locality is actually irrelevant. wolf ratios to suitable land and prey, globally, are at critical levels, but, even worse, where they are in the human heart = near zero. bad for wolves, ecosystems, and us, and no laughing matter. humor is part of the problem, humans need a new sense of reverence if we're to survive.
hardly, the attempted humor did not go over my head, it was the attempt i found offensive. these are living beings, and there's nothing funny about even a pointed joke on the subject, IMO.
On the one hand, guilt should not be a function of the cuteness of your victim, but rather the universal wrongness of death without purpose, and on the other, have you never seen a wolf pup?
It's just become so clear that Americans = insensitive, bloodthirsty fiends, dangerously out-of-touch with their own human NATURE. Wolves are barely clinging on to survival around the globe, being hunted to extinction because they represent an inconvenience. Oh, I know, poor, poor humans just can't catch a break from all the terrible wild species encroaching on their mega-malls and competing with their palm oil plantations, cattle leases, ever-spreading suburbs, etc... FYA.
If you're only thinking of you, then you're a dysfunctional part of "us." If we're a collective, as you imply, then each should be an agent of the whole, operating at least partially-motivated by the common interest. What's best for you, by your narrow measurement (material excess), is NOT good for "us." You are a cancer, and should feel free to shove the collected works of Ayn Rand up your...
"but stuff that improves my quality of life vastly, as determined by me."
If material goods are what defines the quality of your life, then you have a spiritual problem (like most Americans). I wonder, if the consequences of your mass consumption affected people close to you, instead of those seperated from you by space and/or time (i.e. future generations), if you'd be so capricious?
Don't you see the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of your statement? Why don't you care? The only reason we have a civilization is that more are responsible and moral than are not, or, at least, that's been the case until recently.
And, in the end, those of us who've chosen to moderate our basest tendencies will, at least, know who to blame - those who felt no responsibility to the greater good whatsoever.
We need to stop buying crap we don't need, period (which includes pretty much everything that has to be shipped). If that makes it so the global economy can't function (capitalism requiring constant growth, over-consumption, waste), then we need a new economic system - a pretty obvious statement anyway.
In my opinion, a shared sense of moral duty (Kantian) is needed more now than ever. It's sad that we, the west, the supposed children of enlightenment, seem now to reject the self-sacrificing magnanimity of our liberal heritage for pure self-interest, via those myriad options you mention for rationalizing that behavior.
I share your concern regarding extremism/fundamentalism, but I would assert that, at this point in history, market fundamentalism is a greater threat than the religious variety (unless we consider "the free market" a religion, which is probably quite valid). If you're specifically alluding to Islam, I contend the spread of that form of extremism is a symptom of our decay, filling a vacuum left by the apparent death of a moral basis for western civilization (a feature of the ascendancy of free market fundamentalism).
Agreed re: fighting the good fight, but so very frustrating to gain no traction whilst watch it all burn...
Sure, and that risk of stupidity would apply to any attempts to define/implement a rigid all-encompassing political/governing philosophy.
Belief in the free market as the basis for a just political system? Yeah, I definitely don't discount human stupidity.
Oh, and what is bankrupting our system is a bunch of boomers getting old - not increased poverty. The mistake was letting the locust generation get away with lower taxes while their liability in terms of government services has gone through the roof. We would not have debt if we taxed responsibly. So what if the average progressive rate reached 40%? How is that unjust? Government functions, and those willing to strive for success are still rewarded, "parasites" and all. A just society, like Sweden. Imagine that.
You're right, it's hard not to be swept up in the culture of doom.
However, I think we're facing hypercritical challenges that require the US (I agreed w/Obama when he spoke about humanity's last, best hope) to stand up and take responsibility for ourselves and the future of humanity, but, instead, we're about to make a hard turn towards the libertarian right and a complete lack of cohesive, common-good-oriented governance. That makes me pessimistic, because the planet's ecological coherence (biodiversity, circulatory and immune systems) has been almost completely corrupted/destroyed, and our civilization's existence, already unsustainable 30 years ago, has become fundamentally suicidal.
I feel like my moderation is an echo of what we should have been doing for the past 30 years. Now, all the ideas I am hearing for new philosophies (especially the Randian objectivist/libertarians) are radical and dangerous, and it's becoming unclear upon what middle ground my moderation should operate.
Ok, Ayn. I never mentioned abolishing private property.
