pocket-money every week - I'm asking you to eliminate the inefficiencies in your own govornment.
And they can help to eliminate theirs
Either way, I can't even be sure you're actually reading this and taking it in.
Oh I am, I don't think you're reading what I'm saying ;)
-
On a side note, I hate when I have to go to work and miss all the fun arguments.
-
Okay, I am back. :D
Am I not worth it or are you getting tired of it? In the beggining you didn't say anything about me not being worth it.
And if this is your concept of fun I feel sorry for you.
I had already pretty much decided that already (anyone who uses something like your second post in this thread in place of an argument is not really worth my, or anyone else's time) but you did not start arguing more until later. And you must be having fun too, or you would not be posting. :D
It's simple. I don't want to explain because this way's more fun than if I did explain. If you really want to know, you should be able to figure out by yourself. Didn't you say sometime ago that the best way to learn is by one's own? This is a good time to prove your opinion.
That depends on whether or not there is something to learn in the first place. You could, for example, type in a bunch of random characters into your keyboard and try to find some meaning in that, but you probably would not get anywhere soon. As I see it, you posted some inside joke that would also make sense to some people, but was not really related to the argument.
Big mistake. If they were to join each other, the collective goal would be to obtain power. To obtain power the organism would need to grow bigger, trying to make everyone join. When everyone joined, there would be nobody to compare with, thus it would lose all its power and the initial goal wouldn't be reached, making the whole thing a big failure.
In an almost related note, you have got to play System Shock 2. Trust me.
And why would the organism need all the existing people to join when it can simply manufacture new people that are much better suited to it? Once it is started up, it can progress very rapidly. And I doubt that it would need more people beyond a certain point anyway, namely, the maximum value that best balances rapid scientific progression and low maintenance. And I have played SS2; very nice game. :D
They didn't do anything so far that could be even compared to a complete loss of individuality like you're proposing. They might even do it, but for that the individuals would have to be already bounded in a true commitment to protect the species as a whole. You call this bound morals and ethics, I call it a natural survival strategy. You say governments make it useless, I say it is the foundation of every government. Take it away, you have no government and no control, and the probable end of the species.
That is not important; the rate and direction of change is what counts, and the rule remains that they are quite ready to forsake any freedom for material gain. The individuals do not need any commitment but to themselves to do this, and it would work in the same way the current civilization formed, where they join in out of a mutual interest alone. Besides, I already said that this is not going to happen for all the people, or even a thousandth of them, but 10 would be enough to get it started, and considering the diversity of opinion in the world, that would be easy to obtain. Also, if this is the "foundation of every government", how is it that there exist governments today that do not abide by many of these morals and still do fine in the material world? Next, you will tell me that religion is a "natural survival strategy." :rolleyes: (and yes, ethics in the sense you speak of is a religion, and stronger and more restrictive than all the others out there combined)
Talking about humans becoming gods with no free will from the first place is quite uncommon.
Uncommon, maybe, but confusing?
So if an extraterrestrial race showed up with more knowledge than us, they'd become the true humanity?
Depends on whether or not their ancestors and ours were descended from the same species.
If they want to commit crimes you help them by keeping them in jail. They might not understand it, but it's better for them this way.
Look at my previous post; they and only they understand what is best for them. How in the world is your conclusion about this being good for them more accurate, or even as accurate, as theirs?
Children like to eat dirt. Their parents tell them it's not good for them, and don't let them eat it. The ones who have a more advanced view of reality know what is better for the others. In this case, the society knows what's better for the criminals, by knowing what's better to itself.
If the criminals were to be set free and kept commiting crimes, sooner or later they'd run onto someone who didn't accept the way they acted, which would lead to the criminals' death. So it's better for them to stay in jail.
Well, how are the parents more knowledgable about the child's objectives than the child is? Only the child knows what he/she wants and unless the parents are contributing to that objective, they are not helping the child. You cannot help someone unless you are contributing to their objective, since that is necessary to define te concepts of good and bad in the first place (suppose a guy wants to kill himself and tried to jump off a cliff, but you try to stop him, it is hurting him, not helping); I cannot see why you are having such a hard time understanding this. The simple conclusion to this is that individual objectives are meaningless on a social scale, and thus there is no reason to help out individuals.
This whole thread is about that. Nobody says you have to help them, but you should nonetheless. It's better for them, which is better for society, which is better for you.
It is not better for them for the reasons stated above, and I cannot see how it would be better for society either. If you simply kill all the criminals, you will not have to worry about them at all and you will also discourage further crime. Problem solved, no ethics needed.
That isn't Americans putting their noses where it don't belong? I thought we weren't supposed to be meddling with other nations governments?
:lol: :D :lol:
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
So you say that if you would have lived 150 years ago, you would help the Souths, fighting against the liberation of the african slaves your people were using.
I'm sorry, I missed this before and feel the need to react, seeing what he said to me. When did I say that? I don't recall ever saying slavery was good. As a matter of fact, you quoted me as saying the opposite.
-
I know what you said. But wouldn't be in your best interest to have the Africans as your slaves???
All you said untill now is that your goverment should work only for the best of its people, you. What is better than many cheap, in fact free, working hands, with no rights, meaning no salary, no days off, no 8hour work. That would lead to a better economy, therefore a better quality of life for the citizens. And the slaves weren't considered exactly citizens, they were something like objects, or better, animals.
So, that answers your question???
-
it is not in our best interest to exploit people becase after an amount of time the people we exploit will rise up and kill us
further it is in our best interest to try and help people becase some day we may be in need and could use the fact that we helped them as leverage to get help ourselves, it would then be in there best interest to help us as they may be in need again some day and if they don't help us when we are in need then we will be less likely to help them when they need it.
-
Exactly, and in fact, this is also why our so-called "rights" exist: to keep us quiet. Not because we "inherently deserve them" or any such nonsense.
more advanced gun
Fear my broken bottles!! :D :D
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it is not in our best interest to exploit people becase after an amount of time the people we exploit will rise up and kill us
further it is in our best interest to try and help people becase some day we may be in need and could use the fact that we helped them as leverage to get help ourselves, it would then be in there best interest to help us as they may be in need again some day and if they don't help us when we are in need then we will be less likely to help them when they need it.
Bobboau, wait, you are confusing me. You said that you care about the people, and now you are saying that it's just your best interest? That's your morals? I you want to help someone because you have some morals, some believes, you don't help him for just your best interest.
And this is for Bobboau, please BL and CP5670 don't start saying that what you do is only for you interests, I know it, you said it so many times.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
I know what you said. But wouldn't be in your best interest to have the Africans as your slaves???
All you said untill now is that your goverment should work only for the best of its people, you. What is better than many cheap, in fact free, working hands, with no rights, meaning no salary, no days off, no 8hour work. That would lead to a better economy, therefore a better quality of life for the citizens. And the slaves weren't considered exactly citizens, they were something like objects, or better, animals.
So, that answers your question???
Let me ask you a question ;)
wouldn't be in your best interest to have the Africans as your slaves???
[/b]
And please, answer honestly. :)
-
there are a meriad of inherant behaviors, the logic of these behaviors may not be totaly understud by us but we follow our instincts as would any other animal,
amung these instints include a sence of justice, a sort of balence between "good" and "bad"
good being things that our instincts determine as something benifecal
bad would be the oposite
oftine our instincts conflict
for instance sex, we have a very strong urge to procreate, most oftine we do not think of the outcome however, there are thus a serese of counter instincts that try to hold you and you're mate together and this has led to a whole host of marage like arangments throughout the world, there are in fact very few cultures that do not hold manogonis (note: I do not mean exlusive) relationships as being extreemly important, this is one of the places love comes in to hold people together wich goes into the famely structure wich then goes into the larger cultural alignment (what ever you define yourself as, most people today ether culturaly define themselves primaraly by nation or religon)
all emotions and ethical sences serve a logical role in the survival of our specise,
ethics are compsed of both biological and cultural elements,
evolution plays on both the biological and cultural components of emotions and ethics,
changes in ethical systems can only ocur quickly on the cultural elements,
the biological elements will remain vurtualy unaltered
-
in responce to Snakeseyes
I was tring to explian the greater logic of morality
-
all emotions and ethical sences serve a logical role in the survival of our specise,
Change "serve" to "at one point served." :D Other factors have changed since then.
good being things that our instincts determine as something benifecal
So basically what you are saying is that anything we do would be "good." Our instincts also dictate us to do many things considered detrimental even by the moralists. :p (i.e. all the "bad" traits of humans)
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Face it, democracy is the stillborn child of feudalism.
But.... But.... But.... I like Feudalism. 99% less morons gaining power through money....
-
when I say I care about people I am refering to the emotion most people are born with called empathy, to care about someone, to put you're self in there position and understand there suffering (or whatever the situation), empathy is aplied to anything that you feel is part of your cultural alignment, most people in the western world (such as myself) veiw all of humanity as part of there cultural alignment, some extend it to animals (PETA), some only go as far as what they would define as there race or nation, but anything you put into your cultural alignment is something you will care about and defend and will feel bad if you do something to them that you wouldn't want to be done to you.
the fact that I uderstand this and can explain it logicaly does not mean I am above it or am un effected by it
-
That does not exactly explain it logically though, if the concept of individuality also exists. Why care about the "cultural alignment," or rather, why extend it beyond yourself?
But.... But.... But.... I like Feudalism. 99% less morons gaining power through money....
communism for life! :D
-
in responce to CP5670
we have a number of instincts, many of wich conflict,
"good" can be defined as something we would want to be done to us in such a situation (as we find some other person)
a "bad" instinct could be defined as one wich violates this (or any of the cultural rules I may be subject to)
-
in more recent responce to CP5670
becase that is the evolutionary survival stratigy our specise is useing, society
all of this is to alow us to get along with our fellow humans so we can live in a groupe wich (as can be deduced by our domination of the planet), has a marked benefit over living by our selves living selfish greedy lives like most other animals on the planet
-
we have a number of instincts, many of wich conflict,
"good" can be defined as something we would want to be done to us in such a situation (as we find some other person)
a "bad" instinct could be defined as one wich violates this (or any of the cultural rules I may be subject to)
If they conflict, why do we still obey them unquestioningly? Going by instincts alone is silly as I said in the other thread, since any random action could be explained by that. Also, why is it that everyone has their own idea of instinctual "good" and "bad?" (e.g. al Qaeda) Together, the facts are somewhat suggestive towards to conclusion that the morals are a part of our surroundings (we are not born with them, but we pick them up fast), and this is what forms the majority of our intuitive behaviors.
becase that is the evolutionary survival stratigy our specise is useing, society
all of this is to alow us to get along with our fellow humans so we can live in a groupe wich (as can be deduced by our domination of the planet), has a marked benefit over living by our selves living selfish greedy lives like most other animals on the planet
But are our benefits at all related to the ethics? It is just as possible that the ethics were the old laws; a necessary component to start up human civilization, but no longer necessary. Also, this does not explain why they should be followed like a strict religion.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Let me ask you a question ;)
And please, answer honestly. :) [/B]
:rolleyes: Never answer a question with a question.
Now that you started, I 'll answer you with another question. Do you believe that the american civil war was an act of your governement that was for the best interest of its people???
-
Also, why is it that everyone has their own idea of instinctual "good" and "bad?"
give a specific example and I will explain how, include how they have made the determineation that what they are doing is good
the fact that many of the ethical systems are so very similar to each other on the most basic level even going back into other primates, in addition to there benifital results, has led me to the conclusion that ethics are, at least in part, a biological trait
"Never answer a question with a question."
always answer a question with a question if you don't have a good answer, or you're stalling while you think, or you're trying to turn something around on someone
-
I already gave one there: tell me how blowing up buildings with suicide bombers (losing both your guys and their guys) leads to the survival of the species. Morals cannot be a biological trait due to the lack of consistency I mentioned, and even if they are, that is no reason to automatically say that they are necessary to the objective. (as I said, all the "bad" human traits are also equally biological; we must derive them differently, and if they cannot be done so, then they must go)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But are our benefits at all related to the ethics? It is just as possible that the ethics were the old laws; a necessary component to start up human civilization, but no longer necessary. Also, this does not explain why they should be followed like a strict religion.
Ethics, or morals, or code of laws, aren't required for the start of a civilization. They are required for the keeping of life. Many animals species have their kind of morals, or laws. Lets say, a lion won't kill a newborn lion, but human has in all times excercized atrocities like this.
-
Ethics, or morals, or code of laws, aren't required for the start of a civilization. They are required for the keeping of life. Many animals species have their kind of morals, or laws. Lets say, a lion won't kill a newborn lion, but human has in all times excercized atrocities like this.
We have been through all this already. A lion may not kill a newborn lion (actually even this is only restricted to his own cubs), but then why is it that a lion will kill anything else without hesitation? I wouldn't exactly call that ethical, but it helps him work towards his objective of survival. Same goes for humanity. (humanity, not humans) In fact, I am beginning to wonder if it may not be the morals themselves that will ultimately lead to the demise of forward progress in learning (particularly philosophy), since it is apparent from this thread that people are not easily able to think objectively on these issues. A disease it is indeed.
-
But are our benefits at all related to the ethics? It is just as possible that the ethics were the old laws; a necessary component to start up human civilization, but no longer necessary. Also, this does not explain why they should be followed like a strict religion.
"But are our benefits at all related to the ethics"
yes, if people hold you as part of there groupe, and care about you, and treat you ethicaly, it means you and you're childeren are more likely to survive
"It is just as possible that the ethics were the old laws; a necessary component to start up human civilization, but no longer necessary. "
if this is true, and you're vision is in fact better, than you're eutopian brog society will eventualy evolve and domonate our world
"Also, this does not explain why they should be followed like a strict religion"
you should follow your instincts there there for a reason, and defying them will only result in potentaly faulty genes being passed to the next generation
-
yes, if people hold you as part of there groupe, and care about you, and treat you ethicaly, it means you and you're childeren are more likely to survive
That's not what I am saying; how is following the ethics like a super religion helping us in our objective of attaining knowledge?
if this is true, and you're vision is in fact better, than you're eutopian brog society will eventualy evolve and domonate our world
good, good. :D
you should follow your instincts there there for a reason, and defying them will only result in potentaly faulty genes being passed to the next generation
So now bin Laden is rationally justified in his objectives, eh? And what do your life's thoughts have to do with passing on genes? For example, the children of the great scientists of history were seldom at the same level as their parents.
Wait, all of this has been discussed before in that "explain the universe thread;" find something new. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
but then why is it that a lion will kill anything else without hesitation?
becase he is a preditor, he does not atack his own pride (with the exeption of any potental rivals, or the offspring of the previus domonant lion(s))
lions are a radicaly diferent animal, with a radicaly diferent socal environment, but were there are similaritys to humans society there are similar ethical rules in lion ethics
most of the similaritys lay in domonance and keeping favor though
-
So in other words, what you are saying is that anything we can possibly do is ethical, by the very fact that we are doing it. That actually sounds perfectly fine to me. But we are talking more about the "popular" ethics of today's society.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
:rolleyes: Never answer a question with a question.
Now that you started, I 'll answer you with another question. Do you believe that the american civil war was an act of your governement that was for the best interest of its people???
Yes, because the North viewed slaves as people, the South did not. The South acted out of the best interests of its people, because they did not view slaves as people :)
-
There you go: a matter of competing interests, not a matter of ethical values, and the same goes for the conflicts of today.
-
"That's not what I am saying; how is following the ethics like a super religion helping us in our objective of attaining knowledge?"
why is it that obtaining knowleg is our devinely ordaned objective
"So now bin Laden is rationally justified in his objectives, eh?"
no but he has an internal emotional justification
we are the infedel, i.e. not muslums, not part of his alignment, thus we can be treated as objects without any moral repracusions (in his mind), just as I can kill a bug, or eat a hamburger without feeling that I am doing anything wrong
emotions may not be or lead to a logical result but they have a logical perpose and origin
"And what do your life's thoughts have to do with passing on genes?"
nothing, but they don't have to, that's evolution, my thoughts and the actions that I make as a result of them will have a direct result upon my liniages survival,
just as my parents were.
-
actualy BLs answer is more evedent to my point,
people have a drive to protect other people,
what you define as a person may vary,
thus conflict
-
I can almost sum up this whole thing with one statement
Everything is relative.
You have your idea of right and wrong, I have mine. Neither can be proven. The problem is people trying to force theirs on others :P
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
actualy BLs answer is more evedent to my point,
people have a drive to protect other people,
what you define as a person may vary,
thus conflict
Neither side can be seen as wrong, simply because both sides acted on what they thought was right.
Weeee, another topic change :D
-
why is it that obtaining knowleg is our devinely ordaned objective
Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing. I said this many times before.
no but he has an internal emotional justification
we are the infedel, i.e. not muslums, not part of his alignment, thus we can be treated as objects without any moral repracusions (in his mind), just as I can kill a bug, or eat a hamburger without feeling that I am doing anything wrong
Correct, but is it truly rational? When thinking hypothetically and with absolute logic, I don't see anything different between killing a bug and killing a human, but in practice, this ethical disease will take over me and prevent me from killing the human but not do anything for the bug. What kind of rationality is this? :p
emotions may not be or lead to a logical result but they have a logical perpose and origin
If they have a logical purpose, they must lead to a logical result by the rules of consistency. We know that they seldom do, so why must the purpose exist? As for the origin, I will agree there, but that isn't saying much for the topic at hand.
nothing, but they don't have to, that's evolution, my thoughts and the actions that I make as a result of them will have a direct result upon my liniages survival,
just as my parents were.
Your thoughts will not affect your successors, and your actions will only affect them if they are observing you.
You have your idea of right and wrong, I have mine. Neither can be proven. The problem is people trying to force theirs on others :P
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along, but people still insist that it is not so; anyway, when one group tries to force their ideas on others, the most brutal and least moral party will win, and I want to be on the winning side. :D :D
-
actualy, me and CP have had a long despute over the oregins of morality
were not aguing over what is right or wrong but rather the origens of the concept
-
Anyway, I need to go sleep now since I have only had two hours of sleep last night and didn't sleep in the day, so see you again in a couple hours. ;7
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
actualy, me and CP have had a long despute over the oregins of morality
were not aguing over what is right or wrong but rather the origens of the concept
Ah but that's where that last bit was headed, for me anyways o.O
-
"Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing."
why do we have to do anything then, why not just kill ourselves to keep from being an illogical inconsistancy
"Correct, but is it truly rational? When thinking hypothetically and with absolute logic, I don't see anything different between killing a bug and killing a human, but in practice, this ethical disease will take over me and prevent me from killing the human but not do anything for the bug. What kind of rationality is this? "
I never clamed it to be rational per se, I claimed it fit into the universal ethical system we all have,
it has a logical reson though,
to protect you're tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,
from an outside tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,
"If they have a logical purpose, they must lead to a logical result by the rules of consistency. We know that they seldom do, so why must the purpose exist? As for the origin, I will agree there, but that isn't saying much for the topic at hand."
they have alowed for the specise to survive
"Your thoughts will not affect your successors, and your actions will only affect them if they are observing you."
my thoughts are afected by the actions of my parents (and other members of my local socal groupe), my actions are afected by my thoughts, and my childerens thoughts will be afected by my actions
also my thoughts and actions areaffected by my genetics wich are also to be sent on to my progeny
"This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along, but people still insist that it is not so; anyway, when one group tries to force their ideas on others, the most brutal and least moral party will win, and I want to be on the winning side."
so the Nazis won WW2
-
Originally posted by CP5670
We have been through all this already. A lion may not kill a newborn lion (actually even this is only restricted to his own cubs), but then why is it that a lion will kill anything else without hesitation? I wouldn't exactly call that ethical, but it helps him work towards his objective of survival. Same goes for humanity. (humanity, not humans) In fact, I am beginning to wonder if it may not be the morals themselves that will ultimately lead to the demise of forward progress in learning (particularly philosophy), since it is apparent from this thread that people are not easily able to think objectively on these issues. A disease it is indeed.
But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future. Maybe as we advance and we get "out" of nature, we get more dumb. We like to believe that we rely on our basic insticts to survive, the instict to feed ourselves etc, but we try to satisfy them to the extreme. And as our wealth increases, our needs increase too, at least that's what we are thinking. Of course that only happens in the West World.
