Slashdot Mirror
Share Your Most Dangerous Idea
GabrielF writes "Every year The Edge asks over 100 top scientists and thinkers a question, and the responses are fascinating and widely quoted. This year, psychologist Steven Pinker suggested they ask "What is your most dangerous idea?" The 117 respondents include Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond -- and that's just the D's! As you might expect, the submissions are brilliant and very controversial."
Most of these don't seem really dangerous, just some ideas of what might come or be accepted in the future. Ideas that some iconoclasts already accepted but the masses have not. Like the idea of humans having no souls.
The ones that are dangerous are not dangerous in the "omg someone could kill millions with this idea" way. They are dangerous in the "our society will be even more effed up if this idea catches on" way. Like the idea that we can't win the war on climate change. If everyone accepted this how many countries would even try to reduce emissions? Or the idea that there really are fundamental differences between the "races". That would make the next genocide just a little bit easier.
This is funny, but I'm also totally serious:
Several times in my life, I've thought that I might be able to fix a broken object by using the process of melting. No matter how right I thought I was when I started, I've always, ALWAYS, regretted the idea.
Even knowing this, I'll probably try it again.
I shall call it "thought vehicle" or short TV. - Sounds good too.. I should patent this idea.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
I'm sorry for responding to my own post, but no argument about freedom would be complete without mentioning the "war on drugs". God forbid that people actually be "allowed" to act in ways that may not be in their own best interest. Even worse, God forbid that they might be "allowed" to decide what drugs might be in their own best interest. Yeah, if not for the war on drugs "we would have so much crime and violence" .... .... .... hmmmmmmmm.
Perhaps you should just mod me to minus infinity now to save society from the terror that such an outlandish notion would inflict.
It's always nice when someone new walks into a process that's been going on for hundreds of years and gets angry that no one sees his simple solution, even though that's where we started and we've been fixing the problems with it ever since.
In public education - everyone talks about what kind of education the kids need, and noone talks about the financial freedom lost in paying for it, or the very influence that such has on the kids.
They're too busy talking about the financial freedom lost when you have a work force of illiterates who can't add.
In social security and medicade/ medical care - everyones worried about how will we take care of the needy and elderly and noone talks about the people that need to be financially coerced to make these systems work.
And your constructive solution is then to let thousands and thousands of people either die or turn to crime? Step one, end social security. What's step two? Please answer. If you've got a way to make this work, please tell us. I really, really want to be on your side, because that's a lot of money.
In the genocide of the poor - noone would even dare mention that the best solution would be to arm them and seciure their right to bear arms first.
Genius! How could that possibly go bad? Combine this with your no-free-schooling idea and we've got ourselves a plan that just might solve everybody's problem.
my dangerous idea:
the internet has replaced the encyclopedia
it is replacing want ads, real estate agents, auctions, music companies, publishers, etc.
it will someday replace government
but hold on, there's a catch:
if the internet does this, it will do it the same way it is defeating the music industry: not through any conscience effort, but just a gradual, inevitable, unfightable erosion of relevancy by little efforts made by individuals not even consciously trying to do anything coherent
in other words, if you are actively seeking to defeat government and promote anarchy/ libertarianism/ revolution, or whatever, you are way off
because you are making a conscience effort
because if and when it happens, no one will notice it starting
just like the guys who built the original arpanet in the 1960s didn't say "hey! let's build a radically superior music distribution model that cuts out the middle man and removes the economic incentive!"
except that's exactly what they did
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As one glance at either (or both) Einstein and a person with a typical case of Down's syndrome will tell you, equal mental capacities are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either (or both) Arab women and US feminists will tell you, equal rights are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either Jeffery Dalmer (or both) and Martin Luther King will tell you, equal consideration is not uniformly available.
In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
I have always thought that we should be saying that we would attempt to afford equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life, and let them make of it both what they may, and what they are capable of.
But as your premise is trivially demonstrated to be false, you should probably reformulate. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The trouble is that the solution people offer to inequity is usually what caused the problem in the first place.
When people complain about inequity, the solution they are usually talking about is to give more power and resources to the state (i.e. a centralized top down command structure controlled by a small political elite). And when you talk about Socialism, Communism, or any one of the the 19th century ideologies that are popular with people complaining about inequality, you are talking about a giant, massive, centralized, authoritarian state.