I find nothing about the market (money for goods/services, accumulation with success) as an aconomic disagreeable. I find it disagreeable when it is run as a governing philosophy. They need to be seperate.
But, you're one of them, and I know that means your compassion can't compete with your greed and your ideological rigidity.
RIGID ideology, no matter how well considered and intended, will lead to failure/evil. It is the basic belief in human goodness, intuition and free will, to make the right choices when a situation arises, that is at the core of liberal governing philosophy - some of this, some of that, and good people and institutions to choose which, contextually. I am a fanatically moderate liberal ecohumanist.
I agree - peak everything. We're probably doomed (Malthus' revenge?), despite Jon Stewart's wishful thinking that "these are hard times, not end times."
Futilism is pointless though, and I think it's still our duty to our best (and preserve what we can) even if this is basically the end of western civilization as we know it (thanks 'the internet'). Our generations (boomers, X, Y) have all been whiny, selfish b_tches. I wish we had half the fortitude of our grandparents...
Anyway/however/moving on, I don't think you've stated anything above to support your conjecture that what I have in mind "is communism."
The difference, in my understanding, is that communism does not offer a tangible personal incentive to do more than is absolutely required. From each according to ability, to each according to need, and that's it. No? I agree that money is a good incentive, and there should be a market, but the market being supreme - that's just chaos (and tragically immoral).
Moderation is the difference between a pragmatic, just philosophy, and a dangerous, fanatical one.
Interestingly, nobody seems to complain when sacrifice is imposed for the sake of war - i.e. WWII.
Why is only war, and not the human quality of life for all citizens, a worthy cause?
Can we not build a society that rewards achievement _and_ protects those who have failed from utter ruin? Can we not have a utilitarian baseline of humane living conditions for all, and a capitalist economic engine that allows for the successful to rise (well) above the baseline? Also, why not these same concepts to protect the environment and other resources for future generations?
Why is it only considered immoral to require some sacrifice when the goal is peaceful and just?
This is not communism - this is a capitalist, socialist, utilitarian hybrid that works very well when implemented in good faith, and is basically the system we would have if it weren't for the constant undermining influence of the libertarian right in our government.
Utilitarianism is the philosophy that humanity should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the Vulcan philosophy that Spock summarized in The Wrath of Khan, for example. There are imperfections with this only in nature of power, as you referenced, which is not addressed by the philosophy, and the calculation of "good" and imposition of baseline conditions and values that can occur at the extreme. Mixing it with some other liberal ideas like eco-humanism, and high valuation of the individual, can make utilitarianism a good starting place. I think we should rather strive for the least suffering for the fewest number, but anyway...
I'm guessing your "greatest evil" superlative would also apply to terms like "altruism", and "empathy"? Yeah, that's what I thought.
I made the comment as if it were _your_ belief that morality is a dirty rousseauian frivolity. That impression is totally justifiable given your repositioning of tired and immoral objectivist ideals to address the ecological crisis that is human civilization (as-is). I think the enlightenment happened to improve the definition(s) of morality but I was not claiming it as an exclusive ideal of the enlightenment. But that's a red herring and your philosophy is a lie. I also believe your motive is pure self-interest, and doubt you have any respect for the value of (human) life other than that which you directly/personally value, nor any sense of the common good. Stating dangerous impracticalities as a means to your having your cake and eating it too is not a worthwhile ideology/philosophy/political agenda.
Since you brought up Jesus and Christianity. What do you think he would have said, in this crisis situation (or is there no resource crisis? no crisis for life on Earth, human and otherwise? no mass extinction? no peak oil? no overpopulation? doesn't matter?), if confronted with the idea that we should quickly consume everything that remains in order to solve the problem(s)?
Your learned tone and grasp of history and philosophy conceal a malevolent philosophy and purpose, and for you to throw forth terms like evil, well, that would be funny if the future of civilization wasn't hanging in the balance.
I wish people would stop pointing to nature (darwin/malthus/dawkins/etc) as if it's the only model for human society, as if morality were just some quaint enlightenment idea, and philosophy an (masturbatory) extension of mammalian survival traits. We have built mountains of civilization upon the qualities in ourselves that defy the simplistic rules of natural selection and related phenomena. We are not simply nature anymore, and if we try to strip away everything else that we are, the results will be disastrous. This is just more (Ayn) Randian-style justification for selfish, destructive behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
locality is actually irrelevant. wolf ratios to suitable land and prey, globally, are at critical levels, but, even worse, where they are in the human heart = near zero. bad for wolves, ecosystems, and us, and no laughing matter. humor is part of the problem, humans need a new sense of reverence if we're to survive.
hardly, the attempted humor did not go over my head, it was the attempt i found offensive. these are living beings, and there's nothing funny about even a pointed joke on the subject, IMO.