So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources, because if we won't it will take the shape of a snowfall.
Sorry if I make no sense, I haven't slept in a day and I can't think very well.
-
"But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future."
it would if it could, and no it doesn't
don't know what you're point is in the rest of that paragraph
"So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources"
that sounds like you agree with CP
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Yes, because the North viewed slaves as people, the South did not. The South acted out of the best interests of its people, because they did not view slaves as people :)
So they both were wright?
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources, because if we won't it will take the shape of a snowfall.
Unfortunately, not everyone will agree on the same set, and that IS a fact. So, im my opinion anyway, we're better off without a universal set of morals simply because people will not agree and you'll cause more problems that way.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
So they both were wright?
In their own eyes yes, you don't go to war over things you think are wrong.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future."
it would if it could, and no it doesn't
don't know what you're point is in the rest of that paragraph
I 'm too tired and my english sucks. I can't make you understand. Sorry.
"So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources"
that sounds like you agree with CP [/B]
I am refering only to the rich countries, overconsuming(sp?).
He is talking about the poor countries. Like birth control etc. etc.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
In their own eyes yes, you don't go to war over things you think are wrong.
No, no. What do you think? They were both wright?
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
No, no. What do you think? They were both wright?
That's what I'm trying to tell you, it doesn't matter what I think. If you're asking if I thought the slaves were people, yes. If you're asking if I thought the South was right to go to war, the answer is yes also.
-
You guys all know, of course, the basis for 99% of war is not politics, but economics.
The American Revolution was caused by the rich members of American society wanting to build factories and not pay such steep taxes on imported goods, and their British equvalents wanted the American's money and a monopoly on producing goods. Hence, the Americans built up a massive patriotic furvor, and the rest is history.
Next target, the American Civil War. The South needs the slaves, due to the fact their economy is based on cotton, and the plantation owners need the slaves to mantain their profit. The North, meanwhile, is industrial-based, allowing them to think beyond the economics of the situation, allowing them to have morals without touching their profit margin.
Did I mention I'm a cynic? I can also explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 100 Years War, and the French and Indian War in these same reasons.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
So [the North and South during the Civil war] were both right?
Originally posted by Blue Lion
In their own eyes yes, you don't go to war over things you think are wrong.
Blue, the South may have thought they were in the right, but they weren't. People can debate until the cows come home why the Civil War happened, whether it was about "states' rights" or about slavery. As far as I can figure, the South was primarily fighting for the state's right to let plantation owners own and keep slaves. A huge war was fought and the South lost, thank God. It was another hundred years before African-Americans could become full members of American society with rights equal to everyone else. Even now, racism still exists, so the job of making Blacks equal is arguably incomplete.
But as for the Southerners during the Civil War, whether or not they thought they were in the right, History eventually proved them wrong.
As for you, whether you may or may not think the South was in the right, I'm going to assume that you think the North winning the Civil War was a good thing. Call me a hopeless optimist. :D
And CP, you may believe that "rights" are just a fabrication to keep the Masses happy, but, trust me, they are anything but.
Lots of people fought and died to give us our rights. Before the Revolutionary War, the American people were living under a monarchy and taxed by a king 3,000 miles away. Our Constitutional rights were won as a result of fighting a brutal and bloody six year war. It was not inevitable, our winning that war. In fact, the outcome was in serious doubt for a long time.
The declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.... No one had ever stated this before in the History of Man, that people had inalienable rights simply because they existed. That is what is so amazing about the Constitution, CP.
Even then, those rights were only guaranteed to white males. Then we had the Civil War to liberate the slaves from oppression, then Suffrage and Women's Lib, then the civil rights movement. Each time, our definition of a person deserving of those inalienable rights has expanded to include more people. Each time, there was lot of resistance and alot of people got hurt and killed as a result.
Even now, people are putting up a great deal of resistance to gay and lesbian equal rights. God willing, the gays and lebians will succeed, too. They have time on their side.
I don't think this can be dismissed as simple bull****, CP. No one "gave" us our rights. We had to fight for them every single time. To dismiss all that struggle as "bull****" is to ignore all of American history.
CP, just think how bad things would be for you if you had been born in, say, North korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia instead of the USA. You wouldn't have nearly as many rights then. :shaking::nervous:
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
That's what I'm trying to tell you, it doesn't matter what I think. If you're asking if I thought the slaves were people, yes. If you're asking if I thought the South was right to go to war, the answer is yes also.
That's a completely contradictory cop-out, Blue. There is no way to believe both those things at once. If you believe that the slaves were people, then the South was wrong. If you believe that the South was right to wage a war to preserve slavery, then you believe that slavery was morally acceptable.
There's no inbetween, BL, and no amount of your posts can change that fact.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
That's a completely contradictory cop-out, Blue. There is no way to believe both those things at once. If you believe that the slaves were people, then the South was wrong. If you believe that the South was right to wage a war to preserve slavery, then you believe that slavery was morally acceptable.
There's no inbetween, BL, and no amount of your posts can change that fact.
You of course know that slavery was an excuse to achieve public support and not the real reason for the war, of course?
-
what we are trying to talk about is not whether something is right or wrong, but what right and wrong is it'self
what he is saying is that the south thought it was right and that with that in mind it was right for them to stand up for what they beleved in, even if they were wrong, wich they were from our perspective, and ours is the only one that maters becase were the only ones talking.
I obviusly think that my point of veiw is right, if I didn't then I wouldn't be thinking in the way that I am,
despite the way I am talking I am quite resolute that I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong,
racists don't think people are people, to me that just seems insane and that kind of stupidity must not be alowed to go on,
becase people I care about will be hurt
the reason we are discusing this in this way is to understand the fundimental structure of morality, so we can better understand it and to prevent such horrors from ocuring ever again
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You of course know that slavery was an excuse to achieve public support and not the real reason for the war, of course?
INS Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
*Proctor stamps "PASSED" on Apu's test and gives him his US passport*
Apu: Yes! I am an American citizen! Now, which way to the welfare office?!
Proctor (in horror): What?
Apu (amused): I'm kidding, I'm kidding. I work, I work.
-- "Much Apu About Nothing," The Simpsons
:D
-
IMO the objective of morality is to ensure the largest number of individuals have the best possible life they can.
The problem I have with the way things are today is that the arrangement by which we live our lives is most assuredly not geared towards this goal in any way, shape, or form - while purporting in fact to support those ideals.
In short, it is either blatantly deceitful or fails miserably at its goals - in either case, a broken system that needs tearing down and re-engineering into a form that does work.
Blue Lion -
you don't have to help, but your refusal to help would give others a reason to do the same thing - in which case you begin getting large scale breakdowns in sociological and moral fibre.
I am glad, however, to hear that you in fact don't act the way described above :)
-
I'm back, but only for a few minutes... :p
why do we have to do anything then, why not just kill ourselves to keep from being an illogical inconsistancy
Because killing ourselves is just as much of an action an anything else and happens to be contradictory in other ways. This is what I mean when I say that we cannot do truly nothing.
I never clamed it to be rational per se, I claimed it fit into the universal ethical system we all have,
it has a logical reson though,
to protect you're tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,
from an outside tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,
Yes, but you cannot really say that the reason is logical without giving an objective. And besides, if it is not so, then what's the use in abiding by it? The first step in combating the disease is to recognize its existence.
my thoughts are afected by the actions of my parents (and other members of my local socal groupe), my actions are afected by my thoughts, and my childerens thoughts will be afected by my actions
also my thoughts and actions areaffected by my genetics wich are also to be sent on to my progeny
I suppose you could say that, but we were talking more about thoughts pertaining to ethical obedience to your instincts. And your thoughts are not affected by genetics all that much, but rather by the surrounding conditions in which you grow up and assimilate information.
so the Nazis won WW2
They almost certainly would have, if it were not for Hitler's stupidity in anything outside politics (including military strategy).
---------
But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future. Maybe as we advance and we get "out" of nature, we get more dumb. We like to believe that we rely on our basic insticts to survive, the instict to feed ourselves etc, but we try to satisfy them to the extreme. And as our wealth increases, our needs increase too, at least that's what we are thinking. Of course that only happens in the West World.
Well, yes it will; it has no reason not to kill anything it finds aside from its family members, especially if it is hungry. And, frankly, that is smart given its objectives. Our own needs are meaningless in an absolute sense, since it depends on the objectives we have determined for ourselves. The need to, say, suicide bomb all the heathens is just as meaningful as the need to breathe until further information is given.
So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources, because if we won't it will take the shape of a snowfall.
I don't know what you are trying to say here; where did the topic of "resources" come up from? :wtf:
---------
The declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.... No one had ever stated this before in the History of Man, that people had inalienable rights simply because they existed. That is what is so amazing about the Constitution, CP.
I know, but you need to think about whether any of that actually held in reality. Perhaps 250 years ago, it really did, but not any more. You see, this is an idea, a revolutionary idea for its time, but an idea nevertheless, that must be put into practice to be of any use. What is happening is that people do indeed have their "unalienable rights," but not merely because they exist, but rather because if they do not get these rights, they will fight for them in an attempt to get them. In other words, to keep them quiet. And to be frank, how can anyone prove in an absolute sense what rights a person deserves? There is no such thing as a truly universal "unalienable right" if you think about it.
I don't think this can be dismissed as simple bull****, CP. No one "gave" us our rights. We had to fight for them every single time. To dismiss all that struggle as "bull****" is to ignore all of American history.
Yes, but you need to think about why they got these rights. They kept fighting for them, and if the rights were given, they would stay quiet. In other words, they were not given the rights by their antagonists because it was "morally correct," but rather to stop them from fighting. We did fight for them, but of course they were given to us after that to stop our fighting.
CP, just think how bad things would be for you if you had been born in, say, North korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia instead of the USA. You wouldn't have nearly as many rights then.
Sure, at which point I might have fought for some rights. I would either lose and die, or create a ruckus and cause whoever I am fighting to eventually decide that giving me the rights and keeping me quiet is better for them.
---------
you don't have to help, but your refusal to help would give others a reason to do the same thing - in which case you begin getting large scale breakdowns in sociological and moral fibre.
You will start getting that anyway at some point, though; note the "divisions" I talked about earlier. A society that is held together by morals alone is very unstable in that form and must keeping changing quickly to survive intact.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You will start getting that anyway at some point, though; note the "divisions" I talked about earlier. A society that is held together by morals alone is very unstable in that form and must keeping changing quickly to survive intact.
In other words a society that is evolving and adapting to its surroundings like a macro-organism composed of individuals.
;)
-
Exactly; it can be thought of as a unit in itself, with the individual human being the cellular components. ;)
-
But to go back onto the mid-level sentiment:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26618.html
If you control the means to disseminate content, you can subsequently control the public
This harsh reality terrifies the entertainment industry that will stop at nothing - no matter how ill-conceived - to keep its reign despite a failing business model and changing economic and customer environment. The copyright debate isn't only about profit, it's also about who controls information, and ultimately, people and society.
This is why you should care.
-
oh, the entertainment industry. Yes, I probably hate these corporations more than anyone else here. But how is that related to the topic at hand?
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
That's a completely contradictory cop-out, Blue. There is no way to believe both those things at once. If you believe that the slaves were people, then the South was wrong. If you believe that the South was right to wage a war to preserve slavery, then you believe that slavery was morally acceptable.
There's no inbetween, BL, and no amount of your posts can change that fact.
I never said I believed both. If you would have read what I said more carefully, you would have seen I said I thought the South was right to go to war or something they thought was right, even though I didn't agree.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
Blue Lion -
you don't have to help, but your refusal to help would give others a reason to do the same thing - in which case you begin getting large scale breakdowns in sociological and moral fibre.
I am glad, however, to hear that you in fact don't act the way described above :)
I never said I wouldn't help, matter of fact I probably will. I will not however, blame those who do not, because in my opinion, it is not their moral obligation to do so. It is not mine, or yours. If we do so, it is because we want to, not because we have to.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
As for you, whether you may or may not think the South was in the right, I'm going to assume that you think the North winning the Civil War was a good thing. Call me a hopeless optimist. :D
Yes I am glad we're flying the Stars and Stripes and not the Stars and Bars
Blue, the South may have thought they were in the right, but they weren't.
No, they knew they were right, we knew they were wrong. What if they had won? Would that have meant they were right?
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Yes I am glad we're flying the Stars and Stripes and not the Stars and Bars
Good man. :D
Originally posted by Blue Lion
No, they knew they were right, we knew they were wrong. What if they had won? Would that have meant they were right?
Ah, the wiles of the judgment of history....
If the South had won, history would have judged that slavery was permissible, at least in some places in the world.
God damn me, but yeah, I think if the South had won, all of us would have grown up thinking that while some people might have hated slavery, others would have thought it morally acceptable. Cripes, even I might have thought it acceptable if the South had won. And that notion scares the crap outta me.
Then again, another controversial and presently unresolved issue that matters a great deal to me is abortion. (If America ever fights another Civil War, it could be about this.) I didn't choose the side I chose simply because of where I lived or who I associated with or how it might affect my interests; I chose the side I chose after careful deliberation and thought. Who's to say that if I had been born in the South during the early 1800s, I would have still fought against slavery or not?
I like to think that I still would have supported the abolitionists if I had been born back then. But there's no way to really tell for sure...
Would the South have been "right" if they had won? They would have their judgment validated by history, sure, but I'm sure that the abolitionists would have continued their efforts to free the slaves even after the Civil War was over. Some causes are just too important to give up, even when they look like they're lost causes.
Even if history makes a judgment as to "right" or "wrong", a large slice of humanity might still disagree with it and work to change it.
That's the funny thing about history: the ending is always in flux. Which is really a good thing, because otherwise Time would stop. :eek:
(BTW, if anyone is curious about which side I support in the abortion debate, I'm pro-choice and proud of it. :cool: )
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
God damn me, but yeah, I think if the South had won, all of us would have grown up thinking that while some people might have hated slavery, others would have thought it morally acceptable. Cripes, even I might have thought it acceptable if the South had won. And that notion scares the crap outta me.
Exactly, it's all relative, nothing is right because is it, just because the majority thinks so
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Exactly, it's all relative, nothing is right because is it, just because the majority thinks so
Then it's good that the USA came along and convinced a majority of its people that everyone is entitled to certain inalienable rights, huh? :nod:
I'm glad to know that there are some people who are altruistic and generous and giving. The world would be a pretty horrible place otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Then it's good that the USA came along and convinced a majority of its people that everyone is entitled to certain inalienable rights, huh? :nod:
I'm glad to know that there are some people who are altruistic and generous and giving. The world would be a pretty horrible place otherwise.
It manages to be a pretty horrible place anyway, with or without "uncle sam" here.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Then it's good that the USA came along and convinced a majority of its people that everyone is entitled to certain inalienable rights, huh? :nod:
But are you so sure about that?
It manages to be a pretty horrible place anyway, with or without "uncle sam" here.
Imagine what it could be, and I'm not talking without the US, think how completely terrible it could be, then tell me we're in it that bad.
-
I really don't think it's that good - and I stick to my statement that if you think this travesty of a society is fine and is in any way acceptable there's something wrong with you (not you personally, of course)
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I really don't think it's that good - and I stick to my statement that if you think this travesty of a society is fine and is in any way acceptable there's something wrong with you (not you personally, of course)
What I meant was, could it be better? Yah of course. Could it be worse? Oh it could be a lot worse.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
What I meant was, could it be better? Yah of course. Could it be worse? Oh it could be a lot worse.
It could be orders of magnitude better as well. ;)
-
Originally posted by wEvil
It could be orders of magnitude better as well. ;)
Well now that we've somewhat agreed on that o.O
What exactly would you have people do?
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Well now that we've somewhat agreed on that o.O
What exactly would you have people do?
What i've been arguing all along - to start caring about each other.
And I don't mean this in an effeminate touchy-feely way, the problems facing the species are insurmountable if tackled as one block but if tackled on a smaller scale they become manageable.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
What i've been arguing all along - to start caring about each other.
You're asking a lot, you're asking people to change how they think and live, that's no small feat
-
would you?
have you?
I don't think its alot to ask when it is not only in their own self interest but every being around them too.
It all comes down to wether they will stick to old ways for no reason whatsoever.... in which case they should not be allowed to weigh the rest of us down.
Anyway...i'll have to continue this at a later date - i've got a big drive and a nice week of work waiting for me at the end of it.
Maybe next week? :D
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I don't think its alot to ask when it is not only in their own self interest but every being around them too.
And people will argue that ;)
Where are you going?
-
I work away from home but this is my last week (at last!!) so it sucks escecially that I have to go back up north (well..to me milton keynes is north) at all.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I work away from home but this is my last week (at last!!) so it sucks escecially that I have to go back up north (well..to me milton keynes is north) at all.
You're working up here in MK? Where, exactly? :)
(Inside joke - now I really can hunt you down.)
(BTW, if anyone is curious about which side I support in the abortion debate, I'm pro-choice and proud of it.)[/b]
1. Thank you for answering my question before I could pose it. :D
2. Good man. ;)
3. Su-tehp, your posts on morality and history have been articulate, understandable and intelligent. Thank you for them; I've found them both interesting and encouraging.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
No, you should talk to this woman and ask why she is having more children when clearly she can't support them and they_are_dying.
She probably wouldn't know, because if she is in such a situation it means she didn't have proper education. If she did have proper education, she would at least know how to keep her children alive. Now let me see, you'll say this is caused by misgovernment. Don't even bother.
Originally posted by Blue Lion
That isn't Americans putting their noses where it don't belong? I thought we weren't supposed to be meddling with other nations governments?
Unless they have a good deal of some black oily liquid-type substance, you surely mean.
Originally posted by CP5670
That's not what I am saying; how is following the ethics like a super religion helping us in our objective of attaining knowledge?
How can you assume our objective is to attain knowledge? It's obvious that out objective is to survive. If attaining knowledge helps that cause, great, but it doesn't mean it's our new objective. If we didn't have to survive, we should just kill ourselves as soon as we are born.
Originally posted by CP5670
Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing. I said this many times before.
Tell me, then, why attaining knowledge isn't contraditory if it's not for the objective of keeping us alive.
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing."
why do we have to do anything then, why not just kill ourselves to keep from being an illogical inconsistancy
Exactly.
Now the fun part begins.
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, I am back. :D
Logically speaking you didn't have to say that, as the single fact of something new being posted by you makes it obvious.
Originally posted by CP5670
I had already pretty much decided that already (anyone who uses something like your second post in this thread in place of an argument is not really worth my, or anyone else's time) but you did not start arguing more until later.
I only argue when it's necessary. Most of the time I just try to have and make fun. I should be the one saying that you're not worth it, it's obvious that nothing can change your disturbed mind, with the possible exception of a drastic personal experience. You don't believe in what people with more experience than you in this area say, even though they live right next to the problem and don't spend their lives at the comfort of their homes going from the computer to the fridge endlessly. By this I'm not implying I'm one of those people, clearly.
Originally posted by CP5670
And you must be having fun too, or you would not be posting. :D
You want to know why Im posting this? I'm posting this because I'm trying to help you. Help you change your biased opinion about certain things and how they work. Someday you might even be thankful for my intentions.
If I wanted to have fun I'd be spending my time on the internet playing Ultima Online or talking about fun stuff. This thread is serious, not fun. If you consider this subject fun, it tells us something else about you. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.
Originally posted by CP5670
That depends on whether or not there is something to learn in the first place. You could, for example, type in a bunch of random characters into your keyboard and try to find some meaning in that, but you probably would not get anywhere soon.
I couldn't care less if you think like that. I know how much sense my posts in that thread made, and I'm not the only one. Keep believing it isn't true, it would be just one more fantasy in your mind.
Originally posted by CP5670
As I see it, you posted some inside joke that would also make sense to some people, but was not really related to the argument.
It might not have been related to the argument, but it did show how much thought you put into your statements. And it was funny.
Originally posted by CP5670
And why would the organism need all the existing people to join when it can simply manufacture new people that are much better suited to it? Once it is started up, it can progress very rapidly. And I doubt that it would need more people beyond a certain point anyway, namely, the maximum value that best balances rapid scientific progression and low maintenance.
