At what point did the functional meaning of science go from "knowledge" to "LITERALLY THE SOURCE OF ALL GOOD IN THE UNIVERSE"

File: 12 KB, 297x298, 1327360141172.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 04:54:17 2012 No.4352709 [Reply] [Original]

At what point did the functional meaning of science go from "knowledge" to "LITERALLY THE SOURCE OF ALL GOOD IN THE UNIVERSE"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 04:55:25 2012 No.4352710 When people realized technology was the means for a better society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 05:11:24 2012 No.4352727 morally speaking, the best thing to happen to the universe would be if it ended.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 05:12:24 2012 No.4352728

>>4352710

Which is debatable.

People didnt realize technology was a means to betterment. People retroactively rationalized technology as a means to betterment. The same way a soldier might rationalize killing someone because the consequences are too horrible to accept.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 05:26:00 2012 No.4352744 since pragmaticism fuck you faget you don't know SHIT

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 05:39:45 2012 No.4352754

>>4352728
>People didnt realize technology was a means to betterment.

Then why pursue technological advancement? Your statement makes zero sense. They may not have seen technology as a panacea, but they sure as hell knew that the cotton gin was fuckloads better than stripping cotton by hand.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 05:46:25 2012 No.4352762

>>4352728
if you think that technological progression is bad the shut down your computer throw it into a river and go live in the woods. don't think that microprocessors haven't been used for evil purposes but in themselves they're nothing more than bundles of transistors and logic gates

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 05:52:13 2012 No.4352765

>>4352728
>Which is debatable.
No its not.
Its not debatable whether you rather want to starve because of a drought, or have plenty of food from all over the world due to superior transportation and agriculture.
Its not debatable whether you want to die slowly and horribly from some crazy parasites or just take a cheap pill to get rid of them.
Its also not debatable whether you want to do hard physical work everyday that leaves you broken and sick at the age of 30, or just use a machine that can do the same but 100times faster and without side effects to your health....
etc.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 05:58:53 2012 No.4352771

>>4352754

>Then why pursue technological advancement?

There are lots of things people pursue for no good reason. If you have nervous energy on your, hands, or nothing to do, or are bored, you might be able to fill that extra time with something. Naturally people might justify their actions with noble excuses like bettering man kind or something.

Its like going to the gym, many people feel bad about their poor health, and the answer is "go to the gym." But why? How does that make any sense? How is it that our bodies could result in such poor health that we have to INTENTIONALLY wear them out?

The pursuit of technology is largely the same. Well we have nothing to do, and we are rotting away maybe not physically, but mentally. Lets go study stuff and then retroactively claim that it was in the pursuit of truth.

The cotton gin. Sure I guess if you are making cotton you might as well be efficient at it. I couldnt argue that if your goal is cotton than it only makes sense to become efficient at it. But when you are only staring at the goal of "cotton" you arent questioning your very value in cotton, which people around the world have been able to get by without for thousands of years.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 06:01:17 2012 No.4352778

>>4352771
>Its like going to the gym, many people feel bad about their poor health, and the answer is "go to the gym." But why? How does that make any sense?

2/10

Go study your notes on Bloodninja and come back next week for another shot.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 06:03:33 2012 No.4352783

>>4352762

I am not anti-technology so much as I am protecting human beings from a society not interested in the welfare of those human beings. A society that relies on technology.

If it was as easy as leaving, I honestly might do it. But you cant do that. First of all, its largely illegal. I know it is where I live. One cannot simply, leave, and get away with it. Second, society grows. A house surrounded by wilderness wont be surrounded by wilderness in 20 or 30 years. If you DO escape, you will be followed. Not only that, but you are powerless to the problems associated with technology like air and water pollution that you were suffering from to begin with. Third of all, it is not enough to simply leave because I am not pursuing wilderness. To do so would sacrifice friends and family, and all those values that were important to me to begin with.

The problem with technology isnt that I just hate computers or something, or the sight of something manufactured is unpleasant. The problem is its totally fucking people up. Militaries killing people in ways far more horrible than any cave man would fuck up another cave man. Psychological problems. The loss of freedom and autonomy. These are the real concerns, not the fact that people use transistors. Giving up a computer wouldnt actually help me any.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 06:09:13 2012 No.4352795

>>4352765
>>4352765

>Its not debatable whether you rather want to starve because of a drought

I would like to see some kind of citation that primitive man was more susceptible to drought than some kind of modern agricultural man.

Second of all, a lot of drought can be the consequence of abuse of the environment, or naivety on man's part. In that regard putting all your food in one spot, and then causing drought and starving, is a self inflicted result of technology.

>or have plenty of food from all over the world due to superior transportation and agriculture.

All the regions of the earth have enough biodiversity and nutrients to sustain people. The trick is finding them. Only a very small portion of edible plants were ever domesticated into farmable crops. The rest are out there waiting to be eaten.

>Its not debatable whether you want to die slowly and horribly from some crazy parasites or just take a cheap pill to get rid of them.

If you look at the statistics, primitive man doesnt die from disease. Disease is a fairly modern thing. Disease spreads extremely well in densely populated areas... like cities supported by specialization and technology. Things like the common cold could never exist among primitive man. I guess we have modern medicine (only about a hundred years old, and a few thousands of years late to stop the technology created suffering from disease).

Living in such a sterile environment isnt healthy to begin with. You could complain that primitive man "gets a parasite and dies", but thats just because you are projecting your own weak health onto primitive man. If you grow up in an environment, you are accustomed to its microbiology. Thats why we have problems with allergies today. People are completely disconnected from their natural environments. What with all that showering and all.

I would address more, but I am out of characters

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 06:18:17 2012 No.4352810 >>4352709 when we realised it works

>>	TemplarSageOfEonsToShineAndLament TheTemplarKnightOfStuffTemperature !T3mpXGkC3w Sat Feb 11 06:26:13 2012 No.4352819 >>4352795 >>4352795 Why are you doing this to yourself? Stop embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 06:32:53 2012 No.4352826
File: 26 KB, 399x278, 1320374741714.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4352819

Thats all you've got? That I am embarrassing myself by not joining in the scientific circle jerk?

All I can say to that is "come at me bro." I am waiting for some real arguments.

Actually I am going to bed. But I will certainly check this thread when I wake up.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 06:39:48 2012 No.4352838

>>4352826
You're embarrassing yourself by asserting that technology diminishes autonomy when the reverse is actually true.

It is categorically impossible to actualize one's autonomy when restricted by nature, shackled by bad luck, and inhibited by random chance - all factors that science allows us to understand and technology enables us to overcome.

Even so, I'll raise your score to 3/10 for sheer perseverance.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 15:08:18 2012 No.4353881

>>4352838

>It is categorically impossible to actualize one's autonomy when restricted by nature, shackled by bad luck, and inhibited by random chance

How do you come to this conclusion?

I would argue the opposite, that in modern society there are forces just out of a normal person's control. Like a car accident. A car accident is something that might happen to any of us. If you are better driver, that really doesnt change your odds very much. Its an example of something that might kill you, and there is nothing you can do about it. You just have to live your life hoping today isnt the day a few tons of steel crush you.

Same with contagious disease. If out there, it might get you, it might not, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Our whole employment structure lacks autonomy. You work somewhere, you have to follow their rules (as opposed to your own) and if they dont like you, they can cut you away and you are out of luck. As opposed to as little as a few hundred years ago where the opposite was true. You would be entirely responsible for your own work, you "went to work" when you want, and the methods of production were your own.

As society gets bigger and stronger, we have less power over our own livelihoods.

So, I dare you to explain why a more primitive life is somehow more "random." Its the total opposite, you would be responsible for everything you do. Your own livelihood is directly related to what you do.

