Okay, I am back.
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.
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.
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."
(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?