If it could make existing people join and manufacture new people at the same time it would gain power at a much higher rate. People would be resources which would go to waste if didn't join. And the maintenance mention brings up a whole new area of discussion. How would it work in order to need external maintenance? Wouldn't it, having more members, create much more resources?
Originally posted by CP5670
And I have played SS2; very nice game. :D
Oh, so in one thing we both fully agree! It did seem to me like some of your ideas (the concept of joining specifically - "Are we joined?") were based on The Many. And I have to agree it does seem like a perfectly reasonable system, and freaking cool too, but I'm not sure if it's viable and doable. Even if it is, I don't know if it's the best option.
Originally posted by CP5670
That is not important; the rate and direction of change is what counts, and the rule remains that they are quite ready to forsake any freedom for material gain.
Wait, wait. Who says they're ready to forsake any freedom? They might be ready to forsake some amount of freedom, but if they lost all of their freedom they wouldn't have the power to take advantage from this material gain, thus making it useless.
Originally posted by CP5670
The individuals do not need any commitment but to themselves to do this, and it would work in the same way the current civilization formed, where they join in out of a mutual interest alone.
The current civilization formed out of a mutual interest, of course, but in order to attain its objectives each individual needed a commitment to the others, to respect and be respected by them. The ones who didn't agree to this commitment were left out, and represent the criminals of today's society. They broke that commitment, and had to suffer the consequences.
You have to agree that it would be much easier (if not the only possible way) for this organism to be formed if not only the initial individuals shared a mutual interest, but also a commitment with one another. So it seems more likely to me that the ones commited to the species by ethics and morals would take the initiative to create this new system, and the ones who didn't accept it would be left out.
Originally posted by CP5670
Besides, I already said that this is not going to happen for all the people, or even a thousandth of them, but 10 would be enough to get it started, and considering the diversity of opinion in the world, that would be easy to obtain.
If one thousandth of the species decided to form a new being to compete with the other 999 thousandths, I don't think it would survive a very long time, in all seriousness. At its initial stages of development it would be very vulnerable, a good time to be eliminated by a force a thousand times greater than its own.
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, if this is the "foundation of every government", how is it that there exist governments today that do not abide by many of these morals...
You stated it correctly. They do not abide by many of these morals, but certainly do abide by a lot more. The point is, governments need some level of ethics, they can't work in the total absence of morals. If an already formed government lost all of its ethics and morals, the people wouldn't accept the old laws anymore, as there wouldn't exist anything that made them act like they did before. New laws would be created to reflect these changes, and at some point all of them would disappear, leading to anarchy and the end of government.
Originally posted by CP5670
...and still do fine in the material world?
They might do fine, but do they do great? Governments with a higher level of morals do better than the ones with lower levels, as you might have noticed.
Originally posted by CP5670
Next, you will tell me that religion is a "natural survival strategy." :rolleyes:
I never said anything about religion, as each individual chooses what he or she should or shouldn't believe in. Religion is not a natural survival strategy, at least not as much as ethics and morals are. Some religions do provide a great deal of support for the continued existance of society, by spreading concepts such as loving not only yourself, but all the others as well. This prevents people from causing harm, and that's beneficial to the species.
Originally posted by CP5670
(and yes, ethics in the sense you speak of is a religion, and stronger and more restrictive than all the others out there combined)
You got it completely wrong, and you exagerated just a little bit in the last part. Morals and ethics represent the mutual objective of a species to survive. Religions spread beliefs that may or may not be of mutual interest, there are so many differences from one another that it's not possible to generalize as much as ethics and morals.
Originally posted by CP5670
Uncommon, maybe, but confusing?
Just tell me how they would become gods and how they didn't have a free will from the first place. It didn't seem like a very serious argument anyway.
Originally posted by CP5670
Depends on whether or not their ancestors and ours were descended from the same species.
Right, so imagine this. Humankind, after a lot of research, is able to make monkeys evolve into a much more advanced race than itself is. Would this new race of monkeys become the true humans?
Originally posted by CP5670
Look at my previous post; they and only they understand what is best for them. How in the world is your conclusion about this being good for them more accurate, or even as accurate, as theirs?
Because their conclusion would result in their death, my conclusion would result in a peaceful productive life. Unless you want to discuss what makes something good or bad, in which case I'd have to ask you (again), why we shouldn't all just kill ourselves.
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, how are the parents more knowledgable about the child's objectives than the child is? Only the child knows what he/she wants and unless the parents are contributing to that objective, they are not helping the child.
The parents are helping the child because they know that the child wouldn't be benefitted in any form by eating dirt. It's the child the one who doesn't want to help him/herself, not the parents. The child's objectives are to cause harm to him/herself, which wouldn't be helpful at all. Not eating dirt offers more advantages than actually eating it, so it's better not to eat it, no matter what the objectives are. By providing the best situation to the child, the parent's are helping him/her.
Originally posted by CP5670
You cannot help someone unless you are contributing to their objective, since that is necessary to define te concepts of good and bad in the first place (suppose a guy wants to kill himself and tried to jump off a cliff, but you try to stop him, it is hurting him, not helping);
Same thing as in my previous paragraph. Would, then, the man be helping himself by commiting suicide? Would death be the best situation in which he could find himself? Are his objectives beneficial to himself?
The proper help in that case would be making him not want to kill himself anymore, not just stopping him from doing it. That's the concept of good and bad.
Originally posted by CP5670
I cannot see why you are having such a hard time understanding this.
Ask yourself, is letting the child eat dirt helpful for him/her? And answer by your real opinion, not trying to prove the point you're making so far, that'd be like cheating yourself.
Originally posted by CP5670
The simple conclusion to this is that individual objectives are meaningless on a social scale, and thus there is no reason to help out individuals.
No reason to help them attain their objectives, you mean. Plenty of reason to actually help them.
Originally posted by CP5670
It is not better for them for the reasons stated above, and I cannot see how it would be better for society either. If you simply kill all the criminals, you will not have to worry about them at all and you will also discourage further crime. Problem solved, no ethics needed.
You would indeed be solving the problem, but would it be the best solution? If the criminals are no longer criminals, but regular working citizens, isn't it better than having a few more corpses in the cemetary, or ashes in the sea? Wouldn't they, by working, contribute to the society? Wouldn't that be a better example for the others?
-
none of this matters, because the sun will go red giant in 5 billion years, and all life on earth will die.
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
She probably wouldn't know, because if she is in such a situation it means she didn't have proper education. If she did have proper education, she would at least know how to keep her children alive. Now let me see, you'll say this is caused by misgovernment. Don't even bother.
No, that's her own stupidty :wtf: Look, if your children are dying, you don't need a college degree to grasp the concept that you shouldn't be having more. You're trying to tell me she should keep having children that will die?
Unless they have a good deal of some black oily liquid-type substance, you surely mean.
No, I meant period, isn't that what everyone is telling us? Or do you mean that we're only allowed to meddle with nations when it isn't in our best interests?
-
Let's see what we have here this time...
How can you assume our objective is to attain knowledge? It's obvious that out objective is to survive. If attaining knowledge helps that cause, great, but it doesn't mean it's our new objective. If we didn't have to survive, we should just kill ourselves as soon as we are born.
Tell me, then, why attaining knowledge isn't contraditory if it's not for the objective of keeping us alive.
I did not assume this one; I derived it from a list of other goals and propositions. I will not go into all of the details of the argument concerning knowledge itself (it's very long), but I can quickly tell you why survival alone is insufficient. Survival cannot be the objective alone, because what exactly defines "us" anyway? At the most fundamental level, there is and can be no difference between us and the nearest particle carrying energy until specifically proven otherwise due to the principle of induction. Since we know it is not possible for the particles to be completely destroyed, we do not need to do anything specifically to survive; anything we do will guarantee it. This means that no options have been exhausted yet despite our attempts at reasoning. Now you will probably say that we need to survive and still retain our current form of existence, but is that even possible? If we examine it more carefully, it can be seen that it is not. On one side, remember that change is always there, and probably inevitable; if we stay completely static, at some point, we would have evolved into something new anyway. (it has been scientifically shown that our civilization, or rather, our rate of change, is primarily what has allowed us to stall the progress of evolution) On the other hand, if we continue progressing as we are today, we will still keep evolving, except in the other direction, because this progress of science/technology and knowledge in general is itself a form of evolution. At some point we would have become as completely different and unrecognizable as being actual humans as the humans of today are from, say, rocks, and so it would make no difference which evolutionary path we take unless we consider further objectives. Now how does distinguish between the different "forms" of existence? You will see that it is not possible to lay down anything other than randomly-chosen arbitrary boundaries between one form and another, which have no meaning in the absolute material reality. This completes the deduction. (I dropped the details, but you can get a general idea)
Logically speaking you didn't have to say that, as the single fact of something new being posted by you makes it obvious.
Alright, I will agree there. I was trying to throw in a bit of humor into an otherwise serious-sounding post to balance things out.
I only argue when it's necessary. Most of the time I just try to have and make fun. I should be the one saying that you're not worth it, it's obvious that nothing can change your disturbed mind, with the possible exception of a drastic personal experience. You don't believe in what people with more experience than you in this area say, even though they live right next to the problem and don't spend their lives at the comfort of their homes going from the computer to the fridge endlessly. By this I'm not implying I'm one of those people, clearly.
And the necessity arises from the objective of having fun; what's your point? Unless you can logically argue your point, it is for all purposes incorrect. I could just as easily say that you are the one with the "disturbed mind" without changing any of the words around and so it is effectively a petty insult. When people resort to such arguments as "more experience" and "comfort of home" (trust me, I have heard this many, many times), it is because they are running out of other, more sensible arguments. I have no reason to think that this case is any different. Better think up of some new arguments... :D
You want to know why Im posting this? I'm posting this because I'm trying to help you. Help you change your biased opinion about certain things and how they work. Someday you might even be thankful for my intentions.
Okay, I was laughing for some time when I saw this one. :lol: :D :lol: And I suppose bin Laden is also helping everyone in the world by killing them in the name of Allah. Regarding bias, why don't you practice what you preach? :D
If I wanted to have fun I'd be spending my time on the internet playing Ultima Online or talking about fun stuff. This thread is serious, not fun. If you consider this subject fun, it tells us something else about you. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.
If that is more fun, why are you not doing it? Nobody is telling you to come here instead. I do indeed consider this subject fun, which is why I am into general philosophy in the first place. And tell me what exactly defines this distinction you are making between serious things and fun things; I try to take everything in life with the same amount of seriousness/humor, and so it means nothing to me. (hey, even your brother Styxx doesn't take these arguments seriously; follow his example)
I couldn't care less if you think like that. I know how much sense my posts in that thread made, and I'm not the only one. Keep believing it isn't true, it would be just one more fantasy in your mind.
In other words, you concede my point. Now get someone else who understood your one-sentence posts and have them explain it.
It might not have been related to the argument, but it did show how much thought you put into your statements. And it was funny.
If it was not related to the argument, why was it in there in the first place? The very likely reason as stated above is that you ran out of other arguments to put in. :rolleyes:
If it could make existing people join and manufacture new people at the same time it would gain power at a much higher rate. People would be resources which would go to waste if didn't join. And the maintenance mention brings up a whole new area of discussion. How would it work in order to need external maintenance? Wouldn't it, having more members, create much more resources?
I am not talking about external, but internal maintenance. It would need more resources to keep running, but humans, while providing for the objective, also take up resources to operate. Besides, I am not sure that after a point it would even use humans anymore, or it would use a different kind of sub-organism (a "new" human) and produce more as necessary. (and upgrading an existing one might actually be more costly than just cloning an existing one from scratch, just like personal computers today) Eventually, the super-organism may indeed end up engulfing the entire universe, but by that time it would have grown powerful enough compared to the individuals that there would really be nothing to stop it.
Oh, so in one thing we both fully agree! It did seem to me like some of your ideas (the concept of joining specifically - "Are we joined?") were based on The Many. And I have to agree it does seem like a perfectly reasonable system, and freaking cool too, but I'm not sure if it's viable and doable. Even if it is, I don't know if it's the best option.
State your better option and reasons, then. :D Although actually, I had these ideas before I ever heard of the game.
Wait, wait. Who says they're ready to forsake any freedom? They might be ready to forsake some amount of freedom, but if they lost all of their freedom they wouldn't have the power to take advantage from this material gain, thus making it useless.
And how does losing all freedom imply the absence of that power? I say they are ready to forsake any and all freedom, because they have already forsaken a lot, and if only these variables are taken into account, the induction procedure of science would suggest it as so.
The current civilization formed out of a mutual interest, of course, but in order to attain its objectives each individual needed a commitment to the others, to respect and be respected by them. The ones who didn't agree to this commitment were left out, and represent the criminals of today's society. They broke that commitment, and had to suffer the consequences.
The commitment grew over time as people got used to it and thus started to believe it was the only "natural thing" to do; they did not have any commitment when the system first started, but a mutual interest and a mutual interest alone.
You have to agree that it would be much easier (if not the only possible way) for this organism to be formed if not only the initial individuals shared a mutual interest, but also a commitment with one another. So it seems more likely to me that the ones commited to the species by ethics and morals would take the initiative to create this new system, and the ones who didn't accept it would be left out.
That might be the case, but the hard truth is that the individuals did not have this commitment to each other, and no amount of simple coaxing is going to get them to do it today either. (that is, everyone)
If one thousandth of the species decided to form a new being to compete with the other 999 thousandths, I don't think it would survive a very long time, in all seriousness. At its initial stages of development it would be very vulnerable, a good time to be eliminated by a force a thousand times greater than its own.
Yes it would, and it would come out victorious. Think of this: suppose a group of ten or fifteen scientists get together and try to build a new super-weapon to take out the planet, along with a super-shield that can fully stand up to the weapon. They work in total secrecy, and when they are finished, they give all world governments an ultimatum to surrender unconditionally to their purposes in X number of days or they will detonate the superbomb and destroy everything else on the Earth. Nobody knows where they are, and time is running out; whether or not they give in to the demands or not, they will lose. (either way) I have said this many times before here: one man with the appropriate technology is a god compared one without it, and this man can take on the entire remainder of the world.
You stated it correctly. They do not abide by many of these morals, but certainly do abide by a lot more. The point is, governments need some level of ethics, they can't work in the total absence of morals. If an already formed government lost all of its ethics and morals, the people wouldn't accept the old laws anymore, as there wouldn't exist anything that made them act like they did before. New laws would be created to reflect these changes, and at some point all of them would disappear, leading to anarchy and the end of government.
They might do fine, but do they do great? Governments with a higher level of morals do better than the ones with lower levels, as you might have noticed.
That is not exactly the case; look at all of human history, not just that of today. And the only reason they have the "absolute morals" is that the people are moralistic and will take it better if the ideas exist in the laws as well. (in the same religious form) Suppose, over a period of many decades, you change around the existing culture with heavy propagandic conditioning so that no morals exist. The people then will not like the morals anymore in that sense and will not care if they are removed from the government as well.
I never said anything about religion, as each individual chooses what he or she should or shouldn't believe in. Religion is not a natural survival strategy, at least not as much as ethics and morals are. Some religions do provide a great deal of support for the continued existance of society, by spreading concepts such as loving not only yourself, but all the others as well. This prevents people from causing harm, and that's beneficial to the species.
If ethics is a "natural survival strategy," then so it must be for religion as well, or at least certain religions, because quite frankly, ethics in taken in the absolute is a religion, and of the worst sort too. And now each individual chooses what they "should" believe in, eh? This ties in to another sub-argument below; what if the child "believes" in eating dirt?
You got it completely wrong, and you exagerated just a little bit in the last part. Morals and ethics represent the mutual objective of a species to survive. Religions spread beliefs that may or may not be of mutual interest, there are so many differences from one another that it's not possible to generalize as much as ethics and morals.
Morals and ethics taken in a religious sense may represent whatever, but they simply do not work so nicely in reality. They will only contribute to the survival of the species if everyone without exception abides by them, and even then only as a general rule and not an absolute limitation. (they need to be ready to break all the moral rules at any time) They will not work otherwise; in fact, they will lead to the destruction of those who do abide by them (1930s India, anyone?), and so they are actually an impairment in any such situation. Since the condition stated earlier of having everyone go by the morals reliably while still retaining "individual choice" is next to impossible, the morals can go out the window. And if ethics can be "generalized" so nicely, why cannot other religions as well?
Just tell me how they would become gods and how they didn't have a free will from the first place. It didn't seem like a very serious argument anyway.
They become gods compared to everyone who is not part of the large unit since they can leave behind much of their lives' cares and can concentrate on pursuing a common objective, and they do not have free will because their so-called will is completely determined by their surrounding culture as they live their lives along with the laws of science. And the last statement depends on how you define a "very serious" argument.
Right, so imagine this. Humankind, after a lot of research, is able to make monkeys evolve into a much more advanced race than itself is. Would this new race of monkeys become the true humans?
Actually, these guys would technically be an amalgamation of both humans and monkeys and thereby retain characteristics of both, although they would still predominantly be monkey descendants because materially speaking, that is what they came from.
Because their conclusion would result in their death, my conclusion would result in a peaceful productive life. Unless you want to discuss what makes something good or bad, in which case I'd have to ask you (again), why we shouldn't all just kill ourselves.
See below for the top part; see above for the bottom part. :D
The parents are helping the child because they know that the child wouldn't be benefitted in any form by eating dirt. It's the child the one who doesn't want to help him/herself, not the parents. The child's objectives are to cause harm to him/herself, which wouldn't be helpful at all. Not eating dirt offers more advantages than actually eating it, so it's better not to eat it, no matter what the objectives are. By providing the best situation to the child, the parent's are helping him/her.
Who are we to decide that what we consider an advantage is also considered as such by the child? The parents are helping themselves here, because they are attaining their own objective of keeping the child safe.
Same thing as in my previous paragraph. Would, then, the man be helping himself by commiting suicide? Would death be the best situation in which he could find himself? Are his objectives beneficial to himself?
Yes they are, because the whole concept of benefit (and loss) only has any meaning when an objective is first defined.
The proper help in that case would be making him not want to kill himself anymore, not just stopping him from doing it. That's the concept of good and bad.
And how is this any more "proper" than letting him die? :rolleyes:
Ask yourself, is letting the child eat dirt helpful for him/her? And answer by your real opinion, not trying to prove the point you're making so far, that'd be like cheating yourself.
No, I would not say that, because the child's objective might be to eat everything he/she sees, so he/she is working towards attaining the objective by eating the dirt. Therefore, it is beneficial. And yes, this is my "real opinion;" note that I also said that individual objectives/benefits have no meaning in an absolute sense.
No reason to help them attain their objectives, you mean. Plenty of reason to actually help them.
And how would you be helping them otherwise?
You would indeed be solving the problem, but would it be the best solution? If the criminals are no longer criminals, but regular working citizens, isn't it better than having a few more corpses in the cemetary, or ashes in the sea? Wouldn't they, by working, contribute to the society? Wouldn't that be a better example for the others?
Is it worth all the trouble of explaining all this to them to have a few more lower-class job positions filled up, where they would still not really be reliable and trustworthy citizens due to their previous records and thus would need to be kept under constant surveillance? I think not.
I suppose that if you were alive 60 years ago, you would have also tried to "convince" Hitler that he is "wrong" while he goes about destroying everything. :D
Keep those arguments coming!
(this has to be one of the longest posts I have ever written, even by my standards)
-
do you think that you, or more acurately, the human race is "better" than every other speces on the planet?
I am not meaning this in a sence of more intelegent, or more powerful or best suited to survival, but more of a being above the rest on some sort of psudo spiritual level,
that there is something speacal about us
-
Originally posted by Kellan
You're working up here in MK? Where, exactly? :)
(Inside joke - now I really can hunt you down.)
1. Thank you for answering my question before I could pose it. :D
2. Good man. ;)
3. Su-tehp, your posts on morality and history have been articulate, understandable and intelligent. Thank you for them; I've found them both interesting and encouraging.
Its not actually MK, its closer to Bedford (biggleswade, in fact ;p )
Before you say its nowhere near there - my geography is useless!
2.
I have to side with the pro-choice band. If you want to pump the world full of unwanted kids then you're either one yourself and want everyone to be subjected to the same pain when they found out and are thus a sadist or you haven't thought it through properly.