I suppose you could argue some non-sense like "nature is dangerous" but again I think that is just projecting modern weakness onto primitive people. Surviving in the natural environment is a skill that could have been developed just like any other skill inflicted upon elementary school kids. If you grow up in a natural environment, you are knowledgeable about it, and you can make informed decisions. Modern society is too complex and alien for anyone to make informed decisions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 16:59:23 2012 No.4354282 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:04:54 2012 No.4354305 >>4352783 > a society not interested in the welfare of those human beings. A society that relies on technology. >technology = not caring about welfare of human beings WTF am I reading?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:06:10 2012 No.4354316

>>4352783
We're living in the best period of human history.

And yes, things could be made better. There are issues with some current features of society. But I wouldn't even trade being a European king during the middle ages for being an ordinary first-world citizen today.

And *technology is not the problem*.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:08:18 2012 No.4354324 File: 69 KB, 573x572, Retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hey OP, that picture says "retared" instead of "retarded." Use this one; I made it a while ago.

>>	Carl Sagan !SAGAN7mVOk Sat Feb 11 17:08:27 2012 No.4354327 Because SCIENCE is the ultimate TRUTH of FACTS. All you unbelievers and heretics have to shut the fuck up and stop defiling SCIENCE.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:09:27 2012 No.4354331

>>4353881
>So, I dare you to explain why a more primitive life is somehow more "random." Its the total opposite, you would be responsible for everything you do. Your own livelihood is directly related to what you do.
.... what? You have less power over outcomes. You are less able to determine your future.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:09:27 2012 No.4354333

>At what point did the functional meaning of science go from "knowledge" to "LITERALLY THE SOURCE OF ALL GOOD IN THE UNIVERSE"

It never did. That's the straw man that religious people use when frustrated that people don't treat their beliefs as if they were on equal footing with science, in terms of validity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:11:43 2012 No.4354344 >>4353881 You still have all the freedom you ever did. It's just that doing whatever the fuck you want doesn't bring you the high standard of living you have come to take for granted. Have you ever been camping for more than a few days?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:11:43 2012 No.4354345 File: 20 KB, 614x352, ENG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4354324 >TFW i have that image >check to see if its wrong >...it is >FUCK! <<<

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:12:50 2012 No.4354349

>>4353881
storms are out of a person's control, yet technologies such as houses protect us during them. Meteorology predicts them. Advances in material sciences have led to protective clothing that keeps us alive and well even if we're stuck out in a storm.

A caveman would have a cave. Which certainly does protect him somewhat, but what if he's stuck outside during a storm? He'll get cold and wet, possibly get hypothermia, or some other illness, and then die. Today we have things as simple as jackets that keep us warm and dry in the rain.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:14:06 2012 No.4354367

I want to say that I respect all of you, and I have an appreciation for science like the rest of us. However I would like to see these arguments be more well known, and I would hope that all of us can be more ethical and mindful of the problems associated with living in a modern society.

When I compare modern life to primitive life, I am not advocating we return to that. I am merely trying to give us a comparison with what we can attain if we would like.

>>4354305

Many of the forces in society, like, companies, the government, militaries, research organizations, are full of individuals who are making decisions. All of these decision making people typically have to make judgements as to what will benefit their organization, as opposed to what is right. If you are in the military, you need to shoot people because if you dont you will fuck up the whole operation. Therefore you arent thinking about what is right, you are thinking about duty. Likewise if you are in advertising, you are thinking to manipulate people to the maximum extent you can because its your job, and not because its right to manipulate people, or clog up our entire culture with advertisements.

This is all ignoring the fact that technology, science, and society are in their nature new, alien, unknown and unexplored, and come with risks that human beings were not mentally prepared to endure. The consequences of anyone's actions cannot be fully understood.

Technology isnt the equivalent with "not caring about the welfare of human beings." But technology has created a network in which the sum of all our decisions results in an un-ideal result. Like game theory.

>>4354316

Relative to the kings of europe, I would agree. We are in many ways better off. Some of the richest people 100 years ago died of diseases that can be treated for $10 today.

However 100 years ago they also suffered from their own self-inflicted technological problems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:16:22 2012 No.4354377 >>4354367 >However 100 years ago they also suffered from their own self-inflicted technological problems. I think you are lumping all culture and technology together and trying to label the whole lot "good" or "bad". That's silly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:18:30 2012 No.4354389 >>4354367 Are you concerned more with ethics in society, or with culture and social structure?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:19:38 2012 No.4354396 >>4354367 What changes do you think should be made to Western society?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:20:47 2012 No.4354402 >>4354389 technology permeates society and ethics nearly 100% so I agree that it is wise to think about these things in terms of how technology affects them OP: did you ever read Ishmael?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:21:55 2012 No.4354406

it's a defense mechanism for autists who try to somehow reason away their fail and that their life will be fail
the truth is you fucking losers can go to school and think your king shit of turd mountain
and get some job making decent cash but no one will like you
no one will want to fuck you
you'll be a working stiff loser just like everyone else
but since you think you're sooo much smarter than everyone you will remain to have this massive chip on the shoulder
you are beta, you will always be beta
just stop now and kill yourself

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:24:19 2012 No.4354420

>>4354331

>.... what? You have less power over outcomes. You are less able to determine your future.

Autonomy isnt defined by the full capacity of anyone. Autonomy implies independence, responsibility, and the freedom to do as you choose.

I guess technology can put people in space, or weld two pieces of metal together, but these are largely things not within reach of any normal individual to begin with. The capacity to do all these incredible marvelous things doesnt imply it results in the most amount of autonomy. For example if you want to make a particle accelerator, at least one group of people is being "autonomous" by actualizing this marvelous thing. But to do so requires metal parts and technology many people have to slave over to create. And the creation of the housing developments, power plants, farms that the workers in the metal part plant have to live in results in a net loss of freedom. These people dont have a choice, and they cant escape.

>>4354344

>want doesn't bring you the high standard of living

Define "high standard of living"

>Have you ever been camping for more than a few days?

Sort of. I mean I have gone camping a handful of times in my life. Never long journeys. Its not my past time or anything.

I did grow up closer to nature than most people.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:27:34 2012 No.4354435

>>4354349

>>4354349

>storms are out of a person's control, yet technologies such as houses protect us during them

Storms are a problem we still suffer from. If you have a tribe of people in florida, its very easy for 100 people to migrate. Many primitive people were nomadic, and would move around vast stretches of land normally. In Arizona native americans found it feasible enough to farm there, despite there being no water. Eventually they just decided to leave.

Today people do live in florida, but they are completely stuck there. And brutal storms still happen. And people's houses and livlihoods are destroyed. In New Orleans the hurricane devastated them. Yes the storm hurt them, but the the reason things were so awful was the city was below sea level. Which was a problem causes by civilization drying up the water table to begin with. Modern civilization keeps people stuck in a geography, and a career that does not allow mobility, and then technology fucks up the environment hurting the people pinned into this geography.

People suffer from flash floods today, or drought, or forest fires. All these phenomenon from weather are affected by man's reckless impact on the environment. Perpetuated by technology.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:30:58 2012 No.4354443

>>4354377

>I think you are lumping all culture and technology together and trying to label the whole lot "good" or "bad".

You are right.

>>4354389

>Are you concerned more with ethics in society, or with culture and social structure?

I think if we could all behave ethically, and logically to the fullest possible extent, we could avoid these problems. That solution is just about as feasible as destroying all technology and all knowledge of technology. So in short, ethics alone cant bring us very far. Stopping technology would be equally fruitless I think.

Civilization and social structure are more the result of technology rather than the other way around.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:31:08 2012 No.4354447

>>4354435
>man's reckless impact on the environment. Perpetuated by technology.
Oh, here we go.

>Yes the storm hurt them, but the the reason things were so awful was the city was below sea level.
Absolutely true. But this isn't about technology - it's about foresight, planning, and risk management.

>Which was a problem causes by civilization drying up the water table to begin with.
Yes. What's your point? Because again, this doesn't make technology a bad thing.

