Page 3 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

17 Sep 2006, 1:05 pm

Evolution in and of itself is not evil, just the way that we're currently evolved is evil. We'd hafta evolve beyond being stupid ape-like creatures. Saying otherwise is like saying war, bigotry, elitism, and murder are not evil. It's all a bi-product of our will to dominance and heirarchy. We're designed that way. We'd hafta evolve beyond that.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

17 Sep 2006, 1:34 pm

And also what about situations where good and evil are seperated from actions. What about the halucaust? Are we supposed to just act like this kind of stuff is ok, because the victim's deaths could sustain more life or something? Are we supposed to give people like Hitler a thumbs up? *Scratches my head*....



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

17 Sep 2006, 6:18 pm

The struggle for power is a part of life, without power things cannot be done and people are loath to abandon the structures that give them control, the big question is not how to abolish power but rather how to manipulate power structures to serve us without destroying their ability to sustain us and essentially the issue is how to get the self-interested to serve us.

Life and death are both needed in that we have not discovered a way to live without killing things and killing everything although possible is undesirable. If we both could immortalize things and create food purely from nutrients then death would be unnecessary. Frankly, I do not see how anthropocentrism is really a problem or a limitation, in fact, I see anthropocentrism as a good thing as it values humans promoting pro-human virtues while still allowing delicious hamburgers. We could control our own evolution but that is something that we would not really want to do given the negative opinion held today of eugenics and how eugenics could easily be bent to totalitarian ends as in order to exert control we must intrude on the lives of every person.

We can't evolve past that because dominance seeking characteristics are successful within society meaning that dominance is a beneficial breeding trait. To change that would require the very evils you seek to defeat. The Holocaust is evil because not condemning such actions represents a clear danger to all people in society, to fail to condemn this might mean to become victim of this. Hitler definitely does not deserve a thumbs up for the holocaust and such, although, he did get major thumbs up before WW2 for leading a powerful nation out of the depression through clever economic manipulations.



sociable_hermit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,645
Location: Sussex, UK

17 Sep 2006, 6:28 pm

Free thinking?

Yes, Sir, that's correct. Could I also interest you in our extended warranty, enhanced customer support package, insurance policy, optional extras and ultra limited edition commemorative pen?

Right, that'll be $4, 326.20.

:D


_________________
The Sociable Hermit says:
Rock'n'Roll...


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

17 Sep 2006, 6:36 pm

The halucaust was one example of things the dominance gene leads to. Pack survival leads to people dividing themselves into camps and conquering one another. This often leads to religious wars, race wars, etc. Those at the bottom of the heirarchy often go horrendously oppressed and have little to no hope of overcoming their situations. I don't think we need power structures and heirarchy, we need to seek a strategic method to get around these kinds of things. That doesn't neccessarily mean the abolishion of our ability to be organized, it only means we must strive to find better ways to even out the power struggle so that all are equal, so that power and wealth are dispersed evenly. And as far as government goes, I do believe in anarchy as it is a system that provides total power to the governed, and not the governing. And, if done right, assuming people were to evolve a bit first (which I unfortunately doubt will happen any time soon), this could work.
I know this sounds like a dream world, which is really all it is.... But I also feel people need to defeat dependance upon currency systems. Money leads to evil, especially in the since of the heirarchy. I do believe that if they thought about it more, they could create an offical table for trade that sais, for example, "this many ears of corn are worth this many cattle" and so on. However, not every concievable item should be optional for trade, mainly neccessities. And perhaps a seperate trade chart for entertainment items. But they'd hafta make official tables which would act as the law of the land in trade negotiations, to make it official, so there are no disputes.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

18 Sep 2006, 8:20 am

It couldn't work, too much must be done to develop this world and much of it couldn't be done. In order to defeat current powers you must organize a revolution, and that would lead to worse things as you would have to give power to people with the dominance gene. Money is only an adaptation because cows and other animals of that nature were too heavy to deal with. To remove money disrupts human economic activity to such an extent that modern technology would be unfeasable to deal with. If you even seriously attempt to get rid of money you would be selling off all of our progress over the past hundred years for destruction at the hands of a pipe dream. As well, your idea of a trade table is too rigid to deal with supply and demand issues, if one of the commodities, like corn, has a bad growing season then the individuals holding it will not be willing to undergo trade for it unless individuals offer more than the official price, this can easily lead to black market corn or other commodities because of the rigidity of these tables.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

18 Sep 2006, 11:29 am

Giving power to people without the dominance gene is a bad thing? So conquest is a good thing then? I'm not feeling you dude, yes I agree my idea could never happen and I've admited this. This is just a dream reality. But your saying that for one example, NTs are superior to aspies, and we deserve to be treated as lesser individuals in society? We deserve to be discriminated? Because we're not as "alpha" as some other people by the majority standard? I agree that the people may often disagree amoung themselves, but in most cases I think the majority of an intellectual board of decision makers should make the decisions for the community. Stupid people should be cut off from having a voice. Conservative Jesus Nazis have made this abundantly clear to those of us with brains. The decision making board would have to include highly intelligent people from all backgrounds or as many as possible. Though without there being christians, jews, muslims, atheists, liberals, conservatives, etc, people would have less to fight over (though they'd likely find new things to fight over, but like I said this is just a dream reality that will likely never happen).
I think **if** people made a contrived effort to become less primative, people could establish strategies for trade deficits. Yes it would be a complex system, but so is the monetary system. It's all about organizing things strategically. When they initially set up the monetary system, they did it strategically, and on paper it looked good. But in reality it has caused alot of internal problems for the human race. In a trade scenario one would not have to do as much shopping around, they'd likely only have to do in maybe twice a year and they could stock up on enough suppies to last a good length of time. Maybe a credit system could go into effect for insurance and disaster relief, by a point system on an electronic card or something to this effect. Points would be earned according to what the individuals of the family have donw for their community, but would only be used as disaster relief insurance or what not, and would not entitle anyone to status.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