You cannot balance a bundle of cells, no matter what it might grow into, against the possibility the adult host could not give the child a "good existance".
I define "good existance" in relative terms.
-
do you think that you, or more acurately, the human race is "better" than every other speces on the planet?
I am not meaning this in a sence of more intelegent, or more powerful or best suited to survival, but more of a being above the rest on some sort of psudo spiritual level,
that there is something speacal about us
You talking to me? It depends on the purpose, i.e. better for what...on any truly objective level, we are of course not just plain better, but yeah, I could say we are better suited to the completion of certain goals.
-
yes well you seem to be defineing the meaning of our exsistance as the persuit of knowlege,
and you are saying that evolutionary survival is not sufishant indicating that you see our race as being somehow better than anything that has ever exsisted and ever will exsist on our world
I on the other hand make no assertions that we must have any perpose, or that we are destand for anything greater than any other animal, I do not view humanity as being much if any "better" than a chimp or a rat or a microbe, sure were smarter, we can do things other animals can't, we're more rational than any other organisim knowen, but this does not make us better as there are trade offs,
as there are for warm blooded animals needing more food,
being smarter requires many suportive factors, including a number of pychological ones,
such desires as being part of something bigger, having a perpose,
these are the things that religons have used to controle people for thousands of years, and just now it seems like there is enough understanding of the situation that at least part of the world may be able to get out
have you ever considered that you're vision of a perfict human culture is in fact nothing more than a religon in and of it'self,
you are specifying a goal, you are subverting humans into a larger whole, if you look at the behavior of this beast it will act in almost an identical manner as any of the major world religons
you seem to be advocating a world of perfict logic as a good thing,
while at the same time saying that there is no "good",
you also seem to be ignoring the fact that you are an animal, subject to the same instinctive behavors as every other animal,
by the way you are talking, you seem to be asserting that we have a sole, but that the sole is rational thought, that there is a moral imperitive in seeking a logical state, when in fact there is no logical advantage to exsistance over non exsistance,
and you also seem to think that we can survive in a socal environment without an internal preset standards of right and wrong, wich exsist only in our minds, but we are human so these consepts do effect us and will always effect us,
the only way you would be able to remove ethics from humanity is by ripping out nearly all preprogramed instinct, wich would leave only a unmotivated uncareing (about anything, including logic and knologe) and nonsocal animal that would probly die of starvation as soon as you stoped forceing food down it's throught
-
Some good points this time around...
yes well you seem to be defineing the meaning of our exsistance as the persuit of knowlege,
and you are saying that evolutionary survival is not sufishant indicating that you see our race as being somehow better than anything that has ever exsisted and ever will exsist on our world
eh...what does knowledge have to do with a master species? We are probably better suited to it that anything that has existed so far (based on how far back our understanding goes, at least), but there could well exist far more superior species in the future. These could grow right out of the various divisions of humans themselves, or from another species, or from whatever else. But in the end, all species are the same thing, so it would not make any difference if we are being this generalized. ;)
I on the other hand make no assertions that we must have any perpose, or that we are destand for anything greater than any other animal
That makes perfect sense actually, but this is one of these annoying aspects of this particular problem: we literally cannot hold a state of indeterminacy here, as we can in some other problems. If we could somehow do nothing (nothing that is not something; almost logically contradictory) in life, I would of course advocate doing absolutely nothing, but we have no choice here.
I do not view humanity as being much if any "better" than a chimp or a rat or a microbe, sure were smarter, we can do things other animals can't, we're more rational than any other organisim knowen, but this does not make us better as there are trade offs, as there are for warm blooded animals needing more food,
being smarter requires many suportive factors, including a number of pychological ones
Exactly, that is what I mean when I say that "good" and "bad" do not mean anything except in relation to specific logical propositions, and even then it is not always true.
such desires as being part of something bigger, having a perpose,
these are the things that religons have used to controle people for thousands of years, and just now it seems like there is enough understanding of the situation that at least part of the world may be able to get out
have you ever considered that you're vision of a perfict human culture is in fact nothing more than a religon in and of it'self,
you are specifying a goal, you are subverting humans into a larger whole, if you look at the behavior of this beast it will act in almost an identical manner as any of the major world religons
Actually, the purpose is whatever you make of it. For example, you could use a math book not only to learn math, but also to throw at people, as a paperweight, as a doorstop, to write on, and so on. Which is the "true" purpose? All of them are. Same goes for individual people, as well as the society. All of this is of course not something that I want or need anyone to do; I couldn't care less where the world or humanity goes in the future on a personal level. We are talking more about what is, not what we want, and why it is so; this is precisely what defines ideas of science and sets them apart from religions. We do not want them to do this; they will do this. Now, given the circumstances so far, it is likely that humanity will follow a path that will eventually culminates in what I said earlier. Of course, another possibility is that they will all die out by any of a number of reasons. Or they might evolve into something similar to one of the other animals on the planet. Or something else. If that happens, then so be it; I don't care. :D I just want to know.
you seem to be advocating a world of perfict logic as a good thing,
while at the same time saying that there is no "good",
you also seem to be ignoring the fact that you are an animal, subject to the same instinctive behavors as every other animal,
Actually, I don't think that there is any good or bad in a universal sense, i.e. for all purposes, but one can sometimes get a "good" or "bad" for specific purposes using the logic rules. In the end, one could say (and many have said) that all deduction boils down to the validity of the axioms or assumptions, but of course, all of science is unfortunately like this, and we must assume if we want to discover. (this is a basic principle of scientific philosophy) Of course, it is a good idea to generalize the assumptions as much as possible so to keep them at a minimum number.
I am indeed just another human and I have the same ethical "disease" that you all do, but as I said earlier, I can still think hypothetically with rationality, as can anyone else. I simply am unable to actually do anything according to that in reality, but that hardly matters in this case. :D
by the way you are talking, you seem to be asserting that we have a sole, but that the sole is rational thought, that there is a moral imperitive in seeking a logical state, when in fact there is no logical advantage to exsistance over non exsistance
A soul? If there is any "soul," it must boil down into matter in the end (or the other way around, which amounts to the same thing), since that would not fit with the holistic principle implied by induction. There is no "moral imperative" in seeking a logical state, but the logical state is unfortunately a necessary assumption (and more than that: a self-implying assumption that "proves itself"), because without it, all thoughts or deductions of any kind would be meaningless, and we would not be able to get anywhere. Even the very action of searching for a rule to start our deductions requires some logic. I cannot think of how deductions would be without logic, and there probably would not be anyone who can go by something aside from logic, but if there is, and they still get results (and the concept of a result is itself logical) then they are equally correct. (noting that correctness is logical as well)
and you also seem to think that we can survive in a socal environment without an internal preset standards of right and wrong, wich exsist only in our minds, but we are human so these consepts do effect us and will always effect us,
the only way you would be able to remove ethics from humanity is by ripping out nearly all preprogramed instinct, wich would leave only a unmotivated uncareing (about anything, including logic and knologe) and nonsocal animal that would probly die of starvation as soon as you stoped forceing food down it's throught
What would the concepts have to do with "being human?" As I said, the human in theory could do anything, all of which could be considered human. Suppose the prehistoric humans had deduced that it is "good" to bash their heads against a rock exactly three times every day (I'm just making up an example). Then today, doing exactly this would have been considered "human" and anything else would be "inhuman." Same goes with the morals. There is very little preprogrammed instinct, and it all has to do with personal survival, not the survival of the species; everything else comes in later as the brain acquires information. (the brain starts its assimilation procedure the moment the human is born)
-
I have to side with the pro-choice band. If you want to pump the world full of unwanted kids then you're either one yourself and want everyone to be subjected to the same pain when they found out and are thus a sadist or you haven't thought it through properly.
You cannot balance a bundle of cells, no matter what it might grow into, against the possibility the adult host could not give the child a "good existance".
I define "good existance" in relative terms.
By the way, on this point, guess what side I am on. :D :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I did not assume this one; I derived it from a list of other goals and propositions. I will not go into all of the details of the argument concerning knowledge itself (it's very long), but I can quickly tell you why survival alone is insufficient. Survival cannot be the objective alone, because what exactly defines "us" anyway? At the most fundamental level, there is and can be no difference between us and the nearest particle carrying energy until specifically proven otherwise due to the principle of induction. Since we know it is not possible for the particles to be completely destroyed, we do not need to do anything specifically to survive; anything we do will guarantee it. This means that no options have been exhausted yet despite our attempts at reasoning. Now you will probably say that we need to survive and still retain our current form of existence, but is that even possible? If we examine it more carefully, it can be seen that it is not. On one side, remember that change is always there, and probably inevitable; if we stay completely static, at some point, we would have evolved into something new anyway. (it has been scientifically shown that our civilization, or rather, our rate of change, is primarily what has allowed us to stall the progress of evolution) On the other hand, if we continue progressing as we are today, we will still keep evolving, except in the other direction, because this progress of science/technology and knowledge in general is itself a form of evolution. At some point we would have become as completely different and unrecognizable as being actual humans as the humans of today are from, say, rocks, and so it would make no difference which evolutionary path we take unless we consider further objectives. Now how does distinguish between the different "forms" of existence? You will see that it is not possible to lay down anything other than randomly-chosen arbitrary boundaries between one form and another, which have no meaning in the absolute material reality. This completes the deduction. (I dropped the details, but you can get a general idea)
To start of, by surviving I mean staying alive. If you die, you're no longer staying alive. If doing nothing guaranteed that we wouldn't die, I think it's perfectly possible that we wouldn't have started persuing knowledge in the first place.
If we're nothing more than the particles that form our bodies, we would be able to become anything over time. If an alien race showed up and started living here, and the particles of our old bodies formed new aliens, would they become human? Following the principle that the sum of the parts alone doesn't make the whole, the answer would have to be negative. So I still don't see how that proves that our principal objective is to obtain knowledge and not to survive.
Originally posted by CP5670
Alright, I will agree there. I was trying to throw in a bit of humor into an otherwise serious-sounding post to balance things out.
Good, keep that in mind.
Originally posted by CP5670
And the necessity arises from the objective of having fun; what's your point?
Nope, the necessity arises from the objective of sharing another point of view. That doesn't mean I think it's fun.
Originally posted by CP5670
Unless you can logically argue your point, it is for all purposes incorrect. I could just as easily say that you are the one with the "disturbed mind" without changing any of the words around and so it is effectively a petty insult.
And I could just as easily say that you're the one not worth it, it's as much of a petty insult as anything else you might want to call me. Good thing I managed to make you be the one saying it.
Originally posted by CP5670
When people resort to such arguments as "more experience" and "comfort of home" (trust me, I have heard this many, many times), it is because they are running out of other, more sensible arguments. I have no reason to think that this case is any different.Better think up of some new arguments... :D
When people resort to merely saying that they heard something many times before without actually saying anything new, it's probably due to the same reason.
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, I was laughing for some time when I saw this one. :lol: :D :lol:
Good. Now remember that thing I told you to keep in mind.
Originally posted by CP5670
And I suppose bin Laden is also helping everyone in the world by killing them in the name of Allah.
If our goal is to obtain knowledge, not to survive, I don't see how he is doing any harm.
Originally posted by CP5670
Regarding bias, why don't you practice what you preach? :D
I can't see how what I said is untrue. We're all biased in some way. I never said I wasn't.
Originally posted by CP5670
If that is more fun, why are you not doing it? Nobody is telling you to come here instead.
Nobody is, indeed. I just consider an obligation to show that I don't and never will accept/agree with certain things.
Originally posted by CP5670
I do indeed consider this subject fun, which is why I am into general philosophy in the first place. And tell me what exactly defines this distinction you are making between serious things and fun things; I try to take everything in life with the same amount of seriousness/humor, and so it means nothing to me.
Strange. A couple of quotes ago you were saying that this was a serious-sounding subject. Suit yourself, is it serious or not?
As to what defines the distinction between serious and fun things it is, again, something called morals and ethics. Would you consider fun talking about the death of your parents?
Originally posted by CP5670
(hey, even your brother Styxx doesn't take these arguments seriously; follow his example)
Give me a good reason and I will.
Originally posted by CP5670
In other words, you concede my point. Now get someone else who understood your one-sentence posts and have them explain it.
I concede your right not to believe what I'm saying, it's your choice. I never said anything about agreeing that my posts didn't make any sense. If someone wanted to explain them to you, you would know.
Originally posted by CP5670
If it was not related to the argument, why was it in there in the first place?
It was there for the purpose you quoted.
Originally posted by CP5670
The very likely reason as stated above is that you ran out of other arguments to put in. :rolleyes:
If I had run out of arguments you would have won. The fact that you didn't proves that I hadn't.
Originally posted by CP5670
I am not talking about external, but internal maintenance. It would need more resources to keep running, but humans, while providing for the objective, also take up resources to operate.
Now now, I see you forgot something. After the organism obtained a sufficient amount of knowledge (which is its principal objective, by your line of thought), each one of the individuals that formed it would have to be able to produce all and any resources it takes to keep them operating, at the same time as contributing normally to the persuit of more knowledge.
Originally posted by CP5670
Besides, I am not sure that after a point it would even use humans anymore, or it would use a different kind of sub-organism (a "new" human) and produce more as necessary. (and upgrading an existing one might actually be more costly than just cloning an existing one from scratch, just like personal computers today)
With enough knowledge (if it is its objective, it should have plenty of it) the organism could both keep cloning more individuals and assimilating already existant ones, upgrading them without costs to obtain power at a higher rate. I had already said this, maybe you weren't paying attention.
Originally posted by CP5670
Eventually, the super-organism may indeed end up engulfing the entire universe, but by that time it would have grown powerful enough compared to the individuals that there would really be nothing to stop it.
If it had engulfed the entire universe there would be no individuals to compare it with. Unless you mean engulfed in some other sense.
Originally posted by CP5670
State your better option and reasons, then. :D
Right now I can't think of any. It doesn't mean the super organism is the best option, though. I think you agree that a best option may not be chosen without knowing all the options.
Originally posted by CP5670
Although actually, I had these ideas before I ever heard of the game.
Yeah, the Borg is another example. It's not hard to find similar ideas in almost every sci fi universe. Styxx had something to the effect of a super organism in an old project, and some other people too.
Originally posted by CP5670
And how does losing all freedom imply the absence of that power?
The loss of all freedom implies exactly the absence of power, although the loss of some freedom doesn't imply the loss of some power. It's possible to lose freedom and gain power at the same time, but you'll need some level of freedom to have power.
Originally posted by CP5670
I say they are ready to forsake any and all freedom, because they have already forsaken a lot, and if only these variables are taken into account, the induction procedure of science would suggest it as so.
So the fact that people usually cut their hair and nails also means that they're ready to cut their heads off?
Originally posted by CP5670
The commitment grew over time as people got used to it and thus started to believe it was the only "natural thing" to do; they did not have any commitment when the system first started, but a mutual interest and a mutual interest alone.
The commitment was what formed it in the first place. When the first two people started living together, they were committed to protect (if possible) and help each other. When the first two families started living next to each other, it was also because of this commitment. There was a mutual interest, but the very reason this interest existed at all was because they were ready to help each other in times of need. If they didn't care for the other, there would be no gain in living together, thus no mutual interest. They were committed by ethics and morals.
Originally posted by CP5670
That might be the case, but the hard truth is that the individuals did not have this commitment to each other, and no amount of simple coaxing is going to get them to do it today either. (that is, everyone)
I think I just replied to that, but I'll add something. Even if back then they didn't have the commitment, now many, many people do. There are more people who do have it than people who don't, that's for sure. The ones who have it (if it ever happens) will certainly be the ones trying to unite the species with a closer bound, such as the one required to form the organism.
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes it would, and it would come out victorious. Think of this: suppose a group of ten or fifteen scientists get together and try to build a new super-weapon to take out the planet, along with a super-shield that can fully stand up to the weapon. They work in total secrecy, and when they are finished, they give all world governments an ultimatum to surrender unconditionally to their purposes in X number of days or they will detonate the superbomb and destroy everything else on the Earth. Nobody knows where they are, and time is running out; whether or not they give in to the demands or not, they will lose. (either way) I have said this many times before here: one man with the appropriate technology is a god compared one without it, and this man can take on the entire remainder of the world.
That is a great analogy, but unfortunately it doesn't serve the purpose of this discussion. The organism, after being formed, would not become immediately invulnerable and immortal. It would need time to gain power, specially right in the beggining. In this time a force a thousand times greater than the organism would have no trouble in eliminating every trace of it.
Originally posted by CP5670
That is not exactly the case; look at all of human history, not just that of today. And the only reason they have the "absolute morals" is that the people are moralistic and will take it better if the ideas exist in the laws as well. (in the same religious form) Suppose, over a period of many decades, you change around the existing culture with heavy propagandic conditioning so that no morals exist. The people then will not like the morals anymore in that sense and will not care if they are removed from the government as well.
That would be a government which would accept things such as violence, robbery and murder, it seems. I honestly don't see how that would be any better than the current system, or how it could be called government at all. I can already imagine how that marketing campaign would be. "Too much noise at night? Kill your neighbour. The simplest solution is right next to you!"
What I see, though, is that governments some day might not be needed at all. If the whole species follow morals and ethics, there would be no crime, no violence, no agressions to the others. That might happen if a real threat against humankind is made, like the appearance of a hostile alien species. It seems to me that there are more advantages in ethics growing stronger than in disappearing at all.
Originally posted by CP5670
If ethics is a "natural survival strategy," then so it must be for religion as well, or at least certain religions, because quite frankly, ethics in taken in the absolute is a religion, and of the worst sort too.
If you take the beliefs that actually matter and throw the unnecessary stuff out, religion would actually be a very good survival strategy. But then it would be the same thing as ethics and morals, because all beliefs that matter are already included in those. In this sense ethics can be a religion, but a purely beneficial one, one that spreads the survival of the species and not the need to believe in things such as God or a bunch of gods. I don't see how that's not beneficial.
Originally posted by CP5670
And now each individual chooses what they "should" believe in, eh? This ties in to another sub-argument below; what if the child "believes" in eating dirt?
If someone is forced to believe in something, that's not a beneficial religion. I did say some religions are beneficial, if you remember. If a child believes in eating dirt, that's simply not a beneficial belief (or religion, if you want to consider it so), nothing more.
Originally posted by CP5670
Morals and ethics taken in a religious sense may represent whatever, but they simply do not work so nicely in reality. They will only contribute to the survival of the species if everyone without exception abides by them, and even then only as a general rule and not an absolute limitation. (they need to be ready to break all the moral rules at any time) They will not work otherwise; in fact, they will lead to the destruction of those who do abide by them (1930s India, anyone?), and so they are actually an impairment in any such situation. Since the condition stated earlier of having everyone go by the morals reliably while still retaining "individual choice" is next to impossible, the morals can go out the window.
Hm, in that first part you agreed with me, or conceded my point, as you like to say. Later on, though, you seemed to change your mind. Yes, everyone has to abide by ethics for it to work properly, and no, they don't have to be ready to break moral rules at any time. They will work otherwise, just not as well as if everyone did abide by them. Everyone already does, anyway, just not at the same level. It's just a little something that has to be worked on; I'm certain it wouldn't be as hard as trying to eliminate them completely. Oh, and people do have individual choice, but ethics is a part of the essence that makes us human.
Originally posted by CP5670
And if ethics can be "generalized" so nicely, why cannot other religions as well?
Because, as I already said, moral rules form one single principle, while religions spread a whole lot of different principles. Each one has its own, almost. And I did notice you referred to ethics as being a religion, don't worry.
Originally posted by CP5670
They become gods compared to everyone who is not part of the large unit since they can leave behind much of their lives' cares and can concentrate on pursuing a common objective
Oh, compared to something. So it's relative! What if there is another organism with equal power, would the individuals that formed the first one be gods compared to the ones that formed the second?
Originally posted by CP5670
and they do not have free will because their so-called will is completely determined by their surrounding culture as they live their lives along with the laws of science.
Tell me again how that will part works, because as I see it, if they have no will at all they don't have the power to do anything. And is living their lives a reason not to have a free will? Doesn't everyone live their lives by the laws of science?
Originally posted by CP5670
And the last statement depends on how you define a "very serious" argument.