> Modern civilization keeps people stuck in a geography, and a career that does not allow mobility, and then technology fucks up the environment hurting the people pinned into this geography.
Again, foresight and planning.

You point to disasters, but the primitive nomads had *nothing to lose*.

>>4354443
>I think you are lumping all culture and technology together and trying to label the whole lot "good" or "bad".
>You are right.
Then you should really, really be more aware of what a simple and offensively irrational mental mistake this is.

Technology is not good or evil. Technology is ability to do things.

Now, if you want to criticize various philosophies of how to *use* technology, please be my guest. But saying "all culture and tech is bad guiz" will hide the true problems from you, and keep from from finding real solutions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:33:14 2012 No.4354453 >>4354443 >Civilization and social structure are more the result of technology rather than the other way around. Well yeah. If you can't feed a city of a million people than you can't have social structures that require that kind of scale.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:35:31 2012 No.4354459

It hasn't changed.
Science is still the same as it ever was, maybe people see it differently but that's what I love about science. It is impossible to corrupt it while keeping it science.
The moment you skew your thinking to benefit yourself or others then it is no longer pure science.

Therefore you are wrong OP by definition.

/thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:36:46 2012 No.4354467 >>4354459 > Science is still the same as it ever was And this is where you fucked up. Everything after this is also fucked up. I can conclude your whole post is fucked. Since you're posted fucked posts, you're also fucked. QED > ovidte zig-zaggery

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:37:46 2012 No.4354468

>>4354396

>What changes do you think should be made to Western society?

I dont know. Its a very distressing question.

The unabomber had largely the same views that I am discussing here. And he came to the conclusion that society needs to be disrupted, and the people responsible for technological change need to be attacked. Thus he mailed bombs to professor's houses and injured/killed 27 people. He was very logical in his approach, after all he was a smart man who became a professor in mathematics at the age of 24.

It is scary for me to witness someone be clear minded and rational, and logically come to a conclusion that so brutally clashes popular opinion and popular values (dont kill people).

The technological revolution happened once, and I suspect that if we somehow went back to a state of apes it would happen again. Its in our biology to invent technology. I do not believe that we can actually successfully remove technology from society, regardless of anything I have said so far. At the present moment I think the best thing we can do is become better, smarter people who are more conscious and concerned with the consequences of our actions. I dont mean, smarter in that we study chemistry more, but I mean smarter in that we do things with purpose, and that we develop more philosophic logic, when we consider the welfare of the men around us.

Inevitably though, we need to change our values, and that might mean throwing away popular values that permeate our society. We need to become radically different people.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:40:10 2012 No.4354479

>>4354468
He was also crazy.

You need to understand that "crazy" does not mean "gibbering mad" or "rocking back and forth in the corner".

He was deeply, deeply wrong in his understanding of his actions and their inevitable outcome. That alone should be a red flag. He's up there with Breivik.

>At the present moment I think the best thing we can do is become better, smarter people who are more conscious and concerned with the consequences of our actions.
This is a cultural change, and I fully agree with the sentiment. IT DOES NOT MAKE TECHNOLOGY BAD.

>Inevitably though, we need to change our values, and that might mean throwing away popular values that permeate our society. We need to become radically different people.
Now we're talking. Just drop your irrational hatred for what is nothing more or less than "using understanding to change the world around you". Technology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:41:10 2012 No.4354480 >>4354467 No, science is the same. The way science is done is applicable to a much wider range or problems, but the way we do science has not changed. What science stands for has not changed. It never will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:42:18 2012 No.4354482 OP is Amish would you say your opinion is aligned with the opinions of Martin Heidegger?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:42:27 2012 No.4354484 >>4354480 Uh-huhhhhhh... You know perfection is impossible for humans, right? Just going to point that out, "scientist." Also, why are theories called theories, and not facts?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:43:27 2012 No.4354488 >>4354468 The scariest thing about it, to me, is that I don't think it's feasible for everyone to become radically different. "We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:43:27 2012 No.4354489 >>4354484 He's defending the notion of science itself, not the scientists who attempt to perform it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:44:34 2012 No.4354495 >>4354488 Good news then: We'll be rewriting our genes within the century. Then we will be free from the beast.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:46:51 2012 No.4354500

>>4354447

>Absolutely true. But this isn't about technology - it's about foresight, planning, and risk management.

Its very convienent to say "we just need more fore sight" and its very hard to deal with the fact that the vast government agencies, with all their science and knowledge, STILL fuck things up. And we STILL have massive forest fires that destroy vast stretches of land and houses. DESPITE how obvious the solutions are, and DESPITE how much science we have invested into these agencies.

>Yes. What's your point? Because again, this doesn't make technology a bad thing.

The technology that was originally used on the basis that it provides fresh water, resulted in the negative consequence of everyone becoming homeless and losing all their possessions. Also people died.

>Technology is not good or evil. Technology is ability to do things.

This is true to the extent that consequences are the relevant condition here as to whether something is good or bad, and of course the consequences could be good or bad.

The problem is the consequences can be largely unknown, and the consequences can be vast and drastic. Like during the great leap forward millions of people starving. You could say "Just use technology better" but how could you ever know?

Not only that but technology enables people to use technology in horrible ways like nothing else before. nuclear bombs. Even good technologies allow for a society to emerge that allows horrible institutions to become strong and powerful.

For example, if people who had to work 40 hours a week to aquire food (which is a reasonable estimate) suddenly only need to work 3 hours a week to acquire food. They dont sit around painting portraits or writing poems like we would prefer to believe. They make guns, and governments, and they start being creative in horrible new ways man was not prepared for.

The existence of technology, implies its use in these negative ways.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:47:58 2012 No.4354502 >>4354489 Nice how you avoid the idea that science is created by humans. You know the whole, "Imperfect beings create imperfect things."

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:49:06 2012 No.4354505 OP couple questions... Do you believe that technology is value-neutral or value-laden? Where do you see society headed on its current course with technology?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:49:15 2012 No.4354508

>>4354479

>He was also crazy.

Citation? Reasoning? Anything?

I think people prefer to believe he was crazy because they would prefer that only crazy people could come to the conclusion that they need to kill someone. Normal people would prefer that logic wouldnt dictate something they are too cowardly to live up to.

Kaczynski (if I am spelling it right) was monitor extensively by court appointed psychiatrists, who would not come to the conclusion that he was paranoid schziophrenic. His lawyers tried very hard to plead insanity, but there was never any evidence or reason to conclude that Kaczynski was anything but a rational human being, who was fully aware of what he was doing.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:51:31 2012 No.4354514

>>4354500
> And we STILL have massive forest fires that destroy vast stretches of land and houses
There were fires before, too. And there were no houses to lose.
>DESPITE how obvious the solutions are
Please share them.

>The technology that was originally used on the basis that it provides fresh water, resulted in the negative consequence of everyone becoming homeless and losing all their possessions. Also people died.
They would never have lived in the first place. Many things can be done better, but building New Orleans in the first place was still worth it. Though I fully agree that building down in the low-lying areas was pretty stupid. To reemphasize, *they would never have lived in the first place*.

> Like during the great leap forward millions of people starving. You could say "Just use technology better" but how could you ever know?
History has justified it. Mao was an idiot, and it shows what a bad cultural system dictatorships are. Not technology as a whole.

You focus on the negative so insistently and so constantly that I don't think you have the commitment to just step back and look at the world and say "The world has more good than bad". And it's true.

>>4354502
Nothing of the sort. He's uploading the basic value of pursuing knowledge through inquiry, and that all ideas should be tested. None of this requires perfection from humans.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:51:31 2012 No.4354515

>>4354488

Ah yeah, I listen to Godspeed too!

