Then take the practical point of view. Do you want to drive a car built by an unethical engineer? We have to separate out ethics in order to standardize it some. Like it or not, humans are the most influential species on the planet (seen any dolphin built skyscrapers lately?) and we are therefore responsible for a lot of the condition of the planet. We need ways of defining and standardizing this so we can cooperate to improve things. You may not agree, but you should be thankful the man who made the elevator you use does.
What is wrong with that high place? We are the most powerful/intelligent species on the planet. That implies we are the most responsible for our actions. It is in that responsibility that comes the problem if we start blurring the lines between animal and human. Do we really want to be responsible for creating a creature with an enhanced capacity for suffering and then leaving it to suffer? This is why we need to consider the ethics of what we do. I am not saying this research should not proceed, but there are practical and ethical concerns we need to consider carefully, because we are responsible for what happens.
I am an ethical engineer. And because of that I haven't actually managed to kill anyone yet. Ethics is not necessarily about the concepts of good/bad/evil. It is more about professionalism, responsibility, and minimizing damage. Consider the fact that your rights end where they infringe on another person's. Ethics in this context has more to do with the potential consequences of the action, than the action itself. It is not unethical to eat stake, because we consider the suffering of the steak producer to be below the invisible line. It is unethical to kill and eat a person, because we would be infringing on their agreed upon rights.
I can not give you a full course, but I strongly suggest if you are a professional in any way, you seriously consider investing some time into understanding ethics. It has little or nothing to do with religion, and is a very important part of the way things work in the real world.
We know intelligence increases the capacity for suffering. I am all for drawing lines and I happily will kill an animal and eat it. But when I know the animal is suffering to the degree a human might, and I am depriving an intelligence of life, I have a bit of an issue. Hence I am not a cannibal. Because we can't determine the rights we should do away with all of them?
it turns out all those posts are correct. Slashdot can cut you off in mid sentence...
...treating animals like people.
What you miss (and so many others too) is that the religious biases you so despise exist and came about for a reason. From your point of view you might say that reason has an evolutionary advantage. To dismiss them because they are religious is perhaps a bit foolish.
Yes, everything has risk. Some things are inherently more risky though. Like providing a path for animal diseases to infect humans perhaps?
You claim most of it isn't relevant, but we're actually talking about giving animals more intelligence and thus increasing their capacity for suffering. What you seem to miss, is the article is talking about blurring the line between human and animal, which might mean it is only logical to start treating the animals lik
I agree, to a point. But don't you think society as a whole has a role? You may not agree with them, but your committee makes decisions that will affect them..
That depends on your world view. But I would define it as generally as possible:
- Activity that could potentially lead to our end as a race.
- Activity that increases the suffering of individuals or groups without their consent.
- Activity designed to ultimately remove our freedoms/rights.
- Activity that would terminate individuals groups without their consent.
This is further complicated in context by the fact that at some point we may have caused animals to be intelligent and therefore ethically should we not afford them the same rights/freedoms as us? And prevent abuse on them too?
Someone else points out this could increase the spread of disease from animals to humans for a start. Additionally how ethical is it to create something potentially intelligent, and then have it suffer in a lab all its life?
These things are not black and white. Even within religious circles. What we (regardless of belief system) need to start looking at is what consequences do our actions have. If you choose to call it "bad", "evil", "increasing suffering" or even "threatening our continued survival as a species" that is up to you. But playing around in this area has very real and very serious ethical issues. And if you can't see these obvious things without having them spelled out, I really wonder if you understand ethics at all?
Then how do you propose we stop abuse? Is having no watchdogs better than having bad watchdogs? Before advocating the end of one system, perhaps you could at least provide an alternative?
I also never went sailing before I started pirating, but I don't think there is a correlation there.
Of course there is a correlation! How can you possibly commit robbery on the high seas if you don't know how to handle your boat and never get on to the high seas. Duh. Why are all sibling posters missing this?!
I am not elite, I am just not an idiot like 60 percent of the population.
