21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt's too bad bbarr's not around anymore. I would have absolutely enjoyed seeing him rape your 2-year-old's understanding of morality with the Rod of Epistemology.
OK. How about the unlawful premeditated raping and killing of an innocent 2 year old baby? Is that absolutely wrong?
Of course it can be morally correct to kill innocent people.
21 Feb 07
However the capability for mass destruction just happens to be a result of a high level of intelligence. Whether or not that results in reduced survivability remains to be seen.
The danger, at least, I think has been recognized by the greater majority of intellectuals.
Carl Sagan, Henry Kissinger, M L King are a few names of thoughtful people who have recognized the possibility.
I think you would be in the minority if you thought the intelligent invention of means of mass destruction was not to be a subject of concern.
I just wanted to see if you temper your sunny outlook on evolution with any cautionary realism.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgreed, I've given up trying.
It's too bad bbarr's not around anymore. I would have absolutely enjoyed seeing him rape your 2-year-old's understanding of morality with the Rod of Epistemology.
Of course it can be morally correct to kill innocent people.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzA man is the pinnacle of God's imagination and ingenuity of course. Nothing like those lowly animals. We are our own class, more prized by the Magestic One than all else in the universe. Can't you see why xians eat this excrement up?
If not an animal what is man? A bacteria? Fungi? Perhaps a plant?
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy do you think ANYONE has to deal with absolutes? Atheists keep insisting there are no 'Absolutes', everything is relative, relative to the culture you are in V another culture, for instance. Only Religion seems to insist on having 'absolutes', except for this exception.......
Is it [b]absolutely wrong to murder someone?
Hint: This is a yes/no question...[/b]
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by telerionYep, we are the darlings of the universe. It's a quaint idea.
A man is the pinnacle of God's imagination and ingenuity of course. Nothing like those lowly animals. We are our own class, more prized by the Magestic One than all else in the universe. Can't you see why xians eat this excrement up?
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by jaywillThe lion survive because of it's hunting skill, strength and agility.
No animal could invent a hydrogen bomb. So if this ability to preserve
community evolved what's with this other development in parallel - that is
the encreased ability for humans to destroy all living things on the planet at
the push of a button?
Humans survive because of our ability to work as a group, communicate
ideas and use tools to our advantage (all of these abilities a result of a
well developed brain). There is no reason to think that there was a first
human with all the intellectual properties we possess today, or that future
generations of humans will be as limited as we are. There's even the
possibility that if our environment change for this or that reason our
species, as it is today will die out simply because the ability to abstract
thought is not enough (or even required) to survive.
There's absolutely nothing strange about an animal building the atomic
bomb, when you realise the bigger picture. That our brains, like any
other organ, is subject to evolutionary process and so long as it gives us
an edge it will be part of our evolution, likely to develop further.
And from our ability to communicate abstract thoughts, comes all of our
societal norms and ideals (including morals).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou mean absolutely morally correct?
It's too bad bbarr's not around anymore. I would have absolutely enjoyed seeing him rape your 2-year-old's understanding of morality with the Rod of Epistemology.
Of course it can be morally correct to kill innocent people.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenLions also live in groups and it is an important part of their hunting strategy enabling them to bring down bigger game than they can individually. However the selfish tendencies also exist in that Male lions will often kill other males as well as cubs which are sired by other males.
The lion survive because of it's hunting skill, strength and agility.
Humans survive because of our ability to work as a group, communicate
ideas and use tools to our advantage (all of these abilities a result of a
well developed brain..
On the nuclear bomb issue: Some species do destroy their environment to the extent that they cause other species or themselves to go extinct. Obviously species that do this die out. In evolution, successful and non-successful strategies do happen, all we can really say is that in the future only successful life forms will exist, whether humans are among them remains to be seen.
To assume that a particular strategy is 'perfect' just because it evolved is a fallacy. For example elephants evolved a large size because it benefited them, however as circumstances change so does the cost/benefit. Thus their large size could become a burden resulting in their extinction. Similarly humans evolved intelligence, which has so far clearly been a benefit, but it may get to the point where it no longer is, and it would then either evolve away or result in extinction.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould you say the statement 'life evolved from non-life' is the absolute truth?
Lions also live in groups and it is an important part of their hunting strategy enabling them to bring down bigger game than they can individually. However the selfish tendencies also exist in that Male lions will often kill other males as well as cubs which are sired by other males.
On the nuclear bomb issue: Some species do destroy their environment ...[text shortened]... the point where it no longer is, and it would then either evolve away or result in extinction.