I agree. I dont want to encourage anyone to just accept reality for what it is. But still, I think if we look at the full repercussions of any revolutionary action, the results would be... nothing. There is no way, or reason to stop people from using technology. We just need to become better as individuals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:52:31 2012 No.4354518 >>4354495 Rewriting genes is just engineering humans to be content with slavery. It is not a solution, it is suicide.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:55:54 2012 No.4354529

>>4354508
>I think people prefer to believe he was crazy because they would prefer that only crazy people could come to the conclusion that they need to kill someone. Normal people would prefer that logic wouldnt dictate something they are too cowardly to live up to.
Oh no, it's nothing like that. For instance, I support Hoover's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He WAS crazy, but not on the level the term is meant in some naive pop-culture circles (hearing voices, etc.). He was deeply and thoroughly disconnected from reality. You sympathize with some of the things he said because he was eloquent and intelligent, but look at his actions, especially at the end.

What did he think he was accomplishing?

>>4354518
NO. We are ALREADY slaves to our genes. We are not free to be the people we wish we were.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:56:03 2012 No.4354536 >>4354514 >uploading upholding. lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:58:18 2012 No.4354543 >>4354529 >Hoover's decision Dammit, I mean Truman's. That's an embarrassing mistake.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:59:26 2012 No.4354548
File: 115 KB, 905x227, Forest_Development_in_Bitterroot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4354514

>There were fires before, too. And there were no houses to lose.

The forest fires of the past were significantly less devastating.
>pic related

Back in the day a fire would start occasionally, but the trees were so sparse and strong the fire couldnt move very far. Now a days we have fire fighters who are determined to put out every single fire that comes into existence. As a consequence every tree survives and you have these forests that just packed with very small weak trees. These trees keep building up until forests are like powder kegs waiting to explode. A fire starts and the whole region is on fire.

If only we didnt have fire fighters putting out fires, than the fires in existence today would be significantly less devastating.

>Though I fully agree that building down in the low-lying areas was pretty stupid

Well it wasnt low lying. It was above sea level but when you dry up the water table the ground level actually shrinks, because the earth far below you loses that volume of water.

>History has justified it

Then I guess we just need to justify the deaths and devastation of everyone faster than we can inflict it upon people. Otherwise I would get upset about what I am doing.

>The world has more good than bad". And it's true.

prove it

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 17:59:26 2012 No.4354550 File: 66 KB, 700x563, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Technology is neutral. People who use it are evil. Someone needs to figure out an algorithm for producing moral purity in a human being.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:04:59 2012 No.4354569

>>4354548
And that policy has been duly recognized as a bad idea and has been changed. Now there are controlled burns.

Are you really arguing that since we are not all-knowing and perfectly wise, that we should abstain from ever changing anything? That we should not even try, and fail, and learn, and try again?

>Then I guess we just need to justify the deaths and devastation of everyone faster than we can inflict it upon people. Otherwise I would get upset about what I am doing.
Really address this point: They, and billions of others, would never have existed in the first place without technology. And on the whole, technology has done much more to produce human life and happiness than extinguish it.

You're justifiably upset about catastrophes, but ignore all the good that had to be produced to make the catastrophe even possible!

>>The world has more good than bad". And it's true.
>prove it
To deny this is to prefer pushing a button that would completely obliterate the planet. No planet is better than one that has more bad than good.

Would you push it?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:04:59 2012 No.4354571

>>4354529

> I support Hoover's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nigga what? Hoover was president a whole decade prior to WWII. Truman authorized the bombs.

With that said, I dont know how the deaths of millions of innocent people, is some how morally better than the deaths of millions of murderous volunteer soliders who would have to storm the beaches of japan.

>He was deeply and thoroughly disconnected from reality.

Proof?

>but look at his actions, especially at the end.

What about his actions?

>What did he think he was accomplishing?

Before he started mailing bombs he was in the wilderness alone. Eventually timber companies and construction destroyed the forest, and paved over it. At that point he decided that he was going to hurt society to the fullest extent he could. So he mailed bombs to the people who are responsible for furthering technology and civilization: researchers, and people in charge of businesses.

You could say that he didnt accomplish much in total. But as an individual he did the best he could, and if more people behaved the way he did, the movement would be significantly furthered.

>NO. We are ALREADY slaves to our genes. We are not free to be the people we wish we were.

I didnt mean slave TO our genes. I mean slaves to other people. If you engineer a person to be obedience and stupid you have a slave.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:06:14 2012 No.4354577 op i do agree that science has become overly politicized to some extent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:06:14 2012 No.4354578 Between the 30s and the 90s, when we conquered nature, the molecular and atomic worlds.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:06:14 2012 No.4354579

>>4354571
>At that point he decided that he was going to hurt society to the fullest extent he could.
And this is deeply irrational.
>So he mailed bombs to the people who are responsible for furthering technology and civilization: researchers, and people in charge of businesses.
And this is evil.

>If you engineer a person to be obedience and stupid you have a slave.
I never proposed this change, and the fact that you assumed it speaks volumes.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:09:30 2012 No.4354589

>>4354571
>You could say that he didnt accomplish much in total. But as an individual he did the best he could
NO HE FUCKING DID NOT.

His views would have had CONSIDERABLY more impact if they had not been based on terrorism.

Next are you going to tell me that Breivik's actions were good at furthering his cause?

All the Unabomber accomplished was marginalizing legitimate environmentalism by making it seem (and also become) extremist.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:09:30 2012 No.4354591

>>4354571 But as an individual he did the best he could, and if more people behaved the way he did, the movement would be significantly furthered.
No he didn't. He took the lazy path. Terror campaigns don't change how people consume. Someone who was truly interested in lasting change and was willing to put the effort in would have worked on alternatives to the technologies causing the destruction.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:11:47 2012 No.4354594

>>4354571
it was about 200,000 people killed by the bombs, compared to the several million american soldiers, and the millions of japanese who would have died during the proposed invasion. After that, with the near complete destruction of Japan due to a military invasion more than two times the size of D-Day, many millions more people may have died due to starvation.

Purely in terms of how many people may have died otherwise, the atomic bombings were the right choice. There are, however, many more considerations to make.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:11:47 2012 No.4354596

>>4354569

>And that policy has been duly recognized as a bad idea and has been changed. Now there are controlled burns

Well thats just fucking ridiculous. It hasnt been changed here. I venture into the forest occasionally and we here in America arent that smart.

We werent that smart in california a few years back. Last year or so in russia they werent that smart.

Even if "we are that smart" the damage has been done. You can just retroactively justify what you have done by saying "we dont do it again" when you have fucked up a million times. At best we are only AS good as if we never did anything to begin with.

>but ignore all the good that had to be produced to make the catastrophe even possible!

Such as?

>>4354579

>And this is deeply irrational.

Why? If you understand civilization to be bad, then it is entirely rational to hurt it. Rationality is defined by our capacity to actualize our values. If you think society is bad, it is rational to hurt it.

If you dont argue with his values attack those.

>And this is evil.

On a moral criteria he doesnt share.

>I never proposed this change, and the fact that you assumed it speaks volumes.

So what if you didnt?

Lets ask any parent if they would prefer their children to be a violent criminal or a normal person moderately successful in society. They would of course choose a normal person. But does normalcy have anything to do with justice? No. Game Theory shows us that a large collection of people acting rationally, can result in a consequence that no one wanted. Society will make certain kinds of people more efficient (dumb, obedient, people who dont break the law, people who dont think too hard about social norms).

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:13:02 2012 No.4354601

>>4354589

>His views would have had CONSIDERABLY more impact if they had not been based on terrorism.

This implies that he was trying to "spread the word" instead of "hurt people as much as possible."

With that said, he did spread the word, and he tried to as much as he could. You can find his writing all over the internet. When he was mailing bombs he announced publically many times and to the FBI that if news papers would just publish his writing just once, he would stop altogether.

It would preferable if we could live in a world in which we can all just discuss things and the medium in which we discuss things doesnt censor our messages. We do not however, live in that world.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:14:10 2012 No.4354604

>>4354596
> If you understand civilization to be bad, then it is entirely rational to hurt it.
Human life and happiness is good.