???! Read that sentence again. And think carefully about it. To address the rest of your paragraph did you miss the part where I pointed out that the "unprovable" rules are for a reason? Heck I used italics. I said it twice. This makes 3 times, Or are you just ignoring my point in order to continue your rant?
Irrelevant. Just because something is better here than somewhere else doesn't mean its as good as it can get nor does it mean we should ignore the inequalities and injustice present. If everyone felt like you nothing would ever improve, Maybe thats why these other areas are so shitty, because they accept it.
Who said I accept it? Do you understand the difference between ranting about some perceived injustice on the internet and working within a system for change? If everyone felt like me things would be drastically different. I never said the current system was perfect, I said (to quote myself, though if you missed it the first time there is doubt you'll see it this time around, but anyway):
And that is all you can realistically expect from the world.
In order to change things we need to understand why they are why they are. That means leaving your prejudices about religion and looking at why the rules exist. What is the logic behind them? How do they/did they benefit the societies where they were/are prevalent? Something tells me you will struggle with this.
I never said I would rule better, I just said that the people who are ruling are bad at it. I also give respect where respect is due, and most people don't deserve it. Legalizing drugs would A) end the violence in Mexico due to drugs, B) Remove gang's source of income to finance more crime, and C) Its just the right thing to do. Or do you think its OK for people to tell you what you put in your body?
Ok, so legalizing drugs has some positives. Sure, we all know that. In the case of prostitution I feel the positives outweigh the negatives because it would improve life for the prostitutes and hopefully reduce the spread of STDs. In the case of drugs, can you think of any negatives? Or are you a fanboi as the article suggests? How about some citations? I think it is perfectly fine for someone to tell me what not to put in my body, because understanding these things and I see why and it is logical. So the conflict never arises. I also see the greater good to society for doing so. It is not like someone is illogically telling me not to eat my vegetables. Whether it is the "right thing to do" or not is very much still debatable and I am sure you can find some published papers with a short google search to see that..
I am going to assume that you are quite serious and have no idea how ironic what you just wrote is. Otherwise I am just going to laugh for 5 minutes and thank you for your joke? There are so many things wrong with what you just wrote, it is difficult to know where to start. How about your assumption that you know better than everyone else? The paranoid "I'm sane and the whole world is mad", "I'm one of an elite few 'non idiots'?" You would set yourself up as a new elite forcing your own viewpoint on everyone else. And you still think you're better?
Let me tell you something - I have been in a lawless place. And it is unpleasant to say the least. And my life has been in very serious danger as a result. Have you ever been in a place where the rule of law breaks down? You may not realise it but the current state of affairs you have in your nice sheltered life is almost infinitely better. Are you cold? Hungry? Is someone pointing a gun at you?
Oh, and if you ever want change, you'd better start showing some respect to that "mob of morons" or they'll never ever listen to you. You should hardly be surprised people only listen to people who show them respect, and you would be very surprised by just how intelligent the average man is. My goodness the ego of it all. Why does everyone always assume they'd rule better than the people who do? And who says (look at some research on this) legalizing drugs represents an improvement on the current situation? That is certainly not proven. It is still very much debated. The religious morality in society exists for a reason. Whether you are religious or not. If you are not then is it so incredible to you to think that the morality as it appears is tailored for the purpose of increasing the population's survival chances? Maybe those circumstances have changed, but you would still do well to think carefully before dismissing it out of hand as merely something religious.
Lets assume you're right and sibling poster is wrong (you can discuss it with him, I know what I think(it isn't) and don't care to discuss it). So, what would you suggest? Force your subjective morality on everyone?
The point is, what we consider moral trickles down into law. And laws in combination with morality make things work for the majority of people. And that is all you can realistically expect from the world. You might say that isn't true, but who was it that said "the people get the government they deserve"?
Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting you give him a full course(and my explanation wasn't intended to be complete either), but maybe rather than a simple "yes" a bit of "well here is something to get you started on understanding the difference..." might have been helpful to the poster...