Logically speaking, a very serious argument is one which is neither fun nor just serious. But that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, these guys would technically be an amalgamation of both humans and monkeys and thereby retain characteristics of both, although they would still predominantly be monkey descendants because materially speaking, that is what they came from.
So your answer is no, they wouldn't be humans even though they have a better understanding of reality and come from the same ancestors as the human species as it is today. This means, at the most basic level, that your concept of human is incorrect.
Originally posted by CP5670
See below for the top part; see above for the bottom part. :D
You didn't reply to the specific subject. If you think having a productive life doesn't offer more advantages than dying, why shouldn't we kill ourselves?
Originally posted by CP5670
Who are we to decide that what we consider an advantage is also considered as such by the child? The parents are helping themselves here, because they are attaining their own objective of keeping the child safe.
By keeping the child safe they're helping him/her. I think that's even one of the definitions of the word help. What you lack is just a more advanced concept of helping, nothing more. In your view, killing someone who wants to die is helpful (hm, I realized just now that you're certainly pro-euthanasia). You don't consider that people's desires and objectives aren't static, they change relatively often. Someone who wants to die today might be the greater admirer of life tomorrow. Kill him/her today, tomorrow he/she will hate you for your judgement and for your help.
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes they are, because the whole concept of benefit (and loss) only has any meaning when an objective is first defined.
And as the principal objective of the human being is to survive (you consider it being to attain knowledge, in this case it doesn't matter), he wouldn't be attaining his objective (he would both cease to survive and to attain knowledge). So his objectives aren't beneficial to him.
Originally posted by CP5670
And how is this any more "proper" than letting him die? :rolleyes:
I already know what you're going to say after reading this, but try it nonetheless. You have to ask yourself that same question. If you are still unable to come to a decision, ask you parents, and maybe your brothers/sisters (if you have any). The answer they'll give will appeal to you much more than anything I could say, even though they're the same.
Already replying to the next thing you'll say (about me running out of more sensitive, precise arguments), I'll answer your previous question. It's more proper to him because you're offering him a new chance to attain his real objective of surviving (again, in this case you're free to consider the objective being to attain knowledge, it doesn't matter). What you have to understand now is the concept of relevance. Let's use an analogy, it might be better this way. Suppose a man has been wanting to buy a shiny red car since he was a child. This man, one day, decides he wants a colored pencil too. It's a real, but vanishable desire. Would you be helping him more by giving him a colored pencil or a shiny red car? Remember, just because he wants a pencil it doesn't mean he doesn't want the car anymore, he just doesn't remember as much as before that he wants the car more than anything else.
Originally posted by CP5670
No, I would not say that, because the child's objective might be to eat everything he/she sees, so he/she is working towards attaining the objective by eating the dirt. Therefore, it is beneficial. And yes, this is my "real opinion;" note that I also said that individual objectives/benefits have no meaning in an absolute sense.
But the objective of eating dirt is conflicting with the real objective of [insert whatever you think the real objective is here], so it's beneficial in a low level, and not beneficial in the highest level. As in the previous case, the concept of relevance must be fully applied here.
Originally posted by CP5670
And how would you be helping them otherwise?
I don't think I need to go over it again, after explaining the reason two or three times just in this post. If you want it again, re-read the previous paragraph.
Originally posted by CP5670
Is it worth all the trouble of explaining all this to them to have a few more lower-class job positions filled up, where they would still not really be reliable and trustworthy citizens due to their previous records and thus would need to be kept under constant surveillance? I think not.
They might not be just filling lower-class job positions. Each human individual is unique, each has a (relatively) different way of thinking. You said this yourself, if I'm not confusing things. Some, or many, of the people that would be killed by your system could have incredible revolutionary ideas if they were given another chance to stay alive. We will never know if we don't try.
You also said earlier that all things change, nothing stays the same for long. How can you be sure they wouldn't be as reliable and trustworthy as any other regular citizen? The fact they did something wrong in the past doesn't make sure they'll do it again, neither that there are more chances of them committing a crime than any other person. You're treating them like black people were treated centuries ago (some still are, unfortunately).
Originally posted by CP5670
I suppose that if you were alive 60 years ago, you would have also tried to "convince" Hitler that he is "wrong" while he goes about destroying everything. :D
If I could mantain communication with him like I can with you, you bet I would. Do you think he was right, maybe? And don't talk relatively, either you think he was right or his enemies were right.
Originally posted by CP5670
Keep those arguments coming!
As long as I have the time to, you shoulnd't be worried.
Originally posted by CP5670
(this has to be one of the longest posts I have ever written, even by my standards)
By my standards, these last posts I made were freaking huge!
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
By my standards, these last posts I made were freaking huge!
:eek2: You guys are lucky we don't have a character limit in posts. :D
-
To start of, by surviving I mean staying alive. If you die, you're no longer staying alive. If doing nothing guaranteed that we wouldn't die, I think it's perfectly possible that we wouldn't have started persuing knowledge in the first place.
You need to define "staying alive" more precisely here. As far as we know yet, we cannot extend a human to eternal life. The species (going by your definition) as a whole cannot live forever and will eventually evolve into something new anyway.
If we're nothing more than the particles that form our bodies, we would be able to become anything over time. If an alien race showed up and started living here, and the particles of our old bodies formed new aliens, would they become human? Following the principle that the sum of the parts alone doesn't make the whole, the answer would have to be negative. So I still don't see how that proves that our principal objective is to obtain knowledge and not to survive.
Sure they would. This is what the holistic philosophers meant when they said that "all is one, one without a second," or in other words, all distinctions are arbitrary and are only good for deductive purposes. And following that principle, the answer would not automatically become negative; it would now be undetermined. Since when we are at this level of thought, there is nothing else to compare with, and so whether the species are humans or aliens is of no importance, since the alien and the human are the same thing.
Nope, the necessity arises from the objective of sharing another point of view. That doesn't mean I think it's fun.
And where does the objective of sharing another point of view come from? From the one of having fun. In the end you must boil everything to one objective, or you have not completed the deduction, and for individual humans, this is the one of having fun and nothing more. (I can reduce any objective you can think of to one of some form of happiness)
And I could just as easily say that you're the one not worth it, it's as much of a petty insult as anything else you might want to call me. Good thing I managed to make you be the one saying it.
Yup, we have both traded petty insults so far. However, yours have been quite a bit more numerous than mine, so you have less room to talk about that. :D
When people resort to merely saying that they heard something many times before without actually saying anything new, it's probably due to the same reason.
Actually, if I have heard it several times and gotten the same result every time, then the induction procedure would certainly suggest the truth of my comment from the available information. Rather than "merely saying" the given facts, I induced a new statement here, which may or may not be true, but given what I know, the chances of it being true are high. Also, my comment would have been quite valid had I not written that bit in the parenthesis. Lastly, how would you know how much "experience" I have (whatever that means) and whether or not I have always sat in the "comfort of home?" :p
Good. Now remember that thing I told you to keep in mind.
Guess what: I'm trying to help you too! Let's all help each other! :D :D
If our goal is to obtain knowledge, not to survive, I don't see how he is doing any harm.
It would be fine if, after killing all his enemies, he would bring about a new system in which the same objective was king, but that is not really the case here. Besides, the survival is of course good insofar as it contributes to learning (not all survival does, as we saw earlier), which in our current state is necessary.
I can't see how what I said is untrue. We're all biased in some way. I never said I wasn't.
Here is the bias: if I asked another person (e.g. Arafat) of their idea of good/bad, it may well differ from yours. Therefore, your idea is untrue in the absolute. (as is his) All of our statements are biased to some extent, but some arguments are definitely more so than others.
Nobody is, indeed. I just consider an obligation to show that I don't and never will accept/agree with certain things.
In other words, you find it fun. The fact that you have an "obligation" in the first place means that you like this. And also, if you really think that you will truly never accept any idea out there, you have a rather narrow mind, and this is going to make it more difficult for you to learn new things. I am quite ready to accept the existence of universal morals, if they are proved to me as such.
Strange. A couple of quotes ago you were saying that this was a serious-sounding subject. Suit yourself, is it serious or not?
I can use the same rules that others use to determine what they would called serious and fun because I have been brought up learning them, but for my own purposes I use different rules. For me, it is not serious at all, but that is not the case for most people. Therefore, it is both serious and not so, depending on the observer.
As to what defines the distinction between serious and fun things it is, again, something called morals and ethics. Would you consider fun talking about the death of your parents?
Sure, why not? In fact, as long as the emotions do not overtake me, that is exactly what I would do, and it is exactly what I plan to do. (and you might find it interesting to know that most of the authorities on philosophy throughout human history counseled exactly this; go take it up with them :D)
Give me a good reason and I will.
It would be more enjoyable for you, unless of course you take "fun" and "serious" things with equal seriousness like I do but still prefer to call them as such. Other than that, I don't care; do what you want. :D
I concede your right not to believe what I'm saying, it's your choice. I never said anything about agreeing that my posts didn't make any sense. If someone wanted to explain them to you, you would know.
You concede my point that the sentence was not related to the argument. Is it not also equally likely that no explanation exists at all? (and the facts are rather suggestive, too)
It was there for the purpose you quoted.
But why was it there instead of something else as well? Why not alongside a normal argument?
If I had run out of arguments you would have won. The fact that you didn't proves that I hadn't.
You really need to learn some formal logic, don't you? X implying Y does not say anything at all about Y implying X.
Now now, I see you forgot something. After the organism obtained a sufficient amount of knowledge (which is its principal objective, by your line of thought), each one of the individuals that formed it would have to be able to produce all and any resources it takes to keep them operating, at the same time as contributing normally to the persuit of more knowledge.
With enough knowledge (if it is its objective, it should have plenty of it) the organism could both keep cloning more individuals and assimilating already existant ones, upgrading them without costs to obtain power at a higher rate. I had already said this, maybe you weren't paying attention.
Ah I see; look at my last statement in that "paragraph." At the point when it does reach this level of intelligence, it might well take in all the humans, but they wouldn't be able to stop it, so it would not really matter anymore.
If it had engulfed the entire universe there would be no individuals to compare it with. Unless you mean engulfed in some other sense.
Yes, you are correct there.
Right now I can't think of any. It doesn't mean the super organism is the best option, though. I think you agree that a best option may not be chosen without knowing all the options.
It indeed does. We do not need to know all the options to choose a best one out of the ones we have, and for all our purposes, that is the "best one."
The loss of all freedom implies exactly the absence of power, although the loss of some freedom doesn't imply the loss of some power. It's possible to lose freedom and gain power at the same time, but you'll need some level of freedom to have power.
I cannot see why that last statement has to be true; provide some supports, or something at least.
So the fact that people usually cut their hair and nails also means that they're ready to cut their heads off?
No, because there are other variables known to be involved here. On the other hand, you have not been able to provide any hard evidence that humans want to retain their so-called freedom in the long run.
The commitment was what formed it in the first place. When the first two people started living together, they were committed to protect (if possible) and help each other. When the first two families started living next to each other, it was also because of this commitment. There was a mutual interest, but the very reason this interest existed at all was because they were ready to help each other in times of need. If they didn't care for the other, there would be no gain in living together, thus no mutual interest. They were committed by ethics and morals.
Where did that second-to-last statement come from? The gains in living together would be something like what I described in that old thread linked from here. They did not start off caring about the others; they started off caring about only themselves. The "commitment" grew over time for the reasons described earlier.
I think I just replied to that, but I'll add something. Even if back then they didn't have the commitment, now many, many people do. There are more people who do have it than people who don't, that's for sure. The ones who have it (if it ever happens) will certainly be the ones trying to unite the species with a closer bound, such as the one required to form the organism.
And as I pointed out earlier, if only some people have the commitment, that is even worse than nobody having it (if they have the objective of "survival" ) because those who do not have this commitment would quickly ruin everyone else.
That is a great analogy, but unfortunately it doesn't serve the purpose of this discussion. The organism, after being formed, would not become immediately invulnerable and immortal. It would need time to gain power, specially right in the beggining. In this time a force a thousand times greater than the organism would have no trouble in eliminating every trace of it.
Suppose then, that the aforementioned scientists build the super-organism instead in the same manner as described earlier, and this super-organism stays hidden until it has gained enough strength and knowledge to take on the world. It would indeed need time to gain power, but it has all the time in the universe.
That would be a government which would accept things such as violence, robbery and murder, it seems. I honestly don't see how that would be any better than the current system, or how it could be called government at all. I can already imagine how that marketing campaign would be. "Too much noise at night? Kill your neighbour. The simplest solution is right next to you!"
Actually, the government itself would work a bit like those of today do, since many of the ethics can be derived from the axioms and objectives. But as I said, in the event that an unexpected situation comes up, the people need to be always ready to completely abandon the all of ethics, which they will not be able to if they follow them like a religion.
What I see, though, is that governments some day might not be needed at all. If the whole species follow morals and ethics, there would be no crime, no violence, no agressions to the others. That might happen if a real threat against humankind is made, like the appearance of a hostile alien species. It seems to me that there are more advantages in ethics growing stronger than in disappearing at all.
I don't agree with that for the reasons stated above, but it is of little importance what is advantageous and what is not. What matters is what will happen, and the simple fact remains that ethics are slowly fading away alongside religion by means of moral "divisions."
If you take the beliefs that actually matter and throw the unnecessary stuff out, religion would actually be a very good survival strategy. But then it would be the same thing as ethics and morals, because all beliefs that matter are already included in those. In this sense ethics can be a religion, but a purely beneficial one, one that spreads the survival of the species and not the need to believe in things such as God or a bunch of gods. I don't see how that's not beneficial.
If you take that which "actually matters" (i.e. is logically correct) and throw everything else out, in most cases you will be left with nothing. If you do the same for the ethics, you will be left with maybe about half of the stuff. And it is not beneficial because they will start thinking that the universe operates on it in an absolute sense, which will prevent them from ever finding the actual truth.
If someone is forced to believe in something, that's not a beneficial religion. I did say some religions are beneficial, if you remember. If a child believes in eating dirt, that's simply not a beneficial belief (or religion, if you want to consider it so), nothing more.
I suppose you agree with me now from the first statement, and as for rest I will talk about it below.
Hm, in that first part you agreed with me, or conceded my point, as you like to say. Later on, though, you seemed to change your mind. Yes, everyone has to abide by ethics for it to work properly, and no, they don't have to be ready to break moral rules at any time. They will work otherwise, just not as well as if everyone did abide by them. Everyone already does, anyway, just not at the same level. It's just a little something that has to be worked on; I'm certain it wouldn't be as hard as trying to eliminate them completely. Oh, and people do have individual choice, but ethics is a part of the essence that makes us human.
Actually, I meant the first sentence in the way that they came up over time for "good" reasons and thus were "intended" to be useful but they actually are useless, even in theory. (I did phrase it poorly, though) They do need to be ready to break the rules, because the rules are a general guideline and do not apply to every situation. About them "working otherwise" in such a situation, I once again present you with the 1930s India example. Everyone already does, huh? How would you explain all the "bad" people throughout history? More recently, you have what people explained in this thread: people are in trouble, and nobody nearby helps. As for the last part, see what I said to Bobboau earlier: if our ancestors had bashed their heads against the wall as described there, we would do exactly the same, and it would become "human." :rolleyes:
Because, as I already said, moral rules form one single principle, while religions spread a whole lot of different principles. Each one has its own, almost. And I did notice you referred to ethics as being a religion, don't worry.
Since when did moral rules form "one single principle?" There are a number of versions of morals out there today, all of which are equally "correct."
As for the last part, I would be rather surprised if you had not noticed; I intended you to notice, hence why I wrote it in the first place. :rolleyes:
Oh, compared to something. So it's relative! What if there is another organism with equal power, would the individuals that formed the first one be gods compared to the ones that formed the second?
Of course it is relative. No they would not, but the two would merge anyway as soon as each learned of the other's existence.
Tell me again how that will part works, because as I see it, if they have no will at all they don't have the power to do anything. And is living their lives a reason not to have a free will? Doesn't everyone live their lives by the laws of science?
Think about it this way: do they have the power to do anything even today? Are they not completely subject to the physical and social laws and thus cannot do anything in any case? (e.g. psychologists have found that people frequently think that something is a conscious free choice when it was really just determined by their surroundings as they grew up)
Logically speaking, a very serious argument is one which is neither fun nor just serious. But that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Well, yeah of course, but tell me what it is, not what it isn't.
So your answer is no, they wouldn't be humans even though they have a better understanding of reality and come from the same ancestors as the human species as it is today. This means, at the most basic level, that your concept of human is incorrect.
Oh...they came from the same ancestors, which I believe there is some technical term for. (primates or something?) They came from the same things that the humans came from, but they did not come from humans. Therefore, all humans are also monkeys, but monkeys are not also humans.
You didn't reply to the specific subject. If you think having a productive life doesn't offer more advantages than dying, why shouldn't we kill ourselves?
It offers more advantages from my point of view, so I would stay alive, but that means nothing outside of my thinking. For them, a productive life is one of crime, and some would indeed actually rather die than give up that life for a "normal" life. Also, I already stated why we are unable to kill ourselves.
By keeping the child safe they're helping him/her. I think that's even one of the definitions of the word help. What you lack is just a more advanced concept of helping, nothing more. In your view, killing someone who wants to die is helpful (hm, I realized just now that you're certainly pro-euthanasia). You don't consider that people's desires and objectives aren't static, they change relatively often. Someone who wants to die today might be the greater admirer of life tomorrow. Kill him/her today, tomorrow he/she will hate you for your judgement and for your help.
Of course, the desires are constantly changing, as are the methods of help. You can only be helping them in attaining their goal at that time. You may indeed help them and have them hate you the next day, but that is simply the way life works. Frankly, there is no more universal and objective definition of "help" that is not something similar to this. Also, they cannot hate you if they are dead. :p
And as the principal objective of the human being is to survive (you consider it being to attain knowledge, in this case it doesn't matter), he wouldn't be attaining his objective (he would both cease to survive and to attain knowledge). So his objectives aren't beneficial to him.
When did I say that? That is the principal objective of humanity. I said a bit later that the individual human's objective is whatever he/she defines it to be, and that is the only correct one.
I already know what you're going to say after reading this, but try it nonetheless. You have to ask yourself that same question. If you are still unable to come to a decision, ask you parents, and maybe your brothers/sisters (if you have any). The answer they'll give will appeal to you much more than anything I could say, even though they're the same.
I already asked myself the same question, which is how I obtained a result in the first place. I asked my dad (with whom I frequently bounce my ideas), who gave a similar response to yours but also agreed that there is no universally correct properness. But asking people is no substitute for absolutely rational deduction.
Already replying to the next thing you'll say (about me running out of more sensitive, precise arguments), I'll answer your previous question. It's more proper to him because you're offering him a new chance to attain his real objective of surviving (again, in this case you're free to consider the objective being to attain knowledge, it doesn't matter). What you have to understand now is the concept of relevance. Let's use an analogy, it might be better this way. Suppose a man has been wanting to buy a shiny red car since he was a child. This man, one day, decides he wants a colored pencil too. It's a real, but vanishable desire. Would you be helping him more by giving him a colored pencil or a shiny red car? Remember, just because he wants a pencil it doesn't mean he doesn't want the car anymore, he just doesn't remember as much as before that he wants the car more than anything else.
See above; that is not his objective. The pencil, of course. As I said, that is the way individual existence works and the only way it can work. You give me a more objective definition of "helping" and I will readily accept it.
But the objective of eating dirt is conflicting with the real objective of [insert whatever you think the real objective is here], so it's beneficial in a low level, and not beneficial in the highest level. As in the previous case, the concept of relevance must be fully applied here.
No, there is no real objective for the individual, as I said before.
They might not be just filling lower-class job positions. Each human individual is unique, each has a (relatively) different way of thinking. You said this yourself, if I'm not confusing things. Some, or many, of the people that would be killed by your system could have incredible revolutionary ideas if they were given another chance to stay alive. We will never know if we don't try.
They may indeed have incredibly revolutionary ideas, but at some point someone else will probably come up with similar ideas, and this has been shown again and again throughout the history of science. They may be unique to some extent, but not nearly as much you are making them out to be. In any case, why take the risk?
You also said earlier that all things change, nothing stays the same for long. How can you be sure they wouldn't be as reliable and trustworthy as any other regular citizen? The fact they did something wrong in the past doesn't make sure they'll do it again, neither that there are more chances of them committing a crime than any other person. You're treating them like black people were treated centuries ago (some still are, unfortunately).