But beyond the claim that his actions were evil, the more important claim is this:
His actions were completely ineffectual, though he seemed to think they would be effective. He was delusional.

>Lets ask any parent if they would prefer their children to be a violent criminal or a normal person moderately successful in society. They would of course choose a normal person. But does normalcy have anything to do with justice? No. Game Theory shows us that a large collection of people acting rationally, can result in a consequence that no one wanted. Society will make certain kinds of people more efficient (dumb, obedient, people who dont break the law, people who dont think too hard about social norms).
So giving my child a greater abilities and fewer self-destructive tendencies is wrong?

>Game Theory shows us that a large collection of people acting rationally, can result in a consequence that no one wanted.
Only in very restrictive assumptions that do not hold in reality very well. You see, you and I both can see those optima that are away from Nash equilibriums, and can agree to shift to them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:15:19 2012 No.4354605 >>4354601 >This implies that he was trying to "spread the word" instead of "hurt people as much as possible." This goal is evil. It's not even well-intentioned extremism anymore, "I'm doing this to make society better". It is purely evil.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:16:26 2012 No.4354606 >>4354601 >When he was mailing bombs he announced publically many times and to the FBI that if news papers would just publish his writing just once, he would stop altogether. Oh, silly me, how praiseworthy his actions are in light of this fact.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:17:26 2012 No.4354608

>>4354594

>it was about 200,000 people killed by the bombs, compared to the several million american soldiers, and the millions of japanese who would have died during the proposed invasion.

Oh I see. I was mistaken. I have heard a total of a million before, mainly because the twin towers were targetted on the basis that "it would kill about as many people as the atomic bombs a million people" I guess terrorists cant math.

Anyway, I would argue that we shouldnt do our morality by the shear number of lives. I see it much more morally acceptable that many people who have volunteered to die and kill, die, than for innocent people who might have tried there best to avoid involvement, to die.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:17:35 2012 No.4354611

>>4354601
Spreading your message is lazy, actually getting people to believe it takes work. I could come up with the most inane ramblings on flat earth, kill a few people and post the ramblings to papers and billions would end up reading them but they wouldn't be persuaded by them for a second.

Like it or not, the source of ideas matters to people. When that source is some nut job who posted bombs to people it causes the vast majority to not even consider what is being said on any meaningful level.

It's a pathetic and lazy excuse to claim acts of terror as a way of spreading a message.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:18:43 2012 No.4354616

>>4354608
> I see it much more morally acceptable that many people who have volunteered to die and kill, die, than for innocent people who might have tried there best to avoid involvement, to die.
Those were not the available choices. And you seem to be implying that it was wrong to declare war on Japan.

What do you think Truman should have done in his situation, with the knowledge he had?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:23:15 2012 No.4354630

>>4354604

>Human life and happiness is good.

These are values the product of modern society, and the media etc. Of course it is preferable to be happy and to be alive, but an absolute value in these will just stunt moral growth. Human life at the cost of brutal dehumanization the loss of freedom, is not preferable, for example.

>So giving my child a greater abilities and fewer self-destructive tendencies is wrong?

Its certainly not true that your child, and your engineered child, are not the same child. You are not "granting" your child a gift. You are completely changing what they are in the deepest most psychological way.

Yes, I think it is wrong. It is wrong to take away one being's capacity to free will, and responsibility, and to logically explore their own possible futures. That is wrong to take that away.

> You see, you and I both can see those optima that are away from Nash equilibriums, and can agree to shift to them

Agreement doesnt mean anything in game theory. We can agree not to sell each other out in a prisoners dilemma but that doesnt change anything about our incentives. If anything, the fact that we agreed just encourages me to break out agreement because I know you will do something that I can take advantage of.

Yeah, any model has debatable significance on reality, however if you will agree, game theory does. Like the stock market for example. There is a nash equilibirum in investing, and one in not investing. The consequence could result in a depression or economic prosperity. Thats a good example of a real life example of game theory

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:24:15 2012 No.4354634 >>4354605 >It's not even well-intentioned extremism anymore, "I'm doing this to make society better Well he was trying to help people. He just felt people would be better off without "society"

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:25:30 2012 No.4354639

>>4354606

It just goes to show that he didnt do it because he enjoys killing people or anything. It was only something he did when he felt he was in the most desperate circumstance.

As opposed to all those soldiers and police men who cant get an erection if they arent hurting someone else.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:27:39 2012 No.4354641

>>4354611

>It's a pathetic and lazy excuse to claim acts of terror as a way of spreading a message

Yeah but I wasnt claiming that. I was claiming the opposite. He hurt select individuals as an end as a means to hurting society. Not to spread the word of anything.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:27:39 2012 No.4354645

>>4354630
>Of course it is preferable to be happy and to be alive, but an absolute value in these will just stunt moral growth. Human life at the cost of brutal dehumanization the loss of freedom, is not preferable, for example.
What. I did say "happiness" too, you know.

>Its certainly not true that your child, and your engineered child, are not the same child. You are not "granting" your child a gift. You are completely changing what they are in the deepest most psychological way.
There is no morality of nonpersons. If I make sure my child does not end up with the genes for Huntington's disease, there is no other child who "should' have been born but was not.

>Yes, I think it is wrong. It is wrong to take away one being's capacity to free will, and responsibility, and to logically explore their own possible futures. That is wrong to take that away.
Changing your genes does not remove anything that you did not already have. It does not increase your enslavement to genetic impulses. It only changes what those impulses are. We can make *us*, the things that talk and reason, more free. Have you ever been angry, but didn't know why? Have you ever wanted to do something, but couldn't find the motivation? We are already slaves.

I like game theory, and it's very, very important. I'm just trying to avoid either of us applying conclusions to reality when they don't really apply directly. That's what got us into a lot of the current mess. We *aren't* perfectly rational self-interested actors, and we *dont'* have equal information, etc.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 18:28:46 2012 No.4354647
File: 19 KB, 230x250, GIL3-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4353881
> Like a car accident. A car accident is something that might happen to any of us.

A car accident will generally only happen to you if you yourself choose to drive a car as well. Yes, it's -possible- that you'll be struck as a pedestrian, but such accidents are far less common and themselves often avoidable. There are many lifestyles that do not require one to drive a car frequently, if at all - and there are several firms that are already using AI-augmented cards in an attempt to avert these accidents, rendering this point moot. For example, Sebastian Thrun was recently involved in the construction of a car that could navigate a city on its own without impacting any obstacles.

>Same with contagious disease. If out there, it might get you, it might not, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Wrong. Our ability to effect lasting change to our own immune systems through technological intervention by way of vaccination allows us to compensate for the natural weaknesses we possess in that area. Furthermore, the differences in 'default' immune systems among the population are rendered largely irrelevant by this sort of therapy - simple bad luck regarding one's genetic makeup is no longer a noose around one's neck from a young age.
Finally, have you seen smallpox lately?

>Our whole employment structure lacks autonomy.

That's a wholly irrelevant point and, in point of fact, only partially true. Women and minorities, in particular, have acquired significantly more autonomy in the workplace than they possessed even a hundred years ago - science has allowed us to understand that women and members of other races are not some inferior sub-species.
And yes, racism has always been present in human society, from the very beginning - the desire to maintain ingroup benefits at the expense of outgroups is a rational decision from a wholly gene-centered perspective.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 18:29:55 2012 No.4354652

>>4354647
>So, I dare you to explain why a more primitive life is somehow more "random." Its the total opposite, you would be responsible for everything you do. Your own livelihood is directly related to what you do.

We now have the ability to eliminate random variables that would otherwise do us immeasurable harm.
Born with bad eyesight? Get glasses.
Born with bad teeth? Get dentures.
Born with weak immune system? Vaccines!
Hemophilia? Factor infusions!
There are literally thousands of examples, and the list only continues to grow as we gain the ability to intervene at the genetic level, excising detrimental traits and increasing the global standard of living.