It still fails on the high precision side of things. Can you create an object and produce highly accurate detailed labeled standard drawings in blender easily? If the answer is know, then blender qualifies as Computer Inhibited Design, not CAD... The differences I highlighted were fundamental, but by no means a complete list... The idea was to give the general idea not the 3 year university degree...:)
It is one thing to make your model "real world" and another to publish precise measurements so that other objects can interlock with it... If you really pushed it, I suppose you could use blender for industrial CAD, but it would be long, slow and generally problematic. Wrong tool for the job really. But it does make nice 3D logos and animations and stuff, which are much harder to do with proper CAD software.
Even if we take the philosophical position that the universe is deterministic (forget even probabilistic), the only practical course to work with is to assume that normal sane people are responsible for their actions. And assume that sanity is how the psychologists define it. Our society's laws and economies are based on these assumptions, and so far it practically works fairly well. Changing that would change the environment in which we have adapted to be and may or may not result in a worse status quo than the current one. Morality does not exist for no reason. So, yes, morality is safe because it is(some would argue was, but all evidence I have seen suggests otherwise) a necessary mechanism in society.
While you are correct, you are not informative... Chill dude, stop being elitist and give the guy a break, he doesn't know.
For the GP: Basically CAD is used for design that will generally end up in a real world object. You can design for example a fancy box or even a desk/chair/house/skyscraper and then from your printouts (including the precise measurements) make the real thing. While you could do this in Blender, it is the wrong tool for the job. They're designed for modeling the real world not making something from scratch. Basically in Blender, you want something that looks like the real thing. In CAD, you want something that will help you build the real thing. They don't allow (easily anyway) the sort of precise pedantic precision you need for CAD. I have used both and I do know the difference, even if it is a little subtle. Never used maya, but I doubt it counts as CAD.
Slashdot Mirror
Then take the practical point of view. Do you want to drive a car built by an unethical engineer? We have to separate out ethics in order to standardize it some. Like it or not, humans are the most influential species on the planet (seen any dolphin built skyscrapers lately?) and we are therefore responsible for a lot of the condition of the planet. We need ways of defining and standardizing this so we can cooperate to improve things. You may not agree, but you should be thankful the man who made the elevator you use does.
What is wrong with that high place? We are the most powerful/intelligent species on the planet. That implies we are the most responsible for our actions. It is in that responsibility that comes the problem if we start blurring the lines between animal and human. Do we really want to be responsible for creating a creature with an enhanced capacity for suffering and then leaving it to suffer? This is why we need to consider the ethics of what we do. I am not saying this research should not proceed, but there are practical and ethical concerns we need to consider carefully, because we are responsible for what happens.
And there lies the problem...
I am an ethical engineer. And because of that I haven't actually managed to kill anyone yet. Ethics is not necessarily about the concepts of good/bad/evil. It is more about professionalism, responsibility, and minimizing damage. Consider the fact that your rights end where they infringe on another person's. Ethics in this context has more to do with the potential consequences of the action, than the action itself. It is not unethical to eat stake, because we consider the suffering of the steak producer to be below the invisible line. It is unethical to kill and eat a person, because we would be infringing on their agreed upon rights.
I can not give you a full course, but I strongly suggest if you are a professional in any way, you seriously consider investing some time into understanding ethics. It has little or nothing to do with religion, and is a very important part of the way things work in the real world.
I think we can all consider leaving the whole planet as a desolate lifeless rock as a bad thing and refine the idea from there...?
We know intelligence increases the capacity for suffering. I am all for drawing lines and I happily will kill an animal and eat it. But when I know the animal is suffering to the degree a human might, and I am depriving an intelligence of life, I have a bit of an issue. Hence I am not a cannibal. Because we can't determine the rights we should do away with all of them?
it turns out all those posts are correct. Slashdot can cut you off in mid sentence...
...treating animals like people.
What you miss (and so many others too) is that the religious biases you so despise exist and came about for a reason. From your point of view you might say that reason has an evolutionary advantage. To dismiss them because they are religious is perhaps a bit foolish.