The state IS inequality... it is by it's very nature and structure a system of hierarchy and authority, and so increasing the power and resources of the state can only increase inequality and subjugation. People may say that they want to use the state to end inequality, but what they really mean is that they want their own ethnic/political/social group to be the authority in power subjigating others.
If you truly want equality, then you would support decentralization of power, and the reduction and/or elimination of the state. Inequality comes from violence... it comes from situations where people are not allowed to make decisions for themselves and instead are forced to do something under the threat of violence. The economic underclass we have in the western world are victims of government violence or threat of violence (the violence/threat might be prompted by corporations, religions, or powerful interests bribing the government to act on their behalf... or the violence/threat might be some real but misguided attempt to "help" people).
Free people from a giant, violent, centralized authority like a government, and equality, prosperity, and peace are the natural result. But government and equality are fundamentally opposed and incompatible situations. Most likely (and if I am misinterpreting you and you are not advocating some centralized government plan, I apologize), the very political policies you support are the cause of the inequality you are against.
That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms. My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all. Personally, I take religion (and astrology, and crystal gazing, and a bunch of other things) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as we'd like to think we are.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet...
That's not appreciating the beauty of creation, that's appreciating
being in a comfortable situation.
Humans are simply animals.
They are if they don't ask why they're here. The Qur'an even puts
it as such:
They have eyes that don't see, ears that don't hear and hearts that
don't understand. They are like animals - no they are worse than
the animals.
The reason such humans are worse is because they use our advanced
reasoning and imagining capabilities to act as animals, actually,
more like mammals: pack behavior (gangs, racism and always seeking
to be the alpha male/female) especially.
but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that
makes any difference at all.
Well, we use language to discuss concepts and use local experiments to
propose theorems that apply to the fabric of space-time itself.
Specifically, though, the difference is that we have a free will and,
as such, we fall under the Law of Karma while living, and, after death,
get judged for what we have done with our tremendous human abilities.
Personally, I take religion (...) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as
we'd like to think we are.
Well, the Devil has done his work well within the religions, so I agree with
you here, kinda. The fact is that all the atrocities being committed in the
name of religion can in no way be put on their founders who are long dead.
It would be more proper to call evil the result, not of stupidity, but of human
susceptibility to evil impulse. In the end though, we all choose either right
or wrong, to seek our greater purpose (to find God Himself) or to live in the
lesser purposes of the worldly life.
In any event, peace be with you.
bmac
You can keep your greed and "purity" in capitalism. I live in a world where pure capitalism doesn't work, nor does pure socialism. I'm a Canadian, and I'm happy to accept certain compromises in the areas of health care, and public education because I believe the benefits outweigh the downsides. On the other hand, I'll rag on the government for bailing out uncompetitive companies (Air Canada, for example) and creating artificial unhealthy markets. Life is compromise, and sometimes you have to trade efficiency and quality for universality and scope, and sometimes you shouldn't.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Because I'm sure you're serious, I'll do you the courtesy of taking your assertions at face value, and treat them one by one.
Cats affect their environment. This is obvious and trivial. They exhibit numerous traits that we would consider to be environmentally enlightened, from burying their waste to grooming themselves to rarely killing for sport.
Cats can conserve or destroy. They make choices about this as well. For instance, my couch has been conserved. The doorjamb to the bathroom, however, has not. I think this is amusing, and the cat knows this because I take care to demonstrate it to her. From my point of view, the doorjamb is trivial and inexpensive to replace; consequently, I am delighted with the cat's choice of claw-sharpening targets.
Cats have rules/law. Drag a laser pointer across the floor. The cat will follow and play and pounce. Drag the laser pointer across another cat. The original, playful cat will proceed to ignore the laser, even if it was in the midst of crazed play with the beam. There are rules, and one of them is you don't pounce on things that are on other cats. This, interestingly, is a very good rule. Humans can be distinguished, perhaps, by the number of very bad rules we make, but not by rulemaking itself. Any tribe of monkeys has rules, as do many other types of animals, including, as I have shown, cats.