Once again, induction. The fact that they did "wrong" in the past does of course not ensure anything, but it does indeed increase the probability of them doing something. That probability wanes over time, but it cannot ever be truly equal to a citizen who has never committed a crime. (you can learn about this in a course in mathematical probability) And blacks are not really a good example here, since the laws were changed after they were violated, so that resetted all the probabilities. Regarding the change, I was talking about the universe as a whole, not individual people; again, these larger rules may or may not apply to individual people and you cannot really use them with any accuracy there.
If I could mantain communication with him like I can with you, you bet I would. Do you think he was right, maybe? And don't talk relatively, either you think he was right or his enemies were right.
Depends, in some ways he was rational and in other ways he was not. An interesting fellow, at any rate. But, as Blue Lion said earlier in the thread, it does not matter one bit what I personally think for the purposes of this discussion except where you can derive further evidence that directly pertains to the argument from my response; the fact remains that this is completely subjective.
Now I will ask you this: if some thug tackles you on the streets and starts landing punches on you, will you try to explain to him why he is "wrong" (as he beats you up) or fight back? Almost everyone in the world would fight back, even if they say otherwise while speaking in theory, but I would like to know your answer.
As long as I have the time to, you shoulnd't be worried.
That's good to hear. But keep things reasonable; don't put in some stuff just for the sake of keeping the argument running (that just wastes both my and your time), since remember, we can both learn something out of this.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You need to define "staying alive" more precisely here.
I said exactly what I mean by staying alive in the part you quoted. Knowledge merely keep us from no longer staying alive, so it's just one more of those less relevant. I think I might be repeating this too much, but if our objective was anything other than survival, we wouldn't even try to attain knowledge.
Originally posted by CP5670
As far as we know yet, we cannot extend a human to eternal life. The species (going by your definition) as a whole cannot live forever and will eventually evolve into something new anyway.
But someday we will be able to extend life forever, with the proper knowledge. That's why we want it in the first place, to stay alive longer - and, some day, infinitely. By that time, the species would have already evolved into something new (immortal humans), so I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence.
Originally posted by CP5670
Sure they would. This is what the holistic philosophers meant when they said that "all is one, one without a second," or in other words, all distinctions are arbitrary and are only good for deductive purposes. And following that principle, the answer would not automatically become negative; it would now be undetermined. Since when we are at this level of thought, there is nothing else to compare with, and so whether the species are humans or aliens is of no importance, since the alien and the human are the same thing.
Then you mean that not even we are humans. The particles that form our current body one day might have formed trees, or dinossaurs (who said dinossaurs were extinct?!). The thing is, these aliens wouldn't have our conscience; if they're not everything that once was us, they can't be us.
I also see that you changed your mind about the concept of human. Some time ago you said that human was the entity which had the best view of reality and was descended from the same ancestors as us. Now human is anything the particles of our bodies might form in the future. Let me ask you another question. If these aliens were to live at the same time as the super engineered monkeys, which of them would be more human?
One sentence in particular grabbed my attention, if you agree with it, then you're contradicting yourself.
Originally posted by CP5670
all is one, one without a second
If all is one, you're the same one as those people that are suffering from violence, poverty, and hunger. Why do you insist in not helping them, if by doing so you'd be helping yourself too? Now, if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't be using it as a mean to try to prove your own argument correct.
Originally posted by CP5670
And where does the objective of sharing another point of view come from?
I'd have to say it obviously comes from the original objective of staying alive.
Originally posted by CP5670
From the one of having fun. In the end you must boil everything to one objective, or you have not completed the deduction, and for individual humans, this is the one of having fun and nothing more. (I can reduce any objective you can think of to one of some form of happiness)
But to be happy (and have fun) you need to be alive (as far as our current knowledge goes). If one single objective must exist, then it's the one of staying alive, not of being happy. By that you agreed in part that the objective of the species is to survive. Do we attain knowledge to stay alive or stay alive to attain knowledge? Considering that we still can stay alive without attaining knowledge but can't attain knowledge if we're not alive, the obvious choice is the first one.
Originally posted by CP5670
Yup, we have both traded petty insults so far. However, yours have been quite a bit more numerous than mine, so you have less room to talk about that. :D
If we both did it, it doesn't matter who did more, neither of us have any room to talk about it. Did you really understand why I called you that? If you did, you wouldn't have been trapped into it.
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, if I have heard it several times and gotten the same result every time, then the induction procedure would certainly suggest the truth of my comment from the available information. Rather than "merely saying" the given facts, I induced a new statement here, which may or may not be true, but given what I know, the chances of it being true are high. Also, my comment would have been quite valid had I not written that bit in the parenthesis.
A high chance of something being true doesn't ever mean it is true, no matter how much you think you know. And I hardly think of saying that you heard something many times before as a valid argument. It is a valid comment, of course, but not an argument; maybe you're running out of those?
Originally posted by CP5670
Lastly, how would you know how much "experience" I have (whatever that means) and whether or not I have always sat in the "comfort of home?" :p
Experience has a wide variety of meanings, sure, but I precisely said that I was talking about experience in the area of Third World countries' people. As to your question, your comments and opinions make it obvious, although it's all relative in this subject. Now I feel I have the right to ask you that same question; how would you know how much experience you have?
Originally posted by CP5670
Guess what: I'm trying to help you too! Let's all help each other! :D :D
If it wasn't for the smilies, sarcasm and irony, I'd have considered my job here done, and would even let you think you had won. Too bad you still try to make fun of this, it's making it all harder than it should be.
Originally posted by CP5670
It would be fine if, after killing all his enemies, he would bring about a new system in which the same objective was king, but that is not really the case here.
How can you assume he wouldn't do that, has he killed all his enemies already? He might be providing humanity with the greatest opportunity to attain knowledge while we're here saying bad things about his purposes.
Originally posted by CP5670
Besides, the survival is of course good insofar as it contributes to learning (not all survival does, as we saw earlier), which in our current state is necessary.
Is it really not the other way around, I mean, isn't learning only good as long as it contributes to survival? What is the purpose of learning otherwise?
Originally posted by CP5670
Here is the bias: if I asked another person (e.g. Arafat) of their idea of good/bad, it may well differ from yours. Therefore, your idea is untrue in the absolute. (as is his) All of our statements are biased to some extent, but some arguments are definitely more so than others.
If you think that way, no arguments are more or less biased than others, you just think so because you are biased by your surroundings yourself. If all arguments are untrue, it means there's no absolute truth, thus they're all equally untrue.
Originally posted by CP5670
In other words, you find it fun. The fact that you have an "obligation" in the first place means that you like this.
How does having an obligation mean I like it? Citizens have an obligation to pay taxes, does this mean they like it? They might accept it, but they don't need to like it.
Originally posted by CP5670
And also, if you really think that you will truly never accept any idea out there, you have a rather narrow mind, and this is going to make it more difficult for you to learn new things.
Oh wait, never accept any idea? I never said that. If you had payed attention, you'd have noticed I said I would never accept certain ideas, which doesn't mean I have a narrow mind, but rather that I have integrity (which is another relative term). With it, it might be more difficult for me to accept certain things as normal, such as murder (it's just an example), but it will never be a barrier to learning.
Originally posted by CP5670
I am quite ready to accept the existence of universal morals, if they are proved to me as such.
No, you're not. Just the fact that you don't want to accept it guarantees you never will, and if you truly wanted to accept it you already would have. Any and all arguments regarding morals and ethics are immediately rejected by you, it doesn't matter how much evidence of the existence of ethics they provide. I already made obvious it's beneficial for humanity to have a high level of ethics/morals, but you simply don't accept it.
To prove my point, answer me this. If every human individual had as much ethics and morals as normal people (meaning citizens that don't commit crimes and try to help others whenever possible), would it be beneficial for humanity or not?
Originally posted by CP5670
I can use the same rules that others use to determine what they would called serious and fun because I have been brought up learning them, but for my own purposes I use different rules. For me, it is not serious at all, but that is not the case for most people. Therefore, it is both serious and not so, depending on the observer.
Why do you think your own rules are any better than the others'? What's the rule you use to determine whether this or that rule is better suited for you?
Originally posted by CP5670
For me, it is not serious at all, but that is not the case for most people.
So now it's not serious at all? In that other post you said you tried to take everything in life with the same amount of seriousness and fun, but now you seem to take this only with a good deal of fun. It's contradictory, to say the least. Again.
Originally posted by CP5670
Therefore, it is both serious and not so, depending on the observer.
If now that's your opinion, why didn't you accept it when I said I didn't find it fun, but serious instead? Were you just trying to find an error in my logic?
Originally posted by CP5670
Sure, why not? In fact, as long as the emotions do not overtake me, that is exactly what I would do, and it is exactly what I plan to do. (and you might find it interesting to know that most of the authorities on philosophy throughout human history counseled exactly this; go take it up with them :D )
I didn't mean being fun talking about their lives after they're dead, but about the exact way they died. You'd go like "How fun is dying from a cancer in the throat! My mom didn't even seem like she was alive the last few days, all yellowish and stuff! It was pretty funny!" Would you?
And I did find that parenthesis part interesting. It helped to make even lower the little respect I had for philosophers.
Originally posted by CP5670
It would be more enjoyable for you, unless of course you take "fun" and "serious" things with equal seriousness like I do but still prefer to call them as such. Other than that, I don't care; do what you want. :D
So you concede my point not to follow his example? Good.
Originally posted by CP5670
You concede my point that the sentence was not related to the argument. Is it not also equally likely that no explanation exists at all? (and the facts are rather suggestive, too)
By saying it wasn't related to the argument I'm not conceding your point, your point was that it didn't make sense. If it didn't make sense, I wouldn't have posted it in the first place; I'm not one to post meaningless crap (as many other things, this too is relative). My conclusion right now is that you did understand what it meant (you seem pretty smart), but felt like you were in such a delicate situation that considered better to make others think you were confused. I know you don't like to lose (another relative term) arguments, but you couldn't do anything about that one anymore; I mean, other people saying "ownage" has got to mean something.
Originally posted by CP5670
But why was it there instead of something else as well? Why not alongside a normal argument?
Because I felt like that way was easier to attain my objective.
Originally posted by CP5670
You really need to learn some formal logic, don't you? X implying Y does not say anything at all about Y implying X.
And you really need to put formal logic where it belongs. Look at it this way. Let's assume for one moment that you didn't win the discussion. Now, if I didn't have a good argument, you would have won. So, if I won it, it either means I hadn't run out of good arguments or that yours were even worse (in which case you shouldn't be saying I had run out of them in the first place). If that's not logical then screw logic, it doesn't work anymore.
Originally posted by CP5670
Ah I see; look at my last statement in that "paragraph."
I didn't find anything relevant to the present discussion there, unless you mean the engulfed part, which I quoted separately.
Originally posted by CP5670
At the point when it does reach this level of intelligence, it might well take in all the humans, but they wouldn't be able to stop it, so it would not really matter anymore.
The rest of humanity could not be able to stop it, but what if there was a new very powerful (not united in a sigle organism) species? The organism would then have to upgrade the already existant humans without costs and clone new ones to be able to survive the new threat. So it would matter to do both those things at the same time, and it would not need any internal maintenance whatsoever.
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, you are correct there.
Not just there, it just might be a little (or a lot) harder than that to make it obvious in the rest of the discussion.
Originally posted by CP5670
It indeed does. We do not need to know all the options to choose a best one out of the ones we have, and for all our purposes, that is the "best one."
Well, if you're racing alone it isn't hard to come out as the winner.
Originally posted by CP5670
I cannot see why that last statement has to be true; provide some supports, or something at least.
Sure, no problem. Freedom is the power we have to do things. We all have a certain amount of freedom, no matter what our current condition/situation is. People can trade some extent of freedom for other kinds of power, thus losing freedom and gaining power at the same time. If you trade all of your freedom for any amount of power, you're no longer gaining power, but just losing it. Without any freedom you can't do anything, not even have (or make use of) the power you traded your freedom for. Using an analogy, it's like if, first, you cut off your finger for some money, then, you kill yourself for a lot of money (and no, in this analogy you just recieve the money exactly when you kill yourself, not a few days before).
Originally posted by CP5670
No, because there are other variables known to be involved here. On the other hand, you have not been able to provide any hard evidence that humans want to retain their so-called freedom in the long run.
I don't see how these variables don't exist in losing all freedom. And it depends on what you consider a hard evidence.
Originally posted by CP5670
Where did that second-to-last statement come from? The gains in living together would be something like what I described in that old thread linked from here. They did not start off caring about the others; they started off caring about only themselves. The "commitment" grew over time for the reasons described earlier.
If the two families didn't care for each other in the beggining, why would it be beneficial for them to start living together? Suppose a bunch of wolves attacked one of them and the other simply run away without helping, would the attacked family keep their interest in living together? No, because there was no gain in doing so. Now, if they cared to each other and the second family helped in the time of need there would be gain in living together, and the mutual interest would grow stronger.
Originally posted by CP5670
And as I pointed out earlier, if only some people have the commitment, that is even worse than nobody having it (if they have the objective of "survival" ) because those who do not have this commitment would quickly ruin everyone else.
That's why government is still needed, to prevent the ones who have it in a higher level from being destroyed by the ones who have it in a lower level. Once an effort is made to equilibrate ethics and morals in a high level, government is pretty much useless.
I realized you didn't say anything about the possibility of those who have more ethics and morals forming the single organism being greater, though. Can I assume you agree with it?
Originally posted by CP5670
Suppose then, that the aforementioned scientists build the super-organism instead in the same manner as described earlier, and this super-organism stays hidden until it has gained enough strength and knowledge to take on the world. It would indeed need time to gain power, but it has all the time in the universe.
I'm assuming that by strenght, you mean power. Unfortunately it can't stay hidden from everyone else and gain power at the same time. With a limited amount of individuals, it would gain a limited amount of knowledge, and consequently a limited amount of power. It could clone its members to gain more power, but then these new individuals would have the same capacities of the ones already existant, and would not contribute any further. The only possible way would be to genetically modify the way they think, having a wider variety of knowledge. But to do this they would need to consume a great deal of resources, which can't be infinitely harvested in secrecy. During all this time, the rest of humanity too would be growing advanced, maybe even faster due to its massively greater number of individuals (which reproduce fast compared to the joined ones, gaining more variety in less time), and when the organism finally has the need to reveal itself, the results could be catastrophic. Most likely the rest of humanity would be able to discover it before it's even ready, which would be even worse.
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, the government itself would work a bit like those of today do, since many of the ethics can be derived from the axioms and objectives.
I don't see how a government which doesn't abide by ethics would be able to stand being like that for a long time. It would change, no matter what its objectives are. When people change in such a drastic way (as by the loss of all ethics), they force this change in their surroundings (which would affect the government directly). As this happens, the need for moral rules would once again exist, and they'd form from scratch, almost exactly as before.
If this government no longer abides by ethics but the law system is kept the same way, people will still need ethics, as to not break rules without the intent to.
Originally posted by CP5670
But as I said, in the event that an unexpected situation comes up, the people need to be always ready to completely abandon the all of ethics, which they will not be able to if they follow them like a religion.
If all people equally abide by ethics, no unexpected situation would make them have to abandon them. And they wouldn't be following them like a religion, just to the point where it best balances between providing contribution for the continued survival of the species and mantaining some amount of individual freedom.
Originally posted by CP5670
I don't agree with that for the reasons stated above, but it is of little importance what is advantageous and what is not. What matters is what will happen, and the simple fact remains that ethics are slowly fading away alongside religion by means of moral "divisions."
If it is of little importance the factor of advantage, why would a single organism be formed? You say it's because of mutual interest, but that mutual interest only exists because it offers advantages for the individuals. You don't and can't know what will happen, thus the best system is the one which offers more advantages than any of the others. On the last part, why do you think ethics are fading away? I don't think they were ever as strong as today. Do you not see the world surrounding you? Different peoples are uniting to help others with no distinction, no matter if they're part of the same nation or find themselves in the other side of the globe. What I see is that ethics are growing powerful, a phenomenon which will probably continue to a point we don't even think is possible today. Few people still don't care for others, and this is one of the reason this whole discussion started.
Originally posted by CP5670
If you take that which "actually matters" (i.e. is logically correct) and throw everything else out, in most cases you will be left with nothing. If you do the same for the ethics, you will be left with maybe about half of the stuff.
By things which actually matter I didn't mean logically speaking (as the logical thing to do would be to kill ourselves - we're going to die someday anyway), but principles which contribute directly for the survival of the species. Almost every religion has some amount of them, and ethics aren't anything else.
Originally posted by CP5670
And it is not beneficial because they will start thinking that the universe operates on it in an absolute sense, which will prevent them from ever finding the actual truth.
You're assuming that once everyone has the same level of ethics we're going to lose the knowledge (or forget) that there was a time in the past when we didn't, which doesn't have (nor is it likely) to be true.
Originally posted by CP5670
I suppose you agree with me now from the first statement, and as for rest I will talk about it below.
With what part of your arguments did I agree, exactly?
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, I meant the first sentence in the way that they came up over time for "good" reasons and thus were "intended" to be useful but they actually are useless, even in theory. (I did phrase it poorly, though)
If they weren't useful at all, why do people still abide by them?
Originally posted by CP5670
They do need to be ready to break the rules, because the rules are a general guideline and do not apply to every situation. About them "working otherwise" in such a situation, I once again present you with the 1930s India example.
By working otherwise I meant that they could work even if not all people abide by them, not that they could work if people weren'r ready to break the rules (which is also true). Now present me with one situation in which, if all people abided by ethics, they'd have to break the rules. Keep in mind that ethics do not keep people from defending themselves from threats (the only threats possible would be a hostile alien species).
Originally posted by CP5670
Everyone already does, huh? How would you explain all the "bad" people throughout history? More recently, you have what people explained in this thread: people are in trouble, and nobody nearby helps. As for the last part, see what I said to Bobboau earlier: if our ancestors had bashed their heads against the wall as described there, we would do exactly the same, and it would become "human." :rolleyes:
Answering your first question, yes. Everybody abides by ethics in some level, which doesn't mean it's a high level (a high level would be defined by contributing more directly to the well being of the species in general). As to your second question, I think the first answer already explained it. About people not helping others (the case of the raping comes to mind), it's because either their ethics level is lower than the fear of retaliation or simply they have a very low ethics level. The last part is almost true. The only problem with it is that I (or anyone, for that matter) don't see how bashing their own heads is beneficial for people. It's the opposite of beneficial, actually, because it contradicts the principal objective of survival (serious wounds could be caused to the skull).
Originally posted by CP5670
Since when did moral rules form "one single principle?" There are a number of versions of morals out there today, all of which are equally "correct."
Since all ethical and moral rules contribute directly to one single objective: the survival of the species. Give me one example of a version of morals that contradict this one rule, and I'll happily say I was wrong. Or rather I'll say it shouldn't be called morals.
Originally posted by CP5670
As for the last part, I would be rather surprised if you had not noticed; I intended you to notice, hence why I wrote it in the first place. :rolleyes:
That's why I said "don't worry", I obviously knew your objective was for me to notice. To add something not related to this specific argument, I could say that, by your concept of the word, I have helped you. Your objective was to make me notice, I noticed, therefore I contributed to your objective. You're welcome.
Originally posted by CP5670
Of course it is relative. No they would not, but the two would merge anyway as soon as each learned of the other's existence.
But the point is, they wouldn't be absolute gods. If they're not gods in the absolute meaning of the word, then they aren't gods. Or else you could say we are gods, compared to ants or some even less powerful being. And ants would be gods too, compared to molecules of water. Practically anything would be a god, so it has no real meaning except when used in the absolute meaning.
Originally posted by CP5670
Think about it this way: do they have the power to do anything even today? Are they not completely subject to the physical and social laws and thus cannot do anything in any case? (e.g. psychologists have found that people frequently think that something is a conscious free choice when it was really just determined by their surroundings as they grew up)
I like to think we do have the power to make decisions and free choices. If we didn't, then all of this wouldn't mean anything at all, because all things until the end of time (or forever, whether you think is going to happen) would already be previously defined. Unless there was an alien species which did have free will, fact which would put us in a very disadvantageous situation (given that they were hostile to us, of course) and would probably lead to the end of the human species.