Yes, everything has risk. Some things are inherently more risky though. Like providing a path for animal diseases to infect humans perhaps?
You claim most of it isn't relevant, but we're actually talking about giving animals more intelligence and thus increasing their capacity for suffering. What you seem to miss, is the article is talking about blurring the line between human and animal, which might mean it is only logical to start treating the animals lik
I agree, to a point. But don't you think society as a whole has a role? You may not agree with them, but your committee makes decisions that will affect them..
That depends on your world view. But I would define it as generally as possible:
- Activity that could potentially lead to our end as a race.
- Activity that increases the suffering of individuals or groups without their consent.
- Activity designed to ultimately remove our freedoms/rights.
- Activity that would terminate individuals groups without their consent.
This is further complicated in context by the fact that at some point we may have caused animals to be intelligent and therefore ethically should we not afford them the same rights/freedoms as us? And prevent abuse on them too?
Someone else points out this could increase the spread of disease from animals to humans for a start. Additionally how ethical is it to create something potentially intelligent, and then have it suffer in a lab all its life?
These things are not black and white. Even within religious circles. What we (regardless of belief system) need to start looking at is what consequences do our actions have. If you choose to call it "bad", "evil", "increasing suffering" or even "threatening our continued survival as a species" that is up to you. But playing around in this area has very real and very serious ethical issues. And if you can't see these obvious things without having them spelled out, I really wonder if you understand ethics at all?
Then how do you propose we stop abuse? Is having no watchdogs better than having bad watchdogs? Before advocating the end of one system, perhaps you could at least provide an alternative?
I also never went sailing before I started pirating, but I don't think there is a correlation there.
Of course there is a correlation! How can you possibly commit robbery on the high seas if you don't know how to handle your boat and never get on to the high seas. Duh. Why are all sibling posters missing this?!
I disagree.. A cyclops...? It is already ugly and you want to make it worse...?
Perhaps he meant queue?
I am not elite, I am just not an idiot like 60 percent of the population.
???! Read that sentence again. And think carefully about it. To address the rest of your paragraph did you miss the part where I pointed out that the "unprovable" rules are for a reason? Heck I used italics. I said it twice. This makes 3 times, Or are you just ignoring my point in order to continue your rant?
Irrelevant. Just because something is better here than somewhere else doesn't mean its as good as it can get nor does it mean we should ignore the inequalities and injustice present. If everyone felt like you nothing would ever improve, Maybe thats why these other areas are so shitty, because they accept it.
Who said I accept it? Do you understand the difference between ranting about some perceived injustice on the internet and working within a system for change? If everyone felt like me things would be drastically different. I never said the current system was perfect, I said (to quote myself, though if you missed it the first time there is doubt you'll see it this time around, but anyway):
And that is all you can realistically expect from the world.
In order to change things we need to understand why they are why they are. That means leaving your prejudices about religion and looking at why the rules exist. What is the logic behind them? How do they/did they benefit the societies where they were/are prevalent? Something tells me you will struggle with this.
I never said I would rule better, I just said that the people who are ruling are bad at it. I also give respect where respect is due, and most people don't deserve it. Legalizing drugs would A) end the violence in Mexico due to drugs, B) Remove gang's source of income to finance more crime, and C) Its just the right thing to do. Or do you think its OK for people to tell you what you put in your body?
Ok, so legalizing drugs has some positives. Sure, we all know that. In the case of prostitution I feel the positives outweigh the negatives because it would improve life for the prostitutes and hopefully reduce the spread of STDs. In the case of drugs, can you think of any negatives? Or are you a fanboi as the article suggests? How about some citations? I think it is perfectly fine for someone to tell me what not to put in my body, because understanding these things and I see why and it is logical. So the conflict never arises. I also see the greater good to society for doing so. It is not like someone is illogically telling me not to eat my vegetables. Whether it is the "right thing to do" or not is very much still debatable and I am sure you can find some published papers with a short google search to see that..