>I suppose you could argue some non-sense like "nature is dangerous" but again I think that is just projecting modern weakness onto primitive people.

The most important example here is life expectancy. In nature, the human lifespan was a pitiful twenty to thirty years (at the outside). Given that life is a prerequisite for autonomy, it is laughable to assert that nature enables autonomy, when in fact that sort of lifestyle was demonstrably restrictive to one's lifespan. Science and the resulting technology have allowed us to extend healthy human life and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate as time passes - in fact, radical life extension is the only rational choice for anybody interested in optimizing human autonomy. After all, how can one effect autonomous action without being alive in the first place?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:30:55 2012 No.4354654

>>4354641
Then in the social sense, he is no longer human. A thing who has devoted himself to the destruction of all humans.

>>4354639
>As opposed to all those soldiers and police men who cant get an erection if they arent hurting someone else.
Your false dichotomies sicken me. "The Unabomber was so noble, and all cops are sadists who are sexually aroused by the suffering of the innocent".

Fuck you.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:33:18 2012 No.4354665

>>4354645

You are right regarding the morality of nonpersons. If I cant claim you are hurting a child though, you cant claim you are helping a child.

>We can make *us*, the things that talk and reason, more free.

Why would you do that though? Isnt it possible that reasonable, freedom loving people might just end up like the unabomber or Timothy McVeigh?

>Have you ever been angry, but didn't know why? Have you ever wanted to do something, but couldn't find the motivation?

These are largely psychological problems associated with living in a modern society to begin with. No cave man ever needed motivation to acquire dinner.

>We are already slaves.

All the more justification to violently fight.

>That's what got us into a lot of the current mess. We *aren't* perfectly rational self-interested actors, and we *dont'* have equal information, etc.

You are right again. Although I take uncertainty to suggest that there might be horrible unforeseen consequences that will make things horrible.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:38:59 2012 No.4354679

>>4354665
>Why would you do that though? Isnt it possible that reasonable, freedom loving people might just end up like the unabomber or Timothy McVeigh?
We must be talking past each other. I'm talking about being able to become the kind of people we wish we were, by altering our base impulses. To be less prone to anger, to be less easily deceived, etc. Though I do agree that lots of this is cultural and psychological, but the base source of many issues has a strong genetic component that we can potentially change. For instance, many cases of sociopathy seem to be an inherent biological condition that begin very early in childhood, without clear sociological causes (abuse, etc).

>These are largely psychological problems associated with living in a modern society to begin with. No cave man ever needed motivation to acquire dinner.
Yeah, and no cave man ever beat his wife, I'm sure.

>All the more justification to violently fight.
Again, we must be talking past each other. I don't know what you mean by this.

>Although I take uncertainty to suggest that there might be horrible unforeseen consequences that will make things horrible.
Do you really wish you were still back in that cave?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:40:06 2012 No.4354684

>>4354647

>Yes, it's -possible- that you'll be struck as a pedestrian, but such accidents are far less common and themselves often avoidable. There are many lifestyles that do not require one to drive a car frequently, if at all

Oh well thats just non-sense. In the city I live in (which is completely typical) 60% of the surface is roads. No one walks. I have been hit by a car twice trying to ride a bike.

It already takes normal people 30-45 minutes to get around in a car. As a consequence of poor urban planning and the expansion of the city, everything is farther away, and the net amount of time it takes to get any where hasnt actually decreases, despite the fact that we are traveling much faster.

If you want to work in society, you need a car. And if you dont want to work, you suffer. You HAVE to drive a car to enjoy the basic amenities (food shelter) that people for generations have always had without cars.

>Our ability to effect lasting change to our own immune systems through technological intervention by way of vaccination allows us to compensate for the natural weaknesses we possess in that area.

I am glad that we have been able to solve this problem that rich white people have been suffering from for thousands of years. The fact that we are no longer suffering however, does not justify the suffering to begin with.

> Women and minorities, in particular, have acquired significantly more autonomy in the workplace than they possessed even a hundred years ago

There is more autonomy in the kitchen... frankly. Women have a larger percentage of the work place, and the work place is not an autonomous place. Minorities only didnt have a share of the work force BECAUSE of oppression to begin with. If they were independent as they would have been as primitive man they would have been autonomous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:41:15 2012 No.4354688 >>4354684 Not that guy, but yeah, I'd like to see changes in city planning. Though I don't know whether car-free cities or self-driving cars is more likely to be the route we go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:42:22 2012 No.4354690 >>4354684 >The fact that we are no longer suffering however, does not justify the suffering to begin with. ... wait, you're blaming technology for the existence of diseases?

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:47:58 2012 No.4354705

>>4354652

>Born with bad eyesight? Get glasses.
>Born with bad teeth? Get dentures.

Most people have bad teeth because of technology based problems. Like poor diet.

Of course, You only need good eyes to read. Of course that is more extreme than I willing to argue.

>Born with weak immune system?

Modern society naturally selects a poorer immune system because we dont use it to begin with.

I think all of your examples are how we handle random variables. To make a comparison to poker, you are saying that if you are dealt a bad hand we can work with the random chance your hand is bad. This is true... maybe. This is not comparable to what I am talking about. I am arguing given your random hand, you are free to do whatever you want in this game of poker. Modern society limits our freedom the play the game of poker.

>The most important example here is life expectancy. In nature, the human lifespan was a pitiful twenty to thirty years (at the outside)

Well that is absolute bullshit. That doesnt even make biological sense.

If people reach fertility at 15 years old, had kids, and then died 5 years later, who takes care of their kids? Human beings arent even done developing at the age of 20.

I have citations that demonstrate primitive people live life spans of 60-80 years. All statistics that say people died at 30 or 40 include infant mortality. Which WOULD be a fair argument, infant morality is significantly lesser today than back in the day.

Of course, back in the day we didnt have abortion, and people were very prone to killing their own infants when they couldnt care for them. If you factor abortions into the life span statistics of americans just like you might fact infant deaths into primitve life statistics, the average life span of an american, born or terminated, is about 50 years old.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 18:48:11 2012 No.4354709

>>4354684
>city
>No one walks.

That's not even remotely typical, and frankly, I don't even believe it.

>everything is farther away, and the net amount of time it takes to get any where hasnt actually decreases, despite the fact that we are traveling much faster.

Those things may be further away, but that infrastructure wouldn't exist _at all_ without the technological underpinnings of our society.

>If you want to work in society, you need a car. And if you dont want to work, you suffer. You HAVE to drive a car to enjoy the basic amenities (food shelter) that people for generations have always had without cars.

Categorically false. Most people living in an urban environment do not own a car, regardless of your own anecdotal evidence.

>I am glad that we have been able to solve this problem that rich white people have been suffering from for thousands of years. The fact that we are no longer suffering however, does not justify the suffering to begin with.

What? That statement doesn't even make sense. Vaccination is necessary for humans of all races given the fact that pathogens tend to evolve faster than our natural countermeasures irrespective of random differences in our immune functionality.

>There is more autonomy in the kitchen... frankly.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what 'autonomy' means. Being forced to stay home is _definitionally_ less autonomous than being given a second choice, even if said choice comes with its own set of problems.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:48:11 2012 No.4354711

>>4354654

>Your false dichotomies sicken me. "The Unabomber was so noble, and all cops are sadists who are sexually aroused by the suffering of the innocent".

I am sorry, I was very reckless. I dont mean to suggest all police men or soliders are evil. I have known nice police men solider, some of which have helped me when I needed it.

Nonetheless problems like war and police brutality are modern problems. I depicted policemen are being evil, only to suggest that some of the good guys, are behaving for immoral reasons. And some of the bad guys, are behaving with the best intentions.