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, yeah of course, but tell me what it is, not what it isn't.
By the principle of deduction it is everything which isn't something it isn't.
Originally posted by CP5670
Oh...they came from the same ancestors, which I believe there is some technical term for. (primates or something?) They came from the same things that the humans came from, but they did not come from humans. Therefore, all humans are also monkeys, but monkeys are not also humans.
Well, they did come from humans, just not humans as they are today. That's exactly the point of this. You said human is the entity which has a better understanding of reality and was descended from the same ancestors as us. Those monkeys have a better understanding of reality and are descended from the same ancestors as us, therefore they're human and we're not. Unless you want to review your concept of human.
Originally posted by CP5670
It offers more advantages from my point of view, so I would stay alive, but that means nothing outside of my thinking. For them, a productive life is one of crime, and some would indeed actually rather die than give up that life for a "normal" life.
If your point of view means absolutely nothing outside of your thinking, why are we even having this discussion? The last part I'll deal with later on.
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, I already stated why we are unable to kill ourselves.
Hmm, I must have missed that part. I'll look for it later, though (it's a pretty big thread, it'll be a while before I find it).
Originally posted by CP5670
Of course, the desires are constantly changing, as are the methods of help. You can only be helping them in attaining their goal at that time. You may indeed help them and have them hate you the next day, but that is simply the way life works. Frankly, there is no more universal and objective definition of "help" that is not something similar to this. Also, they cannot hate you if they are dead. :p
For the last sentence, you know I was speaking hypothetically. If they could be killed and keep their conscience, then they'd hate you. The rest of it will be dealt with right after the next quote.
Originally posted by CP5670
When did I say that? That is the principal objective of humanity. I said a bit later that the individual human's objective is whatever he/she defines it to be, and that is the only correct one.
We might be almost nearing a conclusion, now. The principal objective of humanity is automatically the principal objective of every individual that is a part of humanity, since humanity doesn't have a conscience of itself and merely exists as the imaginary amalgamation of every human's existence. This objective is going to remain active for the whole period of existence of each individual human. The primary objective of each human is the survival of the species, which makes the secondary the survival of itself. These two objectives are what keep us alive, and only their existence makes possible the existence of ethics and moral rules. The nature of these objectives also make possible the presence of other less relevant objectives, which might not always be beneficial for the individual; they're beneficial just as long as don't contradict the two original objectives of a human.
By helping human beings you are contributing to one of their beneficial objectives. By contributing to one of the non beneficial objectives or by impeding one of the beneficial objectives from being realized you're causing the human beings harm, and is, thus, breaking ethical and moral rules.
Originally posted by CP5670
I already asked myself the same question, which is how I obtained a result in the first place. I asked my dad (with whom I frequently bounce my ideas), who gave a similar response to yours but also agreed that there is no universally correct properness. But asking people is no substitute for absolutely rational deduction.
See above; that is not his objective. The pencil, of course. As I said, that is the way individual existence works and the only way it can work. You give me a more objective definition of "helping" and I will readily accept it.
That is one of his objectives, it's just not as relevant as the one of buying a car, so the most proper help in this case would be to contribute to his objective of buying a car. The points I previously made apply here to.
Originally posted by CP5670
No, there is no real objective for the individual, as I said before.
You also said that individuals' objectives don't matter. wouldn't you like to support your opinion?
Originally posted by CP5670
They may indeed have incredibly revolutionary ideas, but at some point someone else will probably come up with similar ideas, and this has been shown again and again throughout the history of science. They may be unique to some extent, but not nearly as much you are making them out to be. In any case, why take the risk?
How can you say that something like that has been shown many times in history? We only get to know the cases that someone did have a similar idea, not the ones that faded into oblivion because no one else had any similar ideas. Comparing the amount of unique ideas with the amount of ideas that multiple people had, I think you can't consider the latter as many.
Why take the risk? Why not take the risk? If risks weren't taken, where would we be now? Using wooden sticks to defend ourselves from bears, probably.
Originally posted by CP5670
Once again, induction. The fact that they did "wrong" in the past does of course not ensure anything, but it does indeed increase the probability of them doing something. That probability wanes over time, but it cannot ever be truly equal to a citizen who has never committed a crime. (you can learn about this in a course in mathematical probability)
Each case is different from the others. If you knew the reasons that made these people criminals, you could then have a better idea of whether they're likely to commit crimes again or not than any mathematical course will ever teach you. There could be so many reasons people would commit one single crime and no more that it's better not even start giving examples.
Originally posted by CP5670
And blacks are not really a good example here, since the laws were changed after they were violated, so that resetted all the probabilities.
The point is that they were treated differently from other citizens when they should have the right to be treated equally. Former prisoners do have this right (at least here), but it seems people still aren't respecting it.
Originally posted by CP5670
Regarding the change, I was talking about the universe as a whole, not individual people; again, these larger rules may or may not apply to individual people and you cannot really use them with any accuracy there.
Ack! Maybe it was someone else who said that nothing stays the same for long. I probably confused the two of you.
Originally posted by CP5670
Depends, in some ways he was rational and in other ways he was not. An interesting fellow, at any rate. But, as Blue Lion said earlier in the thread, it does not matter one bit what I personally think for the purposes of this discussion except where you can derive further evidence that directly pertains to the argument from my response; the fact remains that this is completely subjective.
Oh, so it depends, eh? I did not ask if he was rational or not, in an absolute sense or compared to something else. I asked if you considered either him or his enemies as being right. And if personal opinions don't matter, this thread shouldn't have a single reply; almost everything here is personal opinion and nothing more.
Originally posted by CP5670
Now I will ask you this: if some thug tackles you on the streets and starts landing punches on you, will you try to explain to him why he is "wrong" (as he beats you up) or fight back? Almost everyone in the world would fight back, even if they say otherwise while speaking in theory, but I would like to know your answer.
Fair enough, I asked you a question (which you haven't replied yet), you have the right to ask me a question. I have no problem in expressing my opinions in public, and, if I did, I shouldn't be in a forum in the first place.
Answering your question, I'd have to say I'd fight him back for sure. Before you say I'm wrong, let me explain why. First, he would be wrong, because he would be trying to keep me from attaining my objective of staying alive, and therefore he would be causing me harm, which breaks a moral rule. Now, you'll say that by fighting him I'd be breaking a moral rule myself, but that's not true. It would be, actually, the most ethically correct thing I could possibly do. By defending myself, I'd be contributing to my primary and secondary objectives of survival of the species and my own, which is ethically correct. By fighting him back, I'd be keeping him from attaining one of his less relevant objectives of causing harm to other people, which contradicts the principal objective of survival of the species (making it not beneficial to himself), therefore I'd be actually helping him. So I'd be both helping him and myself. That proves self defence doesn't break any moral rules, it seems, but is rather something mutually beneficial.
Originally posted by CP5670
That's good to hear. But keep things reasonable; don't put in some stuff just for the sake of keeping the argument running (that just wastes both my and your time), since remember, we can both learn something out of this.
When I run out of arguments I'll say so and then stop posting here. If I just don't post anything in a day or two, it's because I didn't have the time to reply. And I'm learning from this more than I thought I would (it doesn't mean either that I agree learning is the principal objective of the species nor that I think this is fun - I think of learning in general as the opposite of fun, actually).
-
I said exactly what I mean by staying alive in the part you quoted. Knowledge merely keep us from no longer staying alive, so it's just one more of those less relevant. I think I might be repeating this too much, but if our objective was anything other than survival, we wouldn't even try to attain knowledge.
See my original post on this sub-topic for more information on this part. You see, going by one definition of "survival" in which we talk of the existence of the individual particles, we would survive regardless of what we did. (conservation of energy) Going by the other definition, in which we define a state of complete stasis in the relative positions of the particles, we would die out, once again in spite of anything we try, since we cannot completely stop the change. There can be nothing in between the two that does not rely on perceptual, non-absolute distinctions, and thus is useless for our purposes. I will henceforth refer to the first definition as survival 1 and the other as survival 2 for brevity.
But someday we will be able to extend life forever, with the proper knowledge. That's why we want it in the first place, to stay alive longer - and, some day, infinitely. By that time, the species would have already evolved into something new (immortal humans), so I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence.
However, if we have evolved into something new, then we will no longer be humans in the static sense anyway, so we would already have died out. (see below) Besides, here is the real problem: what do we do after we achieve this immortality?
I also see that you changed your mind about the concept of human. Some time ago you said that human was the entity which had the best view of reality and was descended from the same ancestors as us. Now human is anything the particles of our bodies might form in the future. Let me ask you another question. If these aliens were to live at the same time as the super engineered monkeys, which of them would be more human?
Yes, I was trying to slightly expand upon the same definition you were using before for the sake of comprehensibility, whereas I used my own this time around. I will try to be more precise from now on: human 1 will mean anything that has certain defined characteristics (let's call them the human characteristics) at a specified point in time, while human 2 will symbolize the changing human in all time. The aliens under the given conditions would not be human 1s, but they would be human 2s.
Then you mean that not even we are humans. The particles that form our current body one day might have formed trees, or dinossaurs (who said dinossaurs were extinct?!). The thing is, these aliens wouldn't have our conscience; if they're not everything that once was us, they can't be us.
If we follow the last line of reasoning, even we today are not human 1s as the "original" human 1s were. We are certainly quite different from what the original human 1s were, in terms of characteristic behaviors, likes/dislikes, and so on. And we are human 2s no matter what.
If all is one, you're the same one as those people that are suffering from violence, poverty, and hunger. Why do you insist in not helping them, if by doing so you'd be helping yourself too? Now, if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't be using it as a mean to try to prove your own argument correct.
Glad you brought this up, as it is an important point. Extending this concept only to other humans is not enough; we must include in it everything, including animals, nonliving objects, universal laws, and all absolute ideas. As I pointed out earlier, the whole concept of the individual goal is subjective and thus means nothing in the absolute. In a universal sense, I could neither help them nor hurt them no matter how hard I try either way. If objective is survival 1, you can give them no help because they already have the goal ensured, and if it is survival 2, you can still give no help because it is all futile. Another way to think of this is to consider the following: could you help (or hurt) a rock? How would one go about doing so? If the rocks and the humans are really the same things at their cores, one cannot say that it is only possible to help one and not the other in an absolute sense. Even the objective I have formulated earlier is not really one in the usual sense of the word, but rather a theoretical principle stating what we probably will do. (not what we should do)
I'd have to say it obviously comes from the original objective of staying alive.
I would certainly like to hear your point of view, but I'm not sure what it has to do with either form of survival noted above.
But to be happy (and have fun) you need to be alive (as far as our current knowledge goes). If one single objective must exist, then it's the one of staying alive, not of being happy. By that you agreed in part that the objective of the species is to survive. Do we attain knowledge to stay alive or stay alive to attain knowledge? Considering that we still can stay alive without attaining knowledge but can't attain knowledge if we're not alive, the obvious choice is the first one.
Well, there are certainly people today who try to attain happiness by killing themselves, usually because they are frustrated with their life. Actually, this brings up something else important: by being happy, do you mean actually feeling the pleasure or working in a way so that it might be felt in the future (in other words, the change in levels of happiness)? I myself have not quite decided yet on which one of these is the individual's final objective from his point of view. As for the last statement, nothing would ensure survival 2 while everything would ensure survival 1, so no decision can be made from that.
If we both did it, it doesn't matter who did more, neither of us have any room to talk about it. Did you really understand why I called you that? If you did, you wouldn't have been trapped into it.
To obtain happiness; that is why anyone throws around insults at all. It makes them feel better. :D
A high chance of something being true doesn't ever mean it is true, no matter how much you think you know.
I never claimed that it was true; all I said was that there is a high chance of it being so from what I have seen.
And I hardly think of saying that you heard something many times before as a valid argument. It is a valid comment, of course, but not an argument; maybe you're running out of those?
Technically, if you had some way of ensuring that I was telling the truth, it would actually be quite valid, since it follows directly from the induction assumption. As I said in the part you quoted, it was not intended as an argument; it was intended as a comment, and the post would have been fine without in included at all. As for the last part, we will see how things progress... ;7
Experience has a wide variety of meanings, sure, but I precisely said that I was talking about experience in the area of Third World countries' people. As to your question, your comments and opinions make it obvious, although it's all relative in this subject. Now I feel I have the right to ask you that same question; how would you know how much experience you have?
Actually, I am find the affairs in any third world nations quite interesting and follow them closely. (especially the Asian countries, since my parents are from India) Now can you be more specific as to what part of the people you are talking about and what you mean by experience? As to how I would know how much experience I have, I am the one who has experienced it and theorized upon it; if you mean experience relative to that of others, I of course could not know for sure, but then again I never claimed that. Regardless of that though, I think I would still know "how much" experience I have better than you would know how much I have, just as the same goes for your level of experience.
If it wasn't for the smilies, sarcasm and irony, I'd have considered my job here done, and would even let you think you had won. Too bad you still try to make fun of this, it's making it all harder than it should be.
Like I said before, I like to make fun out of everything; what is wrong with that? :D
How can you assume he wouldn't do that, has he killed all his enemies already? He might be providing humanity with the greatest opportunity to attain knowledge while we're here saying bad things about his purposes.
We can of course not know for sure, but then again we cannot know anything with absolute certainty. Looks at the facts though: are his men exactly at the cutting edge of scientific research and pioneering humanity into new technological eras? They are about as backward as one can get today, knowledge-wise.
Is it really not the other way around, I mean, isn't learning only good as long as it contributes to survival? What is the purpose of learning otherwise?
See what I wrote earlier for this, as it is similar to something you said before. As for its purposes otherwise, they don't exist; it is its own purpose. We define the so-called objective because we cannot determine anything without starting somewhere. Why this purpose was chosen over the others is because it offers the least overall contradictions and perhaps more importantly, is also a self-proving assumption.
If you think that way, no arguments are more or less biased than others, you just think so because you are biased by your surroundings yourself. If all arguments are untrue, it means there's no absolute truth, thus they're all equally untrue.
Wait, I am not sure what you are trying to say here; any arguments are equally biased simply because the people that they came from all exist in reality? And where did I say that all arguments are untrue? (incidentally, this would mean the same thing as saying that all arguments are true)
How does having an obligation mean I like it? Citizens have an obligation to pay taxes, does this mean they like it? They might accept it, but they don't need to like it.
No, they do not truly have to. They do it (in most cases) to avoid getting in trouble with the government, which would make them less happy. They are just trying to maintain their level of happiness. Therefore, they must like it, however indirectly, and the same goes for you or I.
Oh wait, never accept any idea? I never said that. If you had payed attention, you'd have noticed I said I would never accept certain ideas, which doesn't mean I have a narrow mind, but rather that I have integrity (which is another relative term). With it, it might be more difficult for me to accept certain things as normal, such as murder (it's just an example), but it will never be a barrier to learning.
I should have rephrased that; by "any" I meant any one given idea, no matter how absurd it may be. And since you restated that you would never accept certain ideas, I stand by my previous statement that you have a narrow mind. What if it happens to be the truth that murder is indeed normal? That sort of thinking will then become a barrier to learning, and you just as much said so yourself in the next quoted part.
No, you're not. Just the fact that you don't want to accept it guarantees you never will, and if you truly wanted to accept it you already would have. Any and all arguments regarding morals and ethics are immediately rejected by you, it doesn't matter how much evidence of the existence of ethics they provide. I already made obvious it's beneficial for humanity to have a high level of ethics/morals, but you simply don't accept it.
When did I say I did not want to accept it? I said that I would prefer it being false to true. However, I am pretty sure that this is what you meant to say instead, and so I will assume that here. Since when do people not accept things just because they do not like them? For example, Einstein did eventually end up accepting quantum mechanics as being true despite that he found the probabilistic idea very repulsive. (btw I have some sympathy for his thoughts here, actually) Now, more to the point, you are completely confusing what is beneficial (we will assume for the moment that this is indeed beneficial to whatever goal) and what is universally true. In other words, can ethics ever be made into as absolute a quantity as say, mass? i.e. We can objectively say how much mass an object has and nobody can dispute that, but can we say how ethical an idea is with the same scientific accuracy? I doubt it. Since the concepts of benefit arises from an objective (and without which it has no meaning), which itself is a non-absolute quantity, the same goes for ethics.
To prove my point, answer me this. If every human individual had as much ethics and morals as normal people (meaning citizens that don't commit crimes and try to help others whenever possible), would it be beneficial for humanity or not?
Certainly, as long as they are consciously aware that the ethics are not an absolute quantity and they are ready to break the ethics at any time if other circumstances change.
Why do you think your own rules are any better than the others'? What's the rule you use to determine whether this or that rule is better suited for you?
Where the heck did I say that? I want to be happy, and so I am using the rule that everything is equally fun/serious (more on the fun side, of course) to not have to deal with things seriously.
So now it's not serious at all? In that other post you said you tried to take everything in life with the same amount of seriousness and fun, but now you seem to take this only with a good deal of fun. It's contradictory, to say the least. Again.
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? :rolleyes: Seriousness and fun (as a noun) mean the same thing, a particular quantity, and serious and fun (as an adjective) are words used to describe opposite extremes of that same quantity, let us call it X here. (just as hot and cold are the extremes of the quantity of temperature) What I am saying is that I take everything in life with the same amount of X.
If now that's your opinion, why didn't you accept it when I said I didn't find it fun, but serious instead? Were you just trying to find an error in my logic?
You did not say that you found it serious; you said that it is serious, and you were trying to convince me that there is an inherent seriousness involved in this topic.
I didn't mean being fun talking about their lives after they're dead, but about the exact way they died. You'd go like "How fun is dying from a cancer in the throat! My mom didn't even seem like she was alive the last few days, all yellowish and stuff! It was pretty funny!" Would you?
Again, of course. Now, whether I actually find it funny or not is completely determined by my likes and dislikes, which in turn all come out of my upbringing. I have the moral disease, so I may not find it funny, but I would not think it unusual or anything if someone does find it funny, as we all have our own tastes. However, if you think there is anything "inherently wrong" with doing exactly what you described there, you're the one with the problem.
And I did find that parenthesis part interesting. It helped to make even lower the little respect I had for philosophers.
[/size]
Now this was quite a ridiculous statement in such a generaliztion; if you actually agree with that, you are certainly not worth all this.
So you concede my point not to follow his example? Good.
No, I merely stated that on a personal level it does not matter to me what you do.
I'm trying to help you, though. :D
By saying it wasn't related to the argument I'm not conceding your point, your point was that it didn't make sense. If it didn't make sense, I wouldn't have posted it in the first place; I'm not one to post meaningless crap (as many other things, this too is relative). My conclusion right now is that you did understand what it meant (you seem pretty smart), but felt like you were in such a delicate situation that considered better to make others think you were confused. I know you don't like to lose (another relative term) arguments, but you couldn't do anything about that one anymore; I mean, other people saying "ownage" has got to mean something.
Yes, I am pretty certain that, as I said before, it was an inside joke that only certain people would understand. The only one who said "ownage" was Styxx, and being your brother I assume you know him well, so it could have been something that just the two of you would understand. However, it is possible that I am wrong here, since I am not at all well-versed in any of the common slang and this wouldn't be the first time I did not get a joke. If you think I already know, why are you so adverse to telling me? I of course do not like to lose (who does) but at least I have the sense to admit defeat instead of dragging the argument on into absurdity just to cover up a loss. :rolleyes:
Because I felt like that way was easier to attain my objective.
Which was what? Helping me, surviving, voicing out your opinion, or something else?
And you really need to put formal logic where it belongs. Look at it this way. Let's assume for one moment that you didn't win the discussion. Now, if I didn't have a good argument, you would have won. So, if I won it, it either means I hadn't run out of good arguments or that yours were even worse (in which case you shouldn't be saying I had run out of them in the first place). If that's not logical then screw logic, it doesn't work anymore.
It belongs everywhere, so I could not do otherwise. The fourth sentence is an incorrect deduction; you could well have run out of good arguments and still keep continuing on with something just to keep the argument going, so I would technically not have won.
I didn't find anything relevant to the present discussion there, unless you mean the engulfed part, which I quoted separately.
That is what I meant.