18 Sep 2006, 12:29 pm

I never said that there were people without some aspect of the dominance gene, so therefore you cannot give power to those without it. Conquests aren't good and nobody said that it was. Social problems are an aspect of an individual just like physical problems and intellectual problems, I don't want to see us as second class citizens but I want us to win based upon our merit, every individual in existence has their problems and frankly we as individuals need to find ways to compensate for our own. Aspies can succeed and a few will succeed, I'd like that number to be greater, but I don't want some heavy apparatus to paternalistically guide our lives. An intellectual board of decision makers would have to be judged based upon size, as a total oligarchy of the very few would end up being a tyranny for the majority. There are stupid conservatives and stupid liberals, to say that one group is by default stupid and the other isn't is a stupidity in and of itself.

Trade deficit? I haven't gotten into international trade although, a moneyless society would have a much much more difficult time trading with a moneyed society. However, I think that you define primitive at your choosing more than anything else as I hardly see trade and such as primitive thing though. The monetary system is complicated but it is just free exchange and it really hasn't caused a lot of problems for humanity, it has allowed us to progress to a system of great wealth and technology. The entire idea that money is the problem is ludicrious. In a trade scenario one would have to do more shopping around because the guy who you might want to buy milk from might not want to buy your corn, if that is the case then he will not accept your corn for that reason, so you either have to force somebody into a bad trade or you have to do multiple exchanges for the one good. Not only that but you would have to shop many times sense the system could only work with a primitive economy and as such modern food technology wouldn't be available, heck, in this system you could technically shop only twice a year, it is just that such is very difficult due to the mass of the goods and the inflexibility caused by it. A credit system wouldn't work because you have just primitivized the economy by doing away with money and credit can only exist with money. Not only that, but there will be no electronic cards with that messed up of a currency system. Sound, stable, easy to use currency is what has propelled us to this level, and primitive trade systems will destroy that as we have too many goods to work within a non currency and non free-market price system. Finally for such a card to work a government that takes up taxes would be needed, otherwise whenever a disaster happens then inflation will occur and we have to use a black market to keep the economy working.



waterdogs
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,085

18 Sep 2006, 1:16 pm

very good conversations going on in this thread. keep it up 8)



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

18 Sep 2006, 8:22 pm

Honestly I'm not able to put blind faith in a label be it religious, poltical, sociological, or whatever. I might agree with someone on one thing and disagree on something else.... So am I supposed to just choose which labels I wanna follow and teach myself to follow them without question and formulate my own biases?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

19 Sep 2006, 8:03 am

Nobody really should put blind faith in something, however, it is very easy to accept a certain viewpoint even with imperfect information and really many people end up with these labels because certain ideas can often go together in our society. Few people are really the perfect liberal or the perfect conservative etc, that doesn't mean that for practical purposes the label doesn't apply, it just means that many labels are imperfect. Everyone has their filter of bias, life is unlivable without bias, and without our emotional prejudices selecting what we choose we cannot choose at all. If you want you can look at this bias and its source, if you don't care about it then don't care. Emotion is the platform of thought no matter how much we in the west worship logic, although we may strive to be logical there is always bias.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

19 Sep 2006, 12:03 pm

I agree there are stupid libs and stupid conservatives. Anyone who takes either of those two labels to the extreme are stupid in my opinion. Conservatives seem to want a system that provides special priveleedges to those of a certain faith so they can discriminate on all other religions, theyr corrupt and greedy, and a danger to our constitutional way of life. Liberals on the other hand, are often cowardly and would rather pretend a problem doesn't exist rather than tackelling the problem if taking it on means being politically incorrect... Take immigration for instance, this is my favorite example, because most hardline liberals will act like if you don't support illegal immigration that makes you a racist, that's total bull. I could care what color someone is, if theyr raping and robbing our social security and our medical assistance programs and welfare and what not, theyr a problem. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
In fact I don't even blame the Mexicans, hell if I were in their situation I'd be doing the same thing. However, it is our government's job to enforce the borders in order to keep financial security at home. I'd be stricter on Canadians than I'd be on Mexicans because last I checked Canadians are living pretty well, unlike their Mexican counterparts here. And most Canadians are white people.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

19 Sep 2006, 12:06 pm

I don't support Bush's soultion in militarizing the border either. That should be the border patrol's job... Militarizing the border might be more in the way of keeping people in the borders rather than keeping them out. I'm sure he doesn't want anyone escaping if he declares martial law on America.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

19 Sep 2006, 1:47 pm

Bush just put some national guard members there, Bush is pro-immigration though and he is not one of the Republicans who wants to build a massive fence to keep Mexicans out. Frankly though, it makes more sense to be stricter on Mexicans as Canadians tend to be better educated and have more of a common culture with the US, so there is greater assimilation from that group and greater chances for economic success, however, I doubt that Canadian illegal immigration is as likely or obvious as Mexican so there is less concern. Frankly, I don't think that Bush is going to declare martial law, it would take a really big political feat to do that and Bush hasn't even shown the capability to pull off big political feats to allow that. Face it, Bush is leaving in a few years, there is no reason to worry or be so concerned, if he even tried to pull that off most Americans would rise up against him and it doesn't take much to realize that. There is not even proof of this stuff that you claim Bush wants to do, it is paranoid, biased, emotionally driven BS and yet you accuse the world of being biased and wrong.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250