Warning! This isn't about Guns or gun control! Please read
carefully. This isn't about "genetic manipulation". It is about
what the human species needs to start doing instead of
being "reactionary".
This thread was inspired by a post that Del made last week
to the effect that “We may want to examine what our scientists,
engineers and technicians are giving to our politicians” or
words close to that anyway. Feel free to correct me Del.
Anyway, it got me to thinking about the question he had
posed. I guess it is as old as Prometheus; as old as Pandora’s Box.
As old as the myth of losing the "garden" to knowlege of good and evil.
I thought of it in another way. Are the scientists, engineers and
technicians responsible for the “gun” or for the “principle of the
gun”? The gun is just a devise that goes bang. The principle
of the gun is many things to many people.
To some, the Principle of the Gun represents “danger” and
“useless” death. Many people are killed ‘by’ guns each year.
Many children (and adults) are killed accidently “by” guns every
day. Many see it as a simple problem to ‘solve’. Just outlaw
guns.
To others, the Principle of the Gun represents “safety” and the ability
to level the field against oppressive governments. Or against criminals
who are smart enough to be armed “with a gun” in commission
of horrific and violent crime.
To most, the Principle of the Gun represents “absolutely nothing”.
They have never had an opinion on that particular “object”.
Is it feasible in our world to try and turn back the work of centuries long
“development of the gun” using simplistic notions of “see no evil” like
the silly monkeys? Bad guys will always be able to get “guns”. So.
This thread isn’t about guns. Let’s pick a simple invention that may
be as “dangerous” as the gun in a few years. There are many, but let’s just
talk about “genetic knowledge”. What will we do if in a hundred or a thousand
years a “bad guy”, bad government or rogue group designs a method to
kill all life on earth? Say by destroying the "base genome" that all life depends upon?
What if this is more than a bit feasible. What danger does that represent to our current considerations of where our efforts should
be directed? Is it moral to waste effort on “guns and abortions” while this
future technology is just being laid out there for all to use as they see fit?
That is the “Principle Of The Gun”. Maybe if our leaders from five hundred
years ago to the present had thought of what “guns do”... we wouldn’t be faced
by the question of the “gun”? This is a debate point. Maybe instead of wasting
time on issues that got out of control two hundred years ago (gun ‘control&rsquo😉 we
should be debating what “Will” happen when bad guys know how to kill earth.
What good is studying “philosophy” and “ethics” and “morals” if we wait around
for “guns” to just happen?
<edit> There is a simple "solution" to the example of "Genetic Knowledge" that I use above. I'll see if any of you spot it before I talk .... errrr.... write about it later on here.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNicely stated, SVW. I will think about this in more depth. Essentially I tend to believe that science, engineering and technology gave birth to a qualitative leap forward in weaponry in the twentieth century. Unfortunately it seems to me that no such corresponding qualitative leap forward occurred in politics, religion, philosophy, sociology and other disciplines designed to check destruction.
Warning! This isn't about Guns or gun control! Please read
carefully. This isn't about "genetic manipulation". It is about
what the human species needs to start doing instead of
being "reactionary".
This thread was inspired by a post that Del made last week
to the effect that “We may want to examine what our scientists,
engineers and tec ...[text shortened]... is studying “philosophy” and “ethics” and “morals” if we wait around
for “guns” to just happen?
Originally posted by DelmerYour statement and the "uselessness" of philosophers (see bbarr) kind of came together in my head. Why are we not discussing how fragile our existence is? Instead of running around defending/fighting abortion?
Nicely stated, SVW. I will think about this in more depth. Essentially I tend to believe that science, engineering and technology gave birth to a qualitative leap forward in weaponry in the twentieth century. Unfortunately it seems to me that no such corresponding qualitative leap forward occurred in politics, religion, philosophy, sociology and other disciplines designed to check destruction.
The fact that an obviously smart and educated person ... Like Ben, wasting away his life "teaching" just irritates me. I got a bit pissed off at him. I should not have. What was -- and is -- bothering me is "Why the hell can't we have a Department Of Ethics And Effort To Think" instead of all the stupid agencies of government that we do have? Wouldn't we be better off having talented "philosophers" debating WITH US each night on the news these giant questions? What sense does it make to perpetuate all the philosophy in the world to hundreds of thousands of "college graduates" if you never use it to improve mankind? Granted. Maybe one or two per year MIGHT be affected to make a "more moral" decision based on their college education. But I doubt it. Quite the opposite seems closer to the truth because it is "all just so relative" these days.