I am going to assume that you are quite serious and have no idea how ironic what you just wrote is. Otherwise I am just going to laugh for 5 minutes and thank you for your joke? There are so many things wrong with what you just wrote, it is difficult to know where to start. How about your assumption that you know better than everyone else? The paranoid "I'm sane and the whole world is mad", "I'm one of an elite few 'non idiots'?" You would set yourself up as a new elite forcing your own viewpoint on everyone else. And you still think you're better?
Let me tell you something - I have been in a lawless place. And it is unpleasant to say the least. And my life has been in very serious danger as a result. Have you ever been in a place where the rule of law breaks down? You may not realise it but the current state of affairs you have in your nice sheltered life is almost infinitely better. Are you cold? Hungry? Is someone pointing a gun at you?
Oh, and if you ever want change, you'd better start showing some respect to that "mob of morons" or they'll never ever listen to you. You should hardly be surprised people only listen to people who show them respect, and you would be very surprised by just how intelligent the average man is. My goodness the ego of it all. Why does everyone always assume they'd rule better than the people who do? And who says (look at some research on this) legalizing drugs represents an improvement on the current situation? That is certainly not proven. It is still very much debated. The religious morality in society exists for a reason. Whether you are religious or not. If you are not then is it so incredible to you to think that the morality as it appears is tailored for the purpose of increasing the population's survival chances? Maybe those circumstances have changed, but you would still do well to think carefully before dismissing it out of hand as merely something religious.
Lets assume you're right and sibling poster is wrong (you can discuss it with him, I know what I think(it isn't) and don't care to discuss it). So, what would you suggest? Force your subjective morality on everyone?
The point is, what we consider moral trickles down into law. And laws in combination with morality make things work for the majority of people. And that is all you can realistically expect from the world. You might say that isn't true, but who was it that said "the people get the government they deserve"?
... If the answer is know...
* no.
I cringe seeing that!
Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting you give him a full course(and my explanation wasn't intended to be complete either), but maybe rather than a simple "yes" a bit of "well here is something to get you started on understanding the difference..." might have been helpful to the poster...
It still fails on the high precision side of things. Can you create an object and produce highly accurate detailed labeled standard drawings in blender easily? If the answer is know, then blender qualifies as Computer Inhibited Design, not CAD... The differences I highlighted were fundamental, but by no means a complete list... The idea was to give the general idea not the 3 year university degree... :)
It is one thing to make your model "real world" and another to publish precise measurements so that other objects can interlock with it... If you really pushed it, I suppose you could use blender for industrial CAD, but it would be long, slow and generally problematic. Wrong tool for the job really. But it does make nice 3D logos and animations and stuff, which are much harder to do with proper CAD software.
Even if we take the philosophical position that the universe is deterministic (forget even probabilistic), the only practical course to work with is to assume that normal sane people are responsible for their actions. And assume that sanity is how the psychologists define it. Our society's laws and economies are based on these assumptions, and so far it practically works fairly well. Changing that would change the environment in which we have adapted to be and may or may not result in a worse status quo than the current one. Morality does not exist for no reason. So, yes, morality is safe because it is(some would argue was, but all evidence I have seen suggests otherwise) a necessary mechanism in society.
While you are correct, you are not informative... Chill dude, stop being elitist and give the guy a break, he doesn't know.
For the GP: Basically CAD is used for design that will generally end up in a real world object. You can design for example a fancy box or even a desk/chair/house/skyscraper and then from your printouts (including the precise measurements) make the real thing. While you could do this in Blender, it is the wrong tool for the job. They're designed for modeling the real world not making something from scratch. Basically in Blender, you want something that looks like the real thing. In CAD, you want something that will help you build the real thing. They don't allow (easily anyway) the sort of precise pedantic precision you need for CAD. I have used both and I do know the difference, even if it is a little subtle. Never used maya, but I doubt it counts as CAD.
To be fair, they're "still testing." A bit like how gmail was in the early days...
I second that. Also the clever marketing ploy where google plus tells me they've got no further capacity right now... Check back later....
he is probably the life and sole of the party though....