Yeah, that would be relevant if we were talking about an introduced species... coyote range
Oh please! You really think that's funny?
On the one hand, guilt should not be a function of the cuteness of your victim, but rather the universal wrongness of death without purpose, and on the other, have you never seen a wolf pup?
It's just become so clear that Americans = insensitive, bloodthirsty fiends, dangerously out-of-touch with their own human NATURE. Wolves are barely clinging on to survival around the globe, being hunted to extinction because they represent an inconvenience. Oh, I know, poor, poor humans just can't catch a break from all the terrible wild species encroaching on their mega-malls and competing with their palm oil plantations, cattle leases, ever-spreading suburbs, etc... FYA.
If you're only thinking of you, then you're a dysfunctional part of "us." If we're a collective, as you imply, then each should be an agent of the whole, operating at least partially-motivated by the common interest. What's best for you, by your narrow measurement (material excess), is NOT good for "us." You are a cancer, and should feel free to shove the collected works of Ayn Rand up your...
See the tragedy of the commons
"but stuff that improves my quality of life vastly, as determined by me."
If material goods are what defines the quality of your life, then you have a spiritual problem (like most Americans). I wonder, if the consequences of your mass consumption affected people close to you, instead of those seperated from you by space and/or time (i.e. future generations), if you'd be so capricious?
Don't you see the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of your statement? Why don't you care? The only reason we have a civilization is that more are responsible and moral than are not, or, at least, that's been the case until recently.
And, in the end, those of us who've chosen to moderate our basest tendencies will, at least, know who to blame - those who felt no responsibility to the greater good whatsoever.
Morality: a simple concept for most.
Agreed, especially on point #2.
We need to stop buying crap we don't need, period (which includes pretty much everything that has to be shipped). If that makes it so the global economy can't function (capitalism requiring constant growth, over-consumption, waste), then we need a new economic system - a pretty obvious statement anyway.
Thank you.
In my opinion, a shared sense of moral duty (Kantian) is needed more now than ever. It's sad that we, the west, the supposed children of enlightenment, seem now to reject the self-sacrificing magnanimity of our liberal heritage for pure self-interest, via those myriad options you mention for rationalizing that behavior.
I share your concern regarding extremism/fundamentalism, but I would assert that, at this point in history, market fundamentalism is a greater threat than the religious variety (unless we consider "the free market" a religion, which is probably quite valid). If you're specifically alluding to Islam, I contend the spread of that form of extremism is a symptom of our decay, filling a vacuum left by the apparent death of a moral basis for western civilization (a feature of the ascendancy of free market fundamentalism).
Agreed re: fighting the good fight, but so very frustrating to gain no traction whilst watch it all burn...
Sure, and that risk of stupidity would apply to any attempts to define/implement a rigid all-encompassing political/governing philosophy. Belief in the free market as the basis for a just political system? Yeah, I definitely don't discount human stupidity.
Oh, and what is bankrupting our system is a bunch of boomers getting old - not increased poverty. The mistake was letting the locust generation get away with lower taxes while their liability in terms of government services has gone through the roof. We would not have debt if we taxed responsibly. So what if the average progressive rate reached 40%? How is that unjust? Government functions, and those willing to strive for success are still rewarded, "parasites" and all. A just society, like Sweden. Imagine that.
You're right, it's hard not to be swept up in the culture of doom. However, I think we're facing hypercritical challenges that require the US (I agreed w/Obama when he spoke about humanity's last, best hope) to stand up and take responsibility for ourselves and the future of humanity, but, instead, we're about to make a hard turn towards the libertarian right and a complete lack of cohesive, common-good-oriented governance. That makes me pessimistic, because the planet's ecological coherence (biodiversity, circulatory and immune systems) has been almost completely corrupted/destroyed, and our civilization's existence, already unsustainable 30 years ago, has become fundamentally suicidal. I feel like my moderation is an echo of what we should have been doing for the past 30 years. Now, all the ideas I am hearing for new philosophies (especially the Randian objectivist/libertarians) are radical and dangerous, and it's becoming unclear upon what middle ground my moderation should operate.
oops: aconomic = economic system. need coffee.