Just to clarify the "bbarr" point above.
It irritates the hell out of me that we have not yet (as a global society) thought of the notion of the need to require ethical study of our actions. Our stupid little planet is too small to enjoy much of this "cowboy" attitude.
Why does every major corporation on earth have a thousand lawyers on staff of every medium sized business.... and not a single "philosopher" on staff? I'll tell you why. There is no government agency that requires an "ethical impact statement" and there are ten thousand agencies that require triplicate legal forms for buying toilet paper for their employees.
Why? Because the damn lawyers are the only ones to get elected and the DAMNED LAWYERS THEREFORE WRITE THE LAW. Can you see the circle? Lawyers write the law. Only lawyers can "practice" law. Only a lawyer can be a judge! What the hell is that! Why can't we have a competing union? Why can't I... as a citizen choose to be tried by a "Philosopher" instead of a "Lawyer" type judge? Because of stupid union rules that are now part of our "culture".
I will openly state that A Single Bennet is worth fifty #zeros. But we have a thousand useless lawyers and absolutely no.... NO! ethicists in business. No wonder they are all commie socialists! Who wouldn't be? The only living a "philosopher" can hope for is as a teacher. And the pseudo lib Marxists took over "education" decades ago.
More the shame and pitty on our society.
Originally posted by StarValleyWySeveral random thoughts cross my mind. Our ethics have become situational, due in large part to philosophers. Once that happens one only needs to create the situation before acting in a manner which would be considered unethical without that situation. In essence I guess I don't see the philosophers and ethicists of today providing much help. In terms of evolution we seem to be wandering in a no man's land between the physical and the spiritual, between the concrete and the abstract. In the beginning it was necessary that we gain knowledge and some control of nature to survive. We've done that. I think the 20th century marked the end of the beginning. But our pragmatic engineering moved so far ahead of our ability to constructively use it that we entered a limbo where we instead of nature are now our most dangerous enemy.
Just to clarify the "bbarr" point above.
It irritates the hell out of me that we have not yet (as a global society) thought of the notion of the need to require ethical study of our actions. Our stupid little planet is too small to enjoy much of this "cowboy" attitude.
Why does every major corporation on earth have a thousand lawyers on staff ...[text shortened]... do lib Marxists took over "education" decades ago.
More the shame and pitty on our society.
Originally posted by DelmerYou get a rec Del.
Several random thoughts cross my mind. Our ethics have become situational, due in large part to philosophers. Once that happens one only needs to create the situation before acting in a manner which would be considered unethical without that ...[text shortened]... limbo where we instead of nature are now our most dangerous enemy.
I will say that "I think"... and always view my remarks as only my opinion...
1 - You are right as per the fact that we have marginalized our philosophers. But the reason we have is that we have not managed to find "useful" work for them. They are forced to teach or starve. They "can't" help because their marginal status precludes "power" and the only thing that homo sap recognizes en masse is "power".
1a - Had we not put philosophers onto the compost heap because of their single little mistake of "socialism"??? Would we be in the ethical dilema that we are? I doubt it. The entire notion of "philosophy" was pretty much cast down to the septic tank by Marx and Engles. And it doesn't help that most "philosophers" are "apologists" for the atrocities perped in the name of "love of man".
2 - There are many scientific ethicists who see the problem of our profoundly wax wings and that terrible old sun. What we have to do is set some priorities. Is it more important to tear down a mountain to recover oil... "legally" or "ethically"? I will say that we are now on the wrong path entirely. We let amoral turds (politicians) pass laws that depend only on bribes. Then we set back and think that we are good citizens. Didn't we follow the "process"?
3 - Common sense is greater than any university.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
You get a rec Del.
I will say that "I think"... and always view my remarks as only my opinion...
1 - You are right as per the fact that we have marginalized our philosophers. But the reason we have is that we have not managed to find "useful" work for them. They are forced to teach or starve. They "can't" help because their marginal status ...[text shortened]... . Didn't we follow the "process"?
3 - Common sense is greater than any university.