The rest of humanity could not be able to stop it, but what if there was a new very powerful (not united in a sigle organism) species? The organism would then have to upgrade the already existant humans without costs and clone new ones to be able to survive the new threat. So it would matter to do both those things at the same time, and it would not need any internal maintenance whatsoever.
If the species was not united in a single organism, it wouldn't be much of a threat in the first place, and if it was, the two would merge. As for the last statement, I don't know what exactly you are trying to say; it would need internal maintenance simply because it exists.
Not just there, it just might be a little (or a lot) harder than that to make it obvious in the rest of the discussion.
We will see.
Well, if you're racing alone it isn't hard to come out as the winner.
That is my point. The concept of "best" only has meaning when the data exists.
Sure, no problem. Freedom is the power we have to do things. We all have a certain amount of freedom, no matter what our current condition/situation is. People can trade some extent of freedom for other kinds of power, thus losing freedom and gaining power at the same time. If you trade all of your freedom for any amount of power, you're no longer gaining power, but just losing it. Without any freedom you can't do anything, not even have (or make use of) the power you traded your freedom for. Using an analogy, it's like if, first, you cut off your finger for some money, then, you kill yourself for a lot of money (and no, in this analogy you just recieve the money exactly when you kill yourself, not a few days before).
I said this three times already: do we actually have all that freedom? From what psychologists have been continually discovering in the last few decades, it seems that much of what we think is a conscious decision is actually almost completely determined by outside factors. You are not trading in freedom because you have none in the first place.
I don't see how these variables don't exist in losing all freedom. And it depends on what you consider a hard evidence.
Well, give me the variables; you have not done that, whereas I already said why I think it is likely so.
If the two families didn't care for each other in the beggining, why would it be beneficial for them to start living together? Suppose a bunch of wolves attacked one of them and the other simply run away without helping, would the attacked family keep their interest in living together? No, because there was no gain in doing so. Now, if they cared to each other and the second family helped in the time of need there would be gain in living together, and the mutual interest would grow stronger.
Can't you see the obvious benefit involved here? The other family would be grateful to them and would be more likely to help out the first one in a similar situation, or would probably do whatever other favor in return.
That's why government is still needed, to prevent the ones who have it in a higher level from being destroyed by the ones who have it in a lower level. Once an effort is made to equilibrate ethics and morals in a high level, government is pretty much useless.
How would you go about carrying out that "effort" anyway, though?
I realized you didn't say anything about the possibility of those who have more ethics and morals forming the single organism being greater, though. Can I assume you agree with it?
The "greatness," if you want to call it that, would be determined by how much they contribute the objective, or how much new stuff their brains discover. However, nobody would really care about greatness over the other components at that point.
I'm assuming that by strenght, you mean power. Unfortunately it can't stay hidden from everyone else and gain power at the same time. With a limited amount of individuals, it would gain a limited amount of knowledge, and consequently a limited amount of power. It could clone its members to gain more power, but then these new individuals would have the same capacities of the ones already existant, and would not contribute any further. The only possible way would be to genetically modify the way they think, having a wider variety of knowledge. But to do this they would need to consume a great deal of resources, which can't be infinitely harvested in secrecy. During all this time, the rest of humanity too would be growing advanced, maybe even faster due to its massively greater number of individuals (which reproduce fast compared to the joined ones, gaining more variety in less time), and when the organism finally has the need to reveal itself, the results could be catastrophic. Most likely the rest of humanity would be able to discover it before it's even ready, which would be even worse.
How would it use a higher quantity of individuals to gain knowledge, especially if the ten or so guys who started it were some of the top minds of that time? And why would it be so difficult to genetically modify the way they think? By the time such a thing actually happens, modifying brains would have become quite commonplace. Instead, how about this: just take the first analogy I gave you about the superweapon and supershield, except let's assume that the super-organism builds it up. Some people will accept to becoming a part of it when it sends it out its ultimatum, and the rest will die, so there would be no remaining resistance for a while.
I don't see how a government which doesn't abide by ethics would be able to stand being like that for a long time. It would change, no matter what its objectives are. When people change in such a drastic way (as by the loss of all ethics), they force this change in their surroundings (which would affect the government directly). As this happens, the need for moral rules would once again exist, and they'd form from scratch, almost exactly as before.
If this government no longer abides by ethics but the law system is kept the same way, people will still need ethics, as to not break rules without the intent to.
By law system I meant the actual laws, not the way in which they are enforced. The people can be made to obey the rules by a more effective law, i.e. by fear of punishment. Why would they need the full ethics anymore if they already have the necessary parts of it from the law?
If all people equally abide by ethics, no unexpected situation would make them have to abandon them. And they wouldn't be following them like a religion, just to the point where it best balances between providing contribution for the continued survival of the species and mantaining some amount of individual freedom.
How can they know what unexpected situation will come up? They have to be prepared to ditch everything immediately if necessary. And yes, they would be following religiously if they are not willing to quickly abandon them at a moment's notice; this is exactly what forms a belief.
If it is of little importance the factor of advantage, why would a single organism be formed? You say it's because of mutual interest, but that mutual interest only exists because it offers advantages for the individuals. You don't and can't know what will happen, thus the best system is the one which offers more advantages than any of the others. On the last part, why do you think ethics are fading away? I don't think they were ever as strong as today. Do you not see the world surrounding you? Different peoples are uniting to help others with no distinction, no matter if they're part of the same nation or find themselves in the other side of the globe. What I see is that ethics are growing powerful, a phenomenon which will probably continue to a point we don't even think is possible today. Few people still don't care for others, and this is one of the reason this whole discussion started.
I am talking about what is advantageous to the society as a whole, and that does not necessarily have anything to do with what is advantageous to the people. I do not know what will happen, but I can know what will happen. And do you not see the world surrounding you too? Similar people are breaking away just as different people are uniting, with the former going quite a bit faster. (you can ask a political scientist or sociologist for the statistics) For example, take a look at the Israel/Palestine conflict; both parties truly think they are morally correct by attempting to eliminate the other one because they both feel that they have been "unjustly" treated by the other. Look what people were saying throughout this thread: when someone was in trouble, not one other person moved to help, and this is a pretty common thing actually. In the past, people used to rally together to fight wars by means of nationalism or patriotism of some sort, and today, they fight wars on the ideological grounds of right and wrong, and this can be seen all over the world.
By things which actually matter I didn't mean logically speaking (as the logical thing to do would be to kill ourselves - we're going to die someday anyway), but principles which contribute directly for the survival of the species. Almost every religion has some amount of them, and ethics aren't anything else.
How would that be the logical thing to do? (or that is, more so than anything else) Killing ourselves would be just as much of an action as anything else; that is no substitute for a true state of indeterminacy. And I never said that ethics were completely useless; what I am saying is useless is your religious manner of clinging to them unquestioningly despite any new developments.
You're assuming that once everyone has the same level of ethics we're going to lose the knowledge (or forget) that there was a time in the past when we didn't, which doesn't have (nor is it likely) to be true.
eh? This is what I was thinking of: suppose a guy formulates a new physics equation for analyzing some natural phenomenon, let's say for the fusion processes inside a star, and he then tries to incorporate the ethical concepts of "good" and "bad" into the formula because he has been tricked into the believing that morals are absolute. He will just end up with nonsense.
With what part of your arguments did I agree, exactly?
If people are "forced" to "believe" things, then it is no longer "beneficial" to them. (your own words) Therefore, if the child is "forced" to believe that eating dirt is bad, it is no longer beneficial.
If they weren't useful at all, why do people still abide by them?
Are you kidding? Why do people still go by religions then, or why do people still engage in "immoral" acts at all? :p
By working otherwise I meant that they could work even if not all people abide by them, not that they could work if people weren'r ready to break the rules (which is also true). Now present me with one situation in which, if all people abided by ethics, they'd have to break the rules. Keep in mind that ethics do not keep people from defending themselves from threats (the only threats possible would be a hostile alien species).
Let's say, a brain-related genetic mutation of some sort occurs in one of the people and he gains a pathological hatred for all of humanity. Now further suppose that the guy has an incredible talent for convincing masses of his ideas (just like Hitler), and we know that a human's ideas can be changed around pretty easily. The guy then goes around preaching his ideas like a new religion, claiming that the morals themselves are what has destroyed "what makes us human" or some other such emotionally appealing ideas. If this guy starts a war and leaves destruction in his path everywhere, the people he has not convinced would be powerless to stop him because their own ethics prevent them from striking out against his forces.
Answering your first question, yes. Everybody abides by ethics in some level, which doesn't mean it's a high level (a high level would be defined by contributing more directly to the well being of the species in general). As to your second question, I think the first answer already explained it. About people not helping others (the case of the raping comes to mind), it's because either their ethics level is lower than the fear of retaliation or simply they have a very low ethics level. The last part is almost true. The only problem with it is that I (or anyone, for that matter) don't see how bashing their own heads is beneficial for people. It's the opposite of beneficial, actually, because it contradicts the principal objective of survival (serious wounds could be caused to the skull).
How does everybody abide by ethics? Maybe to some level, but that level is frequently so low that it can be considered as nonexistant for our purposes. If they somehow found it beneficial though (let's just imagine), you would too, and you would have trouble thinking otherwise, just as you are with the morals. Also, it is not important whether ot not it is actually beneficial; you were saying that it alone defines us as "human" or something like that, and that is quite obviously not so, since anything our ancestors did would amount to the same thing.
Since all ethical and moral rules contribute directly to one single objective: the survival of the species. Give me one example of a version of morals that contradict this one rule, and I'll happily say I was wrong. Or rather I'll say it shouldn't be called morals.
Actually all of them, because there is nothing that clearly defines a species. But anyway, how about the one you mentioned earlier about making jokes over the deaths of people? Tell me how that contributes to this "survival." Here is another one: it was being claimed in that other thread that torturing prisoners to get information is "immoral;" tell me why.
That's why I said "don't worry", I obviously knew your objective was for me to notice. To add something not related to this specific argument, I could say that, by your concept of the word, I have helped you. Your objective was to make me notice, I noticed, therefore I contributed to your objective. You're welcome.
Yes, you did help me. But why did you specifically say so here? :rolleyes:
But the point is, they wouldn't be absolute gods. If they're not gods in the absolute meaning of the word, then they aren't gods. Or else you could say we are gods, compared to ants or some even less powerful being. And ants would be gods too, compared to molecules of water. Practically anything would be a god, so it has no real meaning except when used in the absolute meaning.
You are quite correct here, but I cannot see how this does anything for your argument. I said that they are gods compared to the individuals for a certain purpose, and that is certainly an absolute statement.
I like to think we do have the power to make decisions and free choices. If we didn't, then all of this wouldn't mean anything at all, because all things until the end of time (or forever, whether you think is going to happen) would already be previously defined. Unless there was an alien species which did have free will, fact which would put us in a very disadvantageous situation (given that they were hostile to us, of course) and would probably lead to the end of the human species.
Well, we all like to think that, but as I remarked before, many recent psychological studies have shown our "free decisions" are quite subject to external conditions. It does not have to be previously defined at all - the abscence of determinism by no means implies the existence of a free will - and that does not automatically imply a fully fatalistic existence.
By the principle of deduction it is everything which isn't something it isn't.
So now are you going to list everything it is not? This is a waste of time.
Well, they did come from humans, just not humans as they are today. That's exactly the point of this. You said human is the entity which has a better understanding of reality and was descended from the same ancestors as us. Those monkeys have a better understanding of reality and are descended from the same ancestors as us, therefore they're human and we're not. Unless you want to review your concept of human.
Yes, I said before, I was using two different versions of "human," and that was a silly idea. They are not human 1s relative to anything but themselves, and they are human 2s. But even supposing we are going by that old definition of human, I would still be right there. I said this already: they may be descended from the same ancestors, but if we define a human to have "started off" (i.e. evolved far enough that it can be considered its own species) at some arbitrary point in time, then only that which comes from this species and after this species is also human. They are the "real" monkeys more than we are, but they cannot be humans because we came from them, not the other way around.
If your point of view means absolutely nothing outside of your thinking, why are we even having this discussion? The last part I'll deal with later on.
I was talking about that particular statement there, not everything in the entire argument. :rolleyes:
We might be almost nearing a conclusion, now. The principal objective of humanity is automatically the principal objective of every individual that is a part of humanity, since humanity doesn't have a conscience of itself and merely exists as the imaginary amalgamation of every human's existence. This objective is going to remain active for the whole period of existence of each individual human. The primary objective of each human is the survival of the species, which makes the secondary the survival of itself. These two objectives are what keep us alive, and only their existence makes possible the existence of ethics and moral rules. The nature of these objectives also make possible the presence of other less relevant objectives, which might not always be beneficial for the individual; they're beneficial just as long as don't contradict the two original objectives of a human.
No, no...the humanity can actually be thought of as having just as much of an existence as the human does. Think of it this way: how do the humans have a "conscience" of themselves? One could say that they are also just as much of an "imaginary amalgamation" of the cells that make them up. And we could go on like this to the individual particles. This is merely one way of thinking about the situation - there exist an infinite number of such methods - but if we do not want to think of a "humanity," we cannot have any other distinctions either all the way down to the particles. Now, the objective of the individual human may not (and in most cases does not) have anything to do with the objective of the entire species. The objective of humanity materializes out of the objectives of all humans in a continuous interplay reaction with each other; this is very similar to the way that statistical mechanics works in quantum physics, where individual particles follow pretty much random paths, but when billions of them do this at the same time in series, new patterns start to manifest themselves.
That is one of his objectives, it's just not as relevant as the one of buying a car, so the most proper help in this case would be to contribute to his objective of buying a car. The points I previously made apply here to.
How would you know what he considers "more" relevant? You could try reminding him of the car, and if he forgets about the pencil, then I guess you could say that it is now more relevant. Other than that, the concept of relevance (as we are talking about it here) only means anything when both a person (i.e. point of view) and a point in time is specified.
You also said that individuals' objectives don't matter. wouldn't you like to support your opinion?
They do not "matter" because they are not absolute; as I said, every individual has his/her own objective, and it only applies to that particular person.
How can you say that something like that has been shown many times in history? We only get to know the cases that someone did have a similar idea, not the ones that faded into oblivion because no one else had any similar ideas. Comparing the amount of unique ideas with the amount of ideas that multiple people had, I think you can't consider the latter as many.
What are you exactly defining as a "unique idea?" Of course, there are an infinite number of distinct ones as far as we know, but there is an infinite number of time as well, so that does not mean anything; it is equally possible that someone will discover them in the future. And what I meant when I said that it has been shown before is that there have been a large number of incidents in the history of science where one guy came up with some idea and another guy came up with almost exactly the same idea a bit later; in fact, there have been more discoveries made in this simultaneous manner than those that have not. Given what we have considered so far, there are equal benefits in making them into normal citizens and eliminating them. Now consider this: is it easier and quicker for us to convince them or to kill them? Furthermore, if we make an example out of them, it will discourage others from criminal activity and would therefore drastically lower the number of crimes in the future, so we would be effectively rid of the problem soon after anyway, which would be better in the long run. (if people find that they can still become normal citizens after criminal activity, you are going to get a lot, lot more crime)
Why take the risk? Why not take the risk? If risks weren't taken, where would we be now? Using wooden sticks to defend ourselves from bears, probably.
Let me rephrase myself: why take the risk when the probability of the benefits even being there is so low? And once again, this can be seen from previous experience: find me some criminals who have turned into Newtons later on, as almost all criminals today are set free at some point and definitely do have the chance (and this has been the case for centuries), whereas I can find you thousands of cases where convicts who were released from prison went on to commit far greater crimes out of a resentment towards the society that held them captive.
Each case is different from the others. If you knew the reasons that made these people criminals, you could then have a better idea of whether they're likely to commit crimes again or not than any mathematical course will ever teach you. There could be so many reasons people would commit one single crime and no more that it's better not even start giving examples.
And there are far many more reasons that people would commit more crimes instead if they already got away with one, whereas if they did not get away with it, they would not have accomplished whatever their objective was in the first place, so it quite possible that they would give it a try again. Like I said earlier,
The point is that they were treated differently from other citizens when they should have the right to be treated equally. Former prisoners do have this right (at least here), but it seems people still aren't respecting it.
Who says they have this right? For that matter, how does anyone have any rights whatsoever other than that which they are capable of upholding?
Oh, so it depends, eh? I did not ask if he was rational or not, in an absolute sense or compared to something else. I asked if you considered either him or his enemies as being right. And if personal opinions don't matter, this thread shouldn't have a single reply; almost everything here is personal opinion and nothing more.
Alright, if you want to put it that way, I think he was right in some ways and wrong in other ways; means the same thing. And if you really agree with that last sentence, you are going down the existentialist route, in which case all deduction is completely futile and we are left at a dead end. The opinion is just a like or dislike and therefore is perceptual; if it can be defended with rationality, it is an objective fact.
Answering your question, I'd have to say I'd fight him back for sure. Before you say I'm wrong, let me explain why. First, he would be wrong, because he would be trying to keep me from attaining my objective of staying alive, and therefore he would be causing me harm, which breaks a moral rule. Now, you'll say that by fighting him I'd be breaking a moral rule myself, but that's not true. It would be, actually, the most ethically correct thing I could possibly do. By defending myself, I'd be contributing to my primary and secondary objectives of survival of the species and my own, which is ethically correct. By fighting him back, I'd be keeping him from attaining one of his less relevant objectives of causing harm to other people, which contradicts the principal objective of survival of the species (making it not beneficial to himself), therefore I'd be actually helping him. So I'd be both helping him and myself. That proves self defence doesn't break any moral rules, it seems, but is rather something mutually beneficial.
However, by fighting him back you would also be causing him physical harm. Whether or not this is contributing to the "survival" of the species can be debated, but you are saying that the individual objective is also survival, and so you are most certainly not helping him there (going by either meaning of "help"). What I am trying to say here is that regardless of the choice you make here, the average amount of benefit for both of you would be equal either way.
When I run out of arguments I'll say so and then stop posting here. If I just don't post anything in a day or two, it's because I didn't have the time to reply. And I'm learning from this more than I thought I would (it doesn't mean either that I agree learning is the principal objective of the species nor that I think this is fun - I think of learning in general as the opposite of fun, actually).
This one took me almost six hours to write up, and I unfortunately do not think I have the time to write more of this in the future since I am rather busy with real life these days. Just about everything relevant to the topic has already been said, and it seems to me that we are just repeating the same ideas in different words; I would still continue on anyway since this is sort of fun, but as I said I don't have the time, especially since I probably will not have any computer for the next few days. (I am currently on may dad's work laptop since my main machine is out for repairs, but I do not always have that at home) I probably will not be able to do much more than read small parts of your posts, let alone respond to them. However, this has been quite instructive to me so far and I think I have learned a lot (although what I have learned has made me think much more strongly in the same direction), and I certainly thank you for that.
-
I could quote every single sentence of your post, but let's get it down to what actually matters.
Originally posted by CP5670
This one took me almost six hours to write up, and I unfortunately do not think I have the time to write more of this in the future since I am rather busy with real life these days. Just about everything relevant to the topic has already been said, and it seems to me that we are just repeating the same ideas in different words; I would still continue on anyway since this is sort of fun, but as I said I don't have the time, especially since I probably will not have any computer for the next few days. (I am currently on may dad's work laptop since my main machine is out for repairs, but I do not always have that at home) I probably will not be able to do much more than read small parts of your posts, let alone respond to them. However, this has been quite instructive to me so far and I think I have learned a lot (although what I have learned has made me think much more strongly in the same direction), and I certainly thank you for that.
It's your choice. But you probably shouldn't say you won this one (I'm not saying that I did either), since you're the one who decided to stop it. Whenever you want to resume it, just let me know and I'll do it with no problem. I feel like having to thank you too, before this discussion I didn't know my ideas actually made that much sense (maybe not to you - or everyone else - but to me), and I'm glad to know they do.
Now, I just want to quote one more part of your post. I'll not even say anything about it, I just feel it's rather important for the original purpose of this thread, and maybe some people will find in the simple act of helping others an advantage to themselves.
Originally posted by CP5670
Can't you see the obvious benefit involved here? The other family would be grateful to them and would be more likely to help out the first one in a similar situation, or would probably do whatever other favor in return.