>>	Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 18:50:26 2012 No.4354719 File: 65 KB, 450x338, citation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I have citations that demonstrate primitive people live life spans of 60-80 years.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:51:35 2012 No.4354726

>>4354705
>Most people have bad teeth because of technology based problems. Like poor diet.
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT
Before modern medicine and nutrition, people just *didn't have all their teeth*. That's why wisdom teeth are a modern problem - they used to be extras that came in after you would have already lost some.

You're right about lifespans (though I think you're giving too high an impression of how many people lived to 60-80, though certainly some did). The point remains that many, many children died, and that's something we can be glad to be turning around now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:53:42 2012 No.4354730 >>4354711 >Nonetheless problems like war and police brutality are modern problems. This is simply not true. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:53:42 2012 No.4354731 With industrialization and the advent of positivism post darwin. Aka the death of god.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:55:59 2012 No.4354738

>>4354679

>We must be talking past each other. I'm talking about being able to become the kind of people we wish we were, by altering our base impulses.

Okay.

I wouldnt want to alter our base impulses. I think I am appealing to our most base impulses frankly.

>Yeah, and no cave man ever beat his wife, I'm sure.

Oh no, I absolutely believe primitive man beat his primitive wife. I mean, I have read many many accounts of this.

The reality is we are a species that physically altercates. Today we dont fight, we play basket ball or something.

Given that we occasionally fight physically, I think its morally better when its between two family members, or two friends, or two people who have lived their lives together, fighting with their bare hands or basic weapons. This is supremely preferable to genocide or warfare.

Some amount of violence is in our biology, men and women were psychologically prepared to fight. They are worse off if they sit around repressing themselves.

With that said, homocide among ancient man wasnt particularly high, and child abuse was virtually non-existent. Of course, all these facts I have read from anthropological studies are always criticizable.

>Do you really wish you were still back in that cave?

No not exactly. Early on I addressed this kind of comment.

fdf Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:57:14 2012 No.4354746
File: 763 KB, 1024x768, Koala.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

no thing or person will better society or human beings the moment you start implementing any rules or anything new into society you are forcing something on people who may not be ready for it how about all of the people put out of work because of cottin gins thats bettering the world any individual conquest for the betterment of others is or "society" is not for betterment once everyone realizes the individual is the only thing thats matters while it may better society in a statistical sense stats are not facts stop pretending they are dont try and control the unknow and the betterment of anything other than your self if useless. not saying arguments are not usefull and stats are point less but when you try and group "people" and put stats to something to free choice its pointless. The idea of free choice is chaos if you want betterment have everyone give up free choice.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:57:14 2012 No.4354747

>>4354690

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, Contagious diseases couldnt be nearly as effective as they are if we didnt live in massive dense cities. The same thing happens in farming. You put a lot of genetically identical potatoes in one spot, and they all die of the same illness.

If we were in sparse packs of people, contagious disease simply couldnt spread as it does today.

Non-contagious diseases are another story (heart disease, suicide, mental disorder, all products of modern society)

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 18:59:30 2012 No.4354753

>>4354738
You have good points.

My main argument though is that our base impulses are not optimal for human well-being, especially in a modern world. At all. They are only *fairly* beneficial of human *survival* in our *ancient* environment.

We can improve things.

>>4354747
This is true. But it's still proven to be worth it. And now we're beginning to systematically wipe out diseases themselves. Smallpox, polio, extensive vaccinations against many others, etc.

>>	Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 19:00:39 2012 No.4354757 >>4354747 Heart disease is a product of aging, not a product of modern society. It is one of the many results of a process that starts with mitochondrial DNA mutation, which is not particularly environmental in its causation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:01:39 2012 No.4354761 >>4354738 >homocide among ancient man wasnt particularly high Well here comes the criticism. >>4354730 Homocide is far lower today.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:01:39 2012 No.4354762 ITT op is way more of a faggot than usual

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:02:47 2012 No.4354766

>>4354709

>That's not even remotely typical, and frankly, I don't even believe it.

Where do you live?

>Those things may be further away, but that infrastructure wouldn't exist _at all_ without the technological underpinnings of our society.

This point is completely beyond me. I dont care for useless infrastructure, and I dont suspect you do either. A car is only good for where it can take you, and it isnt taking people anywhere special, and its not doing it any faster than it used to (because of city expansion).

>Categorically false. Most people living in an urban environment do not own a car, regardless of your own anecdotal evidence.

..Where do you live?

Here in the US there are 254 million cars and 300 million people. Nearly every individual has a car. Most cities arent new york or tokyo, and in the last century suburban areas have grown drastically.

>Vaccination is necessary for humans of all races given the fact that pathogens tend to evolve faster than our natural countermeasures irrespective of random differences in our immune functionality.

Necessary in modern society. Its a solution for a self inflicted problem

> Being forced to stay home is _definitionally_ less autonomous than being given a second choice

No one is forcing anyone to stay home. I did not imply that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:04:02 2012 No.4354773 >>4354719 >http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf This link no longer works on my computer. Sorry. I would search for it again, if I wasnt swamped by replying to everyone.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:04:02 2012 No.4354775

>>4354757
Though I'd still be sure to admit that modern diets are different enough from ancient ones that there may still be some issues there. Obesity, etc. It wasn't a problem anciently, and so our genes aren't good for it.

But looking at stuff like this is pretty cool. It would never have been selected in the wild, because the metabolic requirements are too high.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-mouse-that-shook-the-world-744870.html

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:06:19 2012 No.4354787

>>4354730

I am familiar with Steven Pinker and his comments on violence. Everything I have heard him say has been relevant SINCE the invention of modern society and agriculture.

With that said, I fully accept that even primitive man was violent. The difference being that violence among two people who live together is personal and mutually understood, and usually not lethal. While violence between the government and people is systematic, drastic, and lethal

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:09:35 2012 No.4354799

>>4354753

>My main argument though is that our base impulses are not optimal for human well-being

I respectfully disagree, but I appreciate how our discussion has faired.

>We can improve things.

I agree friend.

>>4354757

>Heart disease is a product of aging, not a product of modern society.

Sure, but its also the product of poor diet and crappy food.

I notice you didnt address cancer. Ill take that we all accept that cancer is a modern product.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:09:42 2012 No.4354801 >>4354761 Homicide is lower today than it was 100, or 1000 years ago. It is not lower than it was 10,000 or 100,000 years ago.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:12:58 2012 No.4354811

>>4354787
>Everything I have heard him say has been relevant SINCE the invention of modern society and agriculture.
But he discusses current primitive cultures. Which is our best source of knowledge about ancient primitive cultures.

>The difference being that violence among two people who live together is personal and mutually understood, and usually not lethal
True.

>While violence between the government and people is systematic, drastic, and lethal
It's funny that you say "between government and people", not "between governments".

The ancient analog is intertribal conflict. Which is brutal and bloody (amazon indians, north american indians, etc). I know of some Maori customs that turned to producing ritual conflict rather than bloody conflict, but I'm not sure how common such things are.

>>4354801
How could you *possibly* support that assertion with evidence? Note what has just been said about current cultures that are ancient and/or primitive.

>>4354799
>My main argument though is that our base impulses are not optimal for human well-being
>I respectfully disagree, but I appreciate how our discussion has faired.
As do I.

However, on what basis could our current impulses be optimal for human happiness and well-being? Evolution is slow and stupid, it only cares about "good-enough" solutions, those solutions don't really involve making you happy, and our current environment is vastly different from just a thousand years ago.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 19:13:58 2012 No.4354813

>>4354766
>Where do you live?
I'm from near Boston, and almost all of the traffic there is related to commuting - many residents of the city proper do not even have (or rarely use) a personal automobile.
The same holds true for other large urban centers such as New York City, where 54% of households don't own a vehicle at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car
This particular article is based upon the US Census, so its veracity can be accepted as representative of population statistics.

> it isnt taking people anywhere special

Then why are you complaining about how long it takes for you to get to places when traveling by car?