I believe that you are implicitely considering ethics and morals as if they were universal values when they are not.
What would ensue would be a political battle for what ethical school of thought would be dominant, something that is already present in modern day politics, albeit bundled up with other more material issues. Politicians are not merely technocrats, they use the morals of their possible clients/voters to pursue their own goals as a marketing tool.
On another issue, if it was more important to "tear down a mountain to recover oil" ethically than legally, wouldn't you then transfer the power from lawyers to ethicists? And wouldn't the ethicists judge the "ethics" of tearing down the mountain using a process of judgement?
This process would be even more subjective than a legal trial and hence more easily skewed and corrupted. I cannot see how both would be compatible as law is a synthetic form of ethical judgement and one would have to be dominant or of a higher order.
Granting judgement power to philosophers could prove to be even more dangerous than granting it to lawyers and I don't see how it can be compatible with the individualism of market economics, if we assume my first premise.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCommon sense is definitely greater than any university. Much of the formal educational system has become disconnected from reality and is therefore useless. Engineering is the pragmatic science and we excel at engineering. Pragmatism should also be our philosophy and had our philosophers followed a pragmatic approach I do not think they would have become marginalized. But much of philosophy is simply not relevant to the real world. Much is not understandable by anyone other than philosophers, and much of that I do not believe is truly understandable by the philosophers themselves. Politicians are by nature parasites and we should rid ourselves of them, by spilling blood if necessary. Like formal education, the law has become disconnected from reality and is simply no longer functional. It is a hinderance rather than a help as we move into an uncertain future. Religion served mankind well for thousands of years and may again serve mankind well, but for the moment it has also managed to margainalize itself because it too began to employ situational ethics. I am not an engineer but for the time being at least I would turn to great engineering projects to restore hope and direction to mankind. Projects such as colonizing the moon are projects which could give all the world's peoples a sense of direction and a sense of accomplishment. I believe such engineering projects in the 1930s accomplished that for America on a smaller scale. And that's what humanity needs now, a plan, a direction, a great project that we can only accomplish by working together. But it must be a concrete project. Something that can e seen and touched. An abstract such as world peace will not accomplish what we need now. I believe the pragmatic engineer should become the new philosopher, the new ethicist. There is no disconnection from reality in a successful engineering project.
You get a rec Del.
I will say that "I think"... and always view my remarks as only my opinion...
1 - You are right as per the fact that we have marginalized our philosophers. But the reason we have is that we have not managed t ...[text shortened]... ess"?
3 - Common sense is greater than any university.
Originally posted by DelmerMost important points first.
Common sense is definitely greater than any university. Much of the formal educational system has become disconnected from reality and is therefore useless. Engineering is the pragmatic science and we excel at engineering. Pragmatism should ...[text shortened]... o disconnection from reality in a successful engineering project.
Firstly... I agree a hundred percent that the human race needs a purpose and a goal. To get out into the universe is critically important because it is just a matter of time until we are obliterated by a comet.
Humans are like that. We just are not smart enough to see it.
But I think that this has never been and will never be enough motivation for a lazy species. And above all else, homo sap is lazy. It probably goes back to the "reason d'etre" for all predators. "save your energy... the time of killing for survival demands it." Every wonder why cats and dogs in their natural state will sleep 20 hours per day? Energy and survival.
So we must become smart enough to make it "as rewarding" as a really good "game". Like chess. I think this is obvious... "Who can figure out the best way to build a society"... is a pretty damn good game. Not just on a screen. For real. This requires a "philosopher" of some passion and the ability to communicate and reason.
Humans are like that. We just are not smart enough to see it.
Secondly. I must strongly oppose your notion that " Politicians are by nature parasites and we should rid ourselves of them, by spilling blood if necessary."
This is the error of logic that leads to the notion that one "race" or "people" are superior. None are. We are all equally want of truth and exactness.
For if you feel no need for the conformity of "government"... what other conformity becomes redundent? The only reason we are able to live on this tiny mud-ball planet at all IS the concession of our personal liberty to our village.