Ok, Ayn. I never mentioned abolishing private property. I find nothing about the market (money for goods/services, accumulation with success) as an aconomic disagreeable. I find it disagreeable when it is run as a governing philosophy. They need to be seperate. But, you're one of them, and I know that means your compassion can't compete with your greed and your ideological rigidity. RIGID ideology, no matter how well considered and intended, will lead to failure/evil. It is the basic belief in human goodness, intuition and free will, to make the right choices when a situation arises, that is at the core of liberal governing philosophy - some of this, some of that, and good people and institutions to choose which, contextually. I am a fanatically moderate liberal ecohumanist.
I agree - peak everything. We're probably doomed (Malthus' revenge?), despite Jon Stewart's wishful thinking that "these are hard times, not end times."
Futilism is pointless though, and I think it's still our duty to our best (and preserve what we can) even if this is basically the end of western civilization as we know it (thanks 'the internet'). Our generations (boomers, X, Y) have all been whiny, selfish b_tches. I wish we had half the fortitude of our grandparents...
Anyway/however/moving on, I don't think you've stated anything above to support your conjecture that what I have in mind "is communism."
The difference, in my understanding, is that communism does not offer a tangible personal incentive to do more than is absolutely required. From each according to ability, to each according to need, and that's it. No? I agree that money is a good incentive, and there should be a market, but the market being supreme - that's just chaos (and tragically immoral).
Moderation is the difference between a pragmatic, just philosophy, and a dangerous, fanatical one.
Interestingly, nobody seems to complain when sacrifice is imposed for the sake of war - i.e. WWII. Why is only war, and not the human quality of life for all citizens, a worthy cause? Can we not build a society that rewards achievement _and_ protects those who have failed from utter ruin? Can we not have a utilitarian baseline of humane living conditions for all, and a capitalist economic engine that allows for the successful to rise (well) above the baseline? Also, why not these same concepts to protect the environment and other resources for future generations? Why is it only considered immoral to require some sacrifice when the goal is peaceful and just? This is not communism - this is a capitalist, socialist, utilitarian hybrid that works very well when implemented in good faith, and is basically the system we would have if it weren't for the constant undermining influence of the libertarian right in our government.
Utilitarianism is the philosophy that humanity should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the Vulcan philosophy that Spock summarized in The Wrath of Khan, for example. There are imperfections with this only in nature of power, as you referenced, which is not addressed by the philosophy, and the calculation of "good" and imposition of baseline conditions and values that can occur at the extreme. Mixing it with some other liberal ideas like eco-humanism, and high valuation of the individual, can make utilitarianism a good starting place. I think we should rather strive for the least suffering for the fewest number, but anyway... I'm guessing your "greatest evil" superlative would also apply to terms like "altruism", and "empathy"? Yeah, that's what I thought. I made the comment as if it were _your_ belief that morality is a dirty rousseauian frivolity. That impression is totally justifiable given your repositioning of tired and immoral objectivist ideals to address the ecological crisis that is human civilization (as-is). I think the enlightenment happened to improve the definition(s) of morality but I was not claiming it as an exclusive ideal of the enlightenment. But that's a red herring and your philosophy is a lie. I also believe your motive is pure self-interest, and doubt you have any respect for the value of (human) life other than that which you directly/personally value, nor any sense of the common good. Stating dangerous impracticalities as a means to your having your cake and eating it too is not a worthwhile ideology/philosophy/political agenda. Since you brought up Jesus and Christianity. What do you think he would have said, in this crisis situation (or is there no resource crisis? no crisis for life on Earth, human and otherwise? no mass extinction? no peak oil? no overpopulation? doesn't matter?), if confronted with the idea that we should quickly consume everything that remains in order to solve the problem(s)? Your learned tone and grasp of history and philosophy conceal a malevolent philosophy and purpose, and for you to throw forth terms like evil, well, that would be funny if the future of civilization wasn't hanging in the balance.
I wish people would stop pointing to nature (darwin/malthus/dawkins/etc) as if it's the only model for human society, as if morality were just some quaint enlightenment idea, and philosophy an (masturbatory) extension of mammalian survival traits. We have built mountains of civilization upon the qualities in ourselves that defy the simplistic rules of natural selection and related phenomena. We are not simply nature anymore, and if we try to strip away everything else that we are, the results will be disastrous. This is just more (Ayn) Randian-style justification for selfish, destructive behavior.