For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, gene patenting, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
IMDB link. [imdb.com]... and don't get me started on the "terminator gene".
For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
Not quite - wrong declension. "Enseñemos" is plural imperative "let us show", rather than the easier to make mistake "we show them" ("Enseñamos"), let alone "show us" ("Enséñanos").
"Cabritos" is "little goat". For "asshole" you are thinking "cabrón", which is a bigger goat, and has no direct ethymological relationship with anus. In this context, I guess "cabritos" means "tykes".
Let us show the little tykes how to install Linux with Dora!
Cheers,
Your friendly random bilingual grammar Nazi.
For an AC, you attracted a lot of varied, interesting responses. Good for you. 8-)
Some ramblings from another ex-pat Mexican (not in the US):
Mexico really should be a wealthy country. They have a wealth of natural resources. They are a member of OPEC after all. They are next door to one of the wealthiest nations on Earth.
Mexico is not part of OPEC. Although production levels fluctuate, it is generally considered the largest non-OPEC oil producer, and the largest producer of silver, amongst several other things.
Mexico's problem is really corruption. Massive amounts of it. I mean you may complain about the US and well the UN, but Latin America is trying to Silver Medal in the Global Corruption Olympics (Africa is the out and out Gold Medal winner.) And this creates Mexico's problem.
Not incorrect, but oversimplified. First, Latin America is big and varied - corruption and similar issues are very different in Mexico, Chile, Bolivia or Costa Rica. But yes, there is a lot of corruption in Mexico. About this, three thoughts:
The low-level corruption of bribery-for-everything, double books, unbridled abuse of bureaucratic authority, is way down. Still too high by any "expectations", but certainly not what it was in the 70s or 80s. I remember. More people today do take a personal stand on "doing the right thing", if there are ways of doing it legally.
The armed corruption of all kinds (cops, armed forces, federales, unnofficial shock groups) is as bad or worse as it used to be. This, in my opinion, is the biggest problem: abuse of power through intimidation and repression, including beating people to death, raping female prisoners, and essentially disappearing people. The worst incidents do happen less often (only three or so this term), but you always know that anyone with a gun is not your friend, regardless of badge or paperwork.
The greatest increasing corruption nowadays is first-world, US-style corruption of institutions and lawmaking. The concentration of wealth at the top has increased drastically, as have the amount of "sold-out" legislation, giving away media, farms, control and sovereignty to "the few", either local "old money" families or overreaching multinational interests (the usual suspects). These few tend to control several of the armed groups noted above.
This third point is at the root of the increased migration issue. Thanks to overreaching legislation, special interests & US farm subsidies, vast amounts of farms are closing, and farmers losing their livelihood. Sure, it would be convenient for you if they just starved to death quietly in their ghost towns, but some of them start walking to where there seems to be stuff for them to do.
It's like wallmart. Big wallmart opens in a small town, all mom&pop shops can't compete, are forced to close, and work for slave wages & conditions at wallmart. Such is the wisdom of the invisible hand, just different people find different wallmarts.
Of course, it's way more complicated than that.
Why do anything if corruption is just going to take away your hard work? So, you are left with two choices (a) be lazy, or (b) leave.
There are more choices. The adage for the US used to be "love it, leave it, or change it". You can also change it from afar.
As another Mexican not living in the US, allow me to field some of your (quite good) questions:
What do you think about the Mexican government's role in this immigration debate? Specifically it seems to me they are the problem. We don't have Canadians flooding into the country because Canada is very good shape.
The Mexican government role is minimal, and mostly irrelevant. It is written in the (Mexican) constitution that the government does not have the authority to stop you from leaving the country anywhere and anyhow you want. Mind you, it may refuse to issue you a passport, but if you choose to swim to Japan, they can't stop you. So if people (smartly or dumbly) choose to go, the gov't has to at least stay out of their way. This ain't Cuba or Soviet Russia, leaving ain't treason.