If we lose that... God help us. WW III, IV and V will be something that the winners won't cherish.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyPoliticians are by nature parasites and there is no connection between that statement and your leap to an error in logic that makes one race or people superior over another. Red, yellow, black or white all politicians are parasites. It is not necessary to have politicians to have conformity of government. It is necessary to have natural leaders, but I would argue that it is politics and politicians that make such natural leaders so difficult to find and conformity so difficult to achieve. In a village with natural leaders, as opposed to politicians, the concession of personal liberty for the benefit of the village will happen naturally.
Most important points first.
Firstly... I agree a hundred percent that the human race needs a purpose and a goal. To get out into the universe is critically important because it is just a matter of time until we are obliterated by a comet.
Humans are like that. We just are not smart enough to see it.
But I think that this has never been and w ...[text shortened]... ose that... God help us. WW III, IV and V will be something that the winners won't cherish.
Originally posted by DelmerOk. Let's keep it simple. When did "politicians" cease to be "people"? When did they by the act of failing your arbitrary test become deserving of "extermination"?
Politicians are by nature parasites and there is no connection between that statement and your leap to an error in logic that makes one race or people superior over another. Red, yellow, black or white all politicians are parasites. It is no ...[text shortened]... nal liberty for the benefit of the village will happen naturally.
If you can determine who should live and who should die....
You are god. Not human by my standards.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOur very technology may make all this moot if Kurtzweil is correct.
Ok. Let's keep it simple. When did "politicians" cease to be "people"? When did they by the act of failing your arbitrary test become deserving of "extermination"?
If you can determine who should live and who should die....
You are god. Not human by my standards.
He says in "The age of spiritual machines" we are headed for a
"singularity" where computers become more intelligent then mankind.
If so you might see a case where governments are made redundant
and computers can arbitrate and in effect, be the government.
This is like a search for god or a big brother who can straighten
everything out, like the environment, poverty, education, etc. and
let mankind get on with what he does best, explore.
That means by definition a robust space program and colonies on
the moon, mars, Alpha Centauri, etc.
In that case, philosophers AND politicians will become irrelevant.
My other thought on the problem with genetic engineers destroying
all life on earth, etc., is there is no way to stop that unless there is
a "singularity" where computers decide humans are better off being
left alive, after all, even if they are more intelligent, we can still be
good workers and will require protecting from ourselves. That would
mean developing pre-defined protections from any kind of
nano-technology that could be dreamed up by a mad geneticist.
Only more intelligence can block those kind of attacks. So
it boils down to what we really need is more intelligence of a kind
not disposed to destroying life on earth but protecting it, whether that
be through the "singularity" of computer intelligence or genetically
engineered human increases in intelligence. Remember all it took
to shake our foundations of physics to the core was one incredibly
brilliant man, Einstein. He trumped all the politicians on the planet
and it can happen again. Just like Karl Popper said, you can't predict
what happens to societies because everything advances in ways
you cannot predict and trying to make large scale social experiments
like you suggest, del, is doomed to failure. Only a massive input
of intelligence and creativity will do the job.
Originally posted by sonhouseThank you Don.
Our very technology may make all this moot if Kurtzweil is correct.
He says in "The age of spiritual machines" we are headed for a
"singularity" where computers become more intelligent then mankind.
If so you might see a case where governments are made redundant
and computers can arbitrate and in effect, be the government.
This is like a search fo ...[text shortened]... el, is doomed to failure. Only a massive input
of intelligence and creativity will do the job.
I really don't share much of your optimism. I said above that there is an easy solution to the bad guys killing earth. MY answer is to always be a step ahead of the bad guy. If he figures out how to destroy us... be prepared to "restore" us. Or to prevent his distruction.
To retreat into suppression of knowledge is to admit defeat. "Guns" will be had by bad guys. Always.
To "outthink" a bad guy should be our goal. Just because of the law of the jungle. Are we not a "civilization" for the first time in a million years?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIn my opinion we are not a civilization till the least of us is free
Thank you Don.
I really don't share much of your optimism. I said above that there is an easy solution to the bad guys killing earth. MY answer is to always be a step ahead of the bad guy. If he figures out how to destroy us... be prepared to "restore" us. Or to prevent his distruction.
To retreat into suppression of knowledge is to admit defea ...[text shortened]... e of the law of the jungle. Are we not a "civilization" for the first time in a million years?
of chains of all kinds. I didn't say I was optimistic, just what I think
needs to happen if humans are going to be around in another
million years. I think its going to be nip and tuck.