>Necessary in modern society. Its a solution for a self inflicted problem

No. Many types of pathogen can mutate within animal populations, allowing them to acquire strong genetic diversity without needing to infect a large contiguous human population. Influenza is a prime example of a virus that uses that sort of technique.

>No one is forcing anyone to stay home. I did not imply that.

In that case, your point does nothing to help refute my original statement. Even if you argue that the workplace categorically lacks autonomy, women do have more than they did previously thanks to science-mediated progress in our society.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 19:16:30 2012 No.4354826

>>4354799
I addressed heart disease because I can enumerate the specific biological pathways that bring it about.
Even though it is outside of my expertise, I can say that cancer is also an age-related illness that increases in incidence as age increases - given as previously noted that life is a prerequisite for autonomy, cancer is a problem that any autonomous society will eventually face. Perhaps certain modern environmental factors _increase_ its incidence, but it would occur anyway at a certain age, and therefore a technological solution would still be required in the end.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:21:41 2012 No.4354833

>>4354811

>But he discusses current primitive cultures.

Oh, what does he say? Sorry, I would watch it, but, to do so would ignore the replies coming to me.

>It's funny that you say "between government and people", not "between governments".

That is funny. I didnt reflect on this. The war in Iraq, and the war in Afganistan are almost entirely against people and not governments. So yes, I stand by what I said.

>How could you *possibly* support that assertion with evidence?

Uh... I guess I couldnt produce any real citation. I do believe that I once read homicide was significantly lower among various primitive societies when reading anthrpological papers on primitive people. I could be very wrong. I certainly accept that primitive people have a great capacity for violence.

With that said I dont believe the appearance of violence implies violence. Jane Goodall who studied chimps in the wild reflected on chimps capacity to run around and appear very violent and threatening, and never ever inflict violence. So often violence can just be for show, I suspect this is the case for primitive man too. With that said Jane Goodall was once beaten almost to death by a chimp in the wild.

>However, on what basis could our current impulses be optimal for human happiness and well-being?

I think our well being has to be described in terms relative to our base impulses. While I think morality needs to be relative to people, I dont think it needs to be relative to happiness. Even happiness, is based of our "base impulses."

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:26:18 2012 No.4354846

>>4354813

>I'm from near Boston

Boston and New York are exceptionally different. And even then it appears half of New York owns a car, which I consider sizeable.

>Then why are you complaining about how long it takes for you to get to places when traveling by car?

Because it takes just as long if I was walking in a well planned city than it does to drive in a poorly planned one. The only difference being that I dont have to buy a car if I am walking, and I am significantly less likely to die.

>No. Many types of pathogen can mutate within animal populations

I am not arguing about mutations. The difference is that if you see thousands of people a day, and you are completely surrounded by people, diseases spread among people. They dont when those people are sparse and few.

>women do have more than they did previously

Have more? Yes, I accept they have more, but materialistic appeals dont appeal to my values. Often what they have more of is inflicting damage on them. What they dont have, which I believe is more important (autonomy) their work place has not given them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:28:44 2012 No.4354853 >>4354826 >therefore a technological solution would still be required in the end. A technological solution to a technological problem. Fair enough.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:34:35 2012 No.4354869

>>4354833
>Oh, what does he say? Sorry, I would watch it, but, to do so would ignore the replies coming to me.
Mainly that primitive cultures we have access to have a history of perpetual and bloody conflict between small tribes. I don't recall the exact source of evidence, but he gives sources.

>Even happiness, is based of our "base impulses."
This is an excellent point, and we should not alter our natures lightly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:34:35 2012 No.4354870 >>4354853 What about all of the 'natural' problems solved by technology? In a world without technology there are still fuckloads of problems, technology is one of the best ways of solving/getting to the heart of all of them.

Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB Sat Feb 11 19:36:35 2012 No.4354876

>>4354846
>Boston and New York are exceptionally different. And even then it appears half of New York owns a car, which I consider sizeable.

Please note that the table refers to car ownership rather than car use (and yes, I know that you said 'owns' as well). It is highly unlikely that every household that owns a car uses it regularly, and many that do likely use it primarily for tasks that require departure from the city proper. Finally, it is important to note that the data is from 2000, immediately before 9/11 and the resulting turmoil that dramatically increased the cost of regular automobile operation - it is likely that numbers have decreased in recent years.

>The difference is that if you see thousands of people a day, and you are completely surrounded by people, diseases spread among people. They dont when those people are sparse and few.

Again, influenza and other such viruses are particularly troublesome because certain permutations _can_ spread from an animal population to a human population. It's far better to have many diseases that we can repudiate than a few that we cannot hope to survive.

>What they dont have, which I believe is more important (autonomy) their work place has not given them.

What? The mere option of working is _by definition_ an increase in autonomy, even if the working conditions are themselves unduly restrictive (which is a large assumption in and of itself given the deplorable working conditions of the past).

I'm going to dinner. I trust that other defenders of rationality and common sense will take over in my stead.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:43:38 2012 No.4354896

>>4354870

>What about all of the 'natural' problems solved by technology?

I place priority on moral issues regarding freedom and independence than I do on issues regarding pleasure. Many "natural problems" are probably regarding free time, and efficiency, which I consider appeals to pleasure. For example, if farming is more efficient, than you are appealing to ease of work, pleasure of gardening, and leisure.

>>4354876

> It is highly unlikely that every household that owns a car uses it regularly

Well.. thats really easy for you to just throw out there. I live on the west coast. Everyone I know, drives every day. Thats what life resembles in most cities.

>many that do likely use it primarily for tasks that require departure from the city proper

I think this is the opposite from the truth. Myself for example, only use a car to get around the city.

>it is likely that numbers have decreased in recent years.

Probably not, because you cant walk. You cant just structure a city to make things closer to each other in a decade. I guess you could take public transportation, but that takes significantly longer in most cities (not like boston or New York), and it takes significant planning.

Anyway, whether we just pay more for gas, or we pay more time and effort for public transport, the fact is modern society has resulted in a consequence that costs more. The cost isnt payed by our employer, its paid by us and it is taken from our time.

>Again, influenza and other such viruses are particularly troublesome because certain permutations _can_ spread from an animal population to a human population

So what? Was primitive man swamped in thousands of animals, like modern man is swamped by thousands of people? No.

CONT

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:46:38 2012 No.4354908

CONT

>It's far better to have many diseases that we can repudiate than a few that we cannot hope to survive.

I agree, which is why its particularly devastating when the spanish flu, or polio, or tuberculousis, or cholera, or the bubonic plague, spread through millions of people, than tuberculosis killing off a handful of people and not spreading to the isolated small packs of humans, separated by vast distances of land.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 19:48:21 2012 No.4354914

CONT

>What? The mere option of working is _by definition_ an increase in autonomy, even if the working conditions are themselves unduly restrictive (which is a large assumption in and of itself given the deplorable working conditions of the past).

If its restrictive, is limits autonomy.

And I fully accept that working conditions could be better than they were 100 years ago (maybe), but this is a short term trend in a long term change (100,000 years)

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 20:17:17 2012 No.4354996

>I'm going to dinner. I trust that other defenders of rationality and common sense will take over in my stead.

I now need to leave too. But I am entertained by the fact that when you left, no one came to take your place.

Not to suggest I dont expect to be rejected by most scientifically minded people.

I also find it condescending to suggest you are the rational one and I am not. I believe I am being rational. And if "rationalism" can be some kind of social movement, then I ascribe to it as much as you do.

Anonymous Sat Feb 11 20:56:05 2012 No.4355147
File: 37 KB, 352x464, 29042_120226888017615_100000909122855_108562_6191191_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The ratio between a constant and a variable always creates an emergent property in the form of a constant value, which is directly related to the integration that conceived that constant and that variable.

What am I?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 11 20:58:14 2012 No.4355156 >>4355147 >dat pic maximum derp!

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math