From everything I've heard Mexico has some serious problems in this area. My understanding is that 10% of Mexican citizens are living in the US (either legally or not). 12% of the Mexican work force is working in the US (again, legally or not). I have heard estimations that if flow of money from workers and families in the US to their relatives back home in Mexico were to be stopped, the Mexican economy would collapse. According to the figures I can find the underemployment/unemployment rate in Mexico is as high as 25%.
While these are not entirely incorrect, I think they are exaggerated or viewed too negatively. Flow of money from migrant's wages is an income similar to that of the tourism industry, and ranks fourth or so in GDP share. The economy would certainly suffer without it, but would suffer more if other things (like Oil or Silver) went. 10-15% of 1st and 2nd generation Mexicans live in the US, yes, but this is not necessarily a bad thing - it's right next door, after all. Brain/Hand drain is a problem around the globe, but if people are productive, who cares where?
Do Mexicans blame their government for all this? Is there anything of a movement to get it fixed, or is it just easier to try to get the US government to help by taking on people?
Fuck yeah, Mexicans blame their government. But a movement to get what fixed? To stop people from leaving? no can do, se above. To make things better internally? Hell yes, and it's much better than it was 20 years ago (I remember). Many people still choose to go, but that will be the case always - the North is just too shiny and glittery, and hordes of people all over the world can't resist its siren call.
What do you think of the "Pay backed taxes, a fine, and prove you know English and you can become a citizen" proposal? Obviously that is somewhat simplified.
I like it. Again, it becomes a matter of personal responsibility of the individual in question, whether that's good enough an incentive or not. If it makes more people go, that's OK, if not, that's fine too. If you can't tell, I'm pro-mobility.
My last question is, does the issue of illegal immigration strike you as ironic at all? There are so many people (and groups, which I don't understand) that are pushing for (illegal) immigrant rights in the US and saying they should be treated like citizens. But illegal immigrants into Mexico from South and Central America face robbing, beatings, rapes, and other terrible fates from Mexican officials if they are caught. Mexico is not kind to those who sneak in, yet the President of the country is asking the US to be kind to those who sneak in. Is that issue raised at all in the Mexican media?
Hell yes. The immigration goons in the US are horrible and I detest them, but I'm glad I'm not Guatemalan trying to go to Mexico - the goons are worse. One of the gravest, deepest, most destructive problems Mexico has is the relentless abuse of power its armed authorities have. From police to customs to federales to soldiers, the vast majority are in it to get a gun and unleash their despotic demons on the unsuspecting - pity those that have to be in their clutches. Is there a movement to fix this? Yes, and
"If you can't take a little bloody nose maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross, but it's not for the timid." - our favourite omnipotent being.
But I also agree that today's launch, while inspiring and reassuring, ain't good enough. It's a road already walked, and the adventure requires a lot more commitment. It's a good thing and an important step, though.
Being an atheist, you must believe that the ultimate necessity of your existence is purely biological. You have no soul or spirit, and your total existence is nothing more than an elaborate mechanism for replicating DNA. When you die - that's it, you're gone.
Careful: being an atheist does not necessitate this. I do believe it, as do many atheists, but rejecting "god" is largely about how you define "god" (and "reject"), and some atheists allow some very wild possibilities. Not me, though, I'm Kosher.
Given that premise, what is it that stops you from taking advantage of other people at every opportunity?
Intelligence. Specifically, pattern-recognition. "Do not harm others" is not an order given by a deity, but a conclusion reached by logical thought or intuition, and then adopted through choice. I do not refrain from harming because I must, I merely choose not to, in the belief that that increases my chances not to be harmed in return, and that it generally improves the outcome of the game for everyone.
Within theist reasoning, you are given free will, and must choose for yourself whether to harm or not - it just so happens that if you don't, you get better treatment from above. Many theists still choose to harm, obviously, due to many reasons. My atheist point of view is fundamentally the same, except that I believe I get my cloud and harp (or boiling oil) in this world, not in the next.
It's not that far off, really. If you look behind the curtain, you'll notice there's no need for the big guy in the beard.
This begs the question of what is good, The correct formulation is that the moralist says "This is good because I/we say it is" while the Deist says, "This is good becasue God says it is."[and Atheists like "might is right"]
I do not agree that atheism necessitates "might makes right", in the sense of using force to impose your point of view on others.