Cats have technology. They will create nests out of raw materials, they utilize knocking your crap off the dresser in order to get your attention. They understand that burial is good for anything that will reveal their presence, and anything that is dead and rotting. Other animals use sticks to fetch ants from holes, and will fashion tools from rocks and sticks. Beavers build dams. Termites build, arguably, castles.
Cats have morals. Mothers rarely eat their young. Cats rarely eat their owners, unless the owner dies. Even then, some cats cannot overcome that predjudice, though they will eat other animals.
Cats don't have religion, near as I can tell, but that's a point in their favor from where I stand, quite seriously. Cats do, however, exhibit faith. Both at the habituation level (they expect their human to come home to them again, because so far, that's what has happened) and they expect their human to take care of them, again because that's been established; and at the abstract level — once trust has been established, many wary behaviours are discarded. This occurs in cat-cat relationships and cat-human relationships, and more rarely, between cats and other species.
We do have science and science is a very complex product of advanced thinking. I don't expect science from cats for that reason. Doesn't change my point; I specifically said we differ in degree here.
Cats also experience every emotion humans do, as well as numerous behaviours and traits we like to think of as our own. They can be both selfish and generous, loving and hateful, vicious and kind, protective and defensive, careless and careful, clever and witless, and so on for quite a long list.
My position is that when we have established a level of hubris that disallows seeing that we are one of the set of animals, we have taken a step back on the very path most of us wish to tread. I recognize it's a handy mental trick when the task at hand is the consumption of a hamburger, but that makes it no more respectable.
One final point: If most humans behaved as well as my cat does, we'd be a damn sight better off. Your statement, in light of this, is ludicrous.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Creation" is myth — or at the very least, unencountered objective fact. As such, there's no reason to appreciate it. There is reason to appreciate the portion of the universe one can wrap one's head around, and cats and people both do this.
Either we are, or we aren't. It's a question of biological objective fact, not opinion or subject to any number of philosophical angels, pins and dances.
Parrots use language - ours, in point of fact. Topically and with great humor. Cats and dogs use language as well, though they don't speak ours, they certainly understand some of it. As for what is under discussion betwen them, this is a matter of what the particular brain is specialized to do. Aside from language itself, sound processing is not something we're uniformly best at. Cats can do things like locate a sound to within 8 degrees, reliably and repeatedly. It's been useful to them to specialize this way. You and I really suck at this. We use our brains for other things, and frankly, these things would not benefit cats in the roles they have performed to date. Directivity does. That may change, what with our just beginning to get a handle on the control of DNA. Should be fun. :) In any case, mental and language superiority is not the hands-down win you seem to think it is. Then there is body language and sign language and scent language and gifting. It's almost never as simple as people would like it to be when they're trying to pretend they're really, really special. :) Oh, and I should also point out that cats experiment constantly. With how far their human's patience may be stretched, for one thing, but with many other things as well.
You think a cat doesn't have free will? Don't feed it and then tell me what you think motivated it to take a crap in your headphones one time. Or a piss in the toaster. Cat piss in a toaster is worse than mustard gas — press that level down and you've got what we call a serious situation. Classic free will is what every animal has. This one you don't even get a fraction of a point for.
I don't blame the founders for later generations of followers pillaging, raping, flying into buildings and so forth. The founders had the perfectly common motivation to control their fellows, the very same motivation any modern politician, social worker, psychobabbler or cop has; they just had more of it. The thing is, not one of them was smart enough to see that it couldn't work. That's what all religious founders have in common: They were far too optimistic about human nature. I find that pitiful, but not blameworthy. I blame individuals for their own acts. If a Christian plants a bomb, I blame the Christian. If a corporate flunky rips me off because it is company policy, I blame the flunky directly. If a tax agent takes my money for a war I don't support, I blame the tax agent directly. Being a member of an immoral structure in no way magically propogates your own responsibilities elsewhere. It is a common thing to think it does, and that is one of the key reasons society is in such trouble — many people accept this shuffling off of blame by flunkies. Which is not to say that the structure can shuffle blame downhill, either.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You assume that government schools are teaching kids literacy and math.
I do. I know it worked in at least one case, as I'm able to read your post. Worked in a bunch of others, too.
You assume that the government is the only institution capable of providing education
I assume it's the only institution capable of doing it on a consistent basis at tiny cost to the people that can't afford it. Unless you know of a few thousand private schools that will take kids for free, we don't have much of an alternative. Homeschooling is the only possible option for people without money, but that counts on the parents being well-educated.
You ignore the terrible social effects public schools have on children (conditioning them to obedience to authority, squeltching individualism and diversity, taking away their privacy, age and skill segregation)
Oh, good heavens!
If that's the point of school, they're really not doing as well as I thought.
We don't all share your absolute faith in government
I have virtually no faith in government. It's inefficient, bloated, and corrupt.
and government is not the only model of social cooperation that we are able to comprehend.
Good for you.
that might be hard for someone to grasp who has been conditioned that the state is everything.
Dick.
[quote]And your constructive solution is then to let thousands and thousands of people either die or turn to crime? Step one, end social security. What's step two? Please answer. If you've got a way to make this work, please tell us. I really, really want to be on your side, because that's a lot of money.[/quote]
Once again, your statement has many assumptions
I made no assumptions. I want to know what happens on the second fucking day. Please fill in the gaping holes so we can properly discuss this.
You assume that Medicare is the only social structure capable of providing health care to those that need it. (In fact, there are any number of models of healthcare that we could use,
I'm listening.
You assume that Medicare somehow makes healthcare more available (instead of, say, pumping money in without increasing supply, and thus raising the price of medical care for everyone
You've calculated this in healthcare units? ("Healthies", I like to call them.)
You're thinking economics, I'm thinking child of poor parents breaks his leg.
You assume that Medicare is a sustainable, viable system.
And, for the thousandth time, I'm waiting for the plan.
"You must all send me $10,000...
The only possible response to that is, "You're an idiot." I'm sorry, but if you can't understand that taking the small amount of survivability that people have away from them is going to have negative affects, at least in the short term, you're just not that bright.
Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate and murder rate of any industrialized nation, and have the absolute highest private ownership of firearms in the industrialized world (basicly, nearly all able bodied men have full access to military style weapons).
All able-bodied men have access to military style weapons after 17 weeks of mandatory basic training. Let's not pretend we're all nations of soldiers. And let's not compare the US to Switzerland at all, because we're very, very different.
You need to try to convince us that gun ownership is bad, not call people stupid because they don't have absolute faith in your belief system.
I would never try to convince you that gun ownership is bad because I don't think it is. I think arming the poor to combat violence is profoundly stupid. I don't know what argument you're extending to this one, but please don't assume I meant to say bad things I didn't say.
I disagree. First of all, if you want to use evolutionary theory then you have to take into fact that humans didn't live in huge cities like we do now. We lived in small collections of hunters/gatherers. You kill someone in your own group, then you get ostracized from the group which will lead to certain no-mating.
Second, murder of another competing group would be good and you'd be considered a hero in your group. Then you'd get more reproductive success if you're a hero.
So, murder is bad but a battlefield kill is good. We hate murderers but love war heros. Anyway, that's my view. So, just murdering someone in cold blood is hard but killing in a battlefield isn't as much.
The expression "All men are created equal" comes from the 1st article of the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", now the basis for the Universal Human Rights Declaration:
"Tous les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et egaux en droits."
"All men are born and remain free and equal in rights."
The sentence is to be understood in the context of the French Revolution, as a rejection of the concept of hereditary aristocracy.
Thomas-
...here the Libertarians have it nailed down: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, barring extennuating circumstances residing entirely outside of the act itself.
The Libertarians have it wrong. Swinging your fists around within inches of my nose is an act of agression. I have no way of telling whether you are just posturing or whether you intend to hurt me until after you have hurt me. Therefore, as soon as you start swinging fists close to my face my rights are violated because I have to drop everything I am doing and pay full attention in order to make certain that I don't get hurt in case I move unexpectedly or you decide to go from posturing to fighting.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
How did this get modded up? Did you even read the quote you posted?
He doesn't claim that the universe requires human interaction or observation. He's simply claiming that since humans have limited faculties, the content and scope of human understanding and knowledge is limited. In other words, there may very well be things about the universe that we will never be able to understand. It's an interesting conjecture, although I'm not sure how much I agree with it, since humans are able to aid themselves in their investigations with technology.