I'm an atheist, and I do agree that at the fundamental level it is all about choice. The problem is that it also seems to be about "good".
If you want to get at the plain truth,
Forget about right and wrong.
For the conflict between right and wrong,
Is the sickness of the human mind.
--Alan Watts.
But, discounting zen, at least as an atheist I believe more strongly in my right to not choose "might makes right" as a principle, than the contrary. Atheism does not necessitate agression. Note that self defense, on the other hand, is perfectly okay. (oops, another slippery slope?)
This is the principle that is missing from your description and definitions above - it's in there, it's just implicit.
The point of wrf3, I believe, is that the weak point in your philosophy is that of other people not sharing it, and choosing to blow you up.
I grant (and fundamentally share) all your points regarding reality, people, proof, god and "being good". But this is because I choose it to be.
When you say "normal", you mean people with shared choices amongst common questions. But a person can enjoy living in a tiny shit box, or choose to do it because of other (including moral/ethical) motivations. Trivial example: three meals a day is better than starving to death, but that didn't stop Gandhi.
Therefore, as long as Gandhi is "within a broad definition of normal", wrf3's first point is granted: there's nothing other than personal opinion to judge between competing moralities.
I also grant that the principal, and easiest way to impose your personal opinion is force. I do not grant that it is the only one or the necessary one.
Going back to the beginning, you (paraphrase) "believe that other people are people too and of similar value". I agree. I also recognize that the fundamental expression of sentience is free will, and thus I choose to respect their equivalent right to self-determination, in the belief that it is for the common good (see below).
This generally refrains me from "might makes right". I understand that there are others who may choose differently, but this is not my failing, it's theirs.
About the common good, and on the original topic: I believe, though I can't prove, that we are one; that Humanity as a group is greater than the sum of its individuals, and that the common good is a higher goal than that of self-interest, or self-preservation at an individual level.
How does this newfangled thunderthing compare with my trusty Ximian Evolution? I'd appreciate any first-hand pointers on feature comparisons or migration notes.
I've been using Evolution as my primary mail client both at home and at work. At the office, it handles my 2-3GB mailbox pretty well (it's slower than I'd like sometimes, when getting/indexing email). Virtual folders are a godsend, it's pretty good at composing, searching, etc.
I'm pretty happy, but not ecstatic, with Evo, but there are things I think could be done better (speedier, better spam control, some rendering bugs). Is Thunderbird what I've been waiting for?
The parent poster specifically referred to the modern military. MOAB on yo'ass military. If Mr. Ashcroft or Rummy want in, your Winchester ain't gonna stop'em.
I wish it would, brotha, I wish it could.
Thousands of mortar rounds, thousands of RPGs and at least several thousand "well armed" militia met a sorry fate. Sure, it would be an entirely different conflict on every level, but it is not going to matter how much firepower your militia can muster.
Armed robbery of land that rightfully belonged to the Mexican people... after the Mexicans stole it from the Native Americans, of course. If "spoils of war" doesn't mean that the land is rightfully part of the U.S, then it must also mean that it does not rightfully belong to the Mexicans either.
Uh, leaving aside the fact that "the mexicans" and "the native americans" are almost the same thing, I mentioned that the whole "Might Makes Right" argument is difficult and a hard one to discuss in a couple of paragraphs.
The area was part of the Aztec Empire, then the Viceroyalty of Mexico (part of the Spanish Empire). The people (those "native americans") living there, were citizens of the Empire - the ethnic cleansing was done by cowboys, not aztecs (who only wanted a few thousand for human sacrifices, but left the rest alone). Then both were enslaved (but not killed off or sent to reservations) by the Spaniards.
Sure, they were (more likely than not) annexed to the Empire through blood and conquest. Why was it OK then, but not now? (hard question! Don't dismiss). And if it wasn't OK then, would that make 1848 more justifiable?
Of course, conquest and bloodshed go back way longer. Was it OK for the Roman Empire? The Mongols? Hirohito in Manchuria? Who gets to say?
So, I'm making no moral judgement, merely presenting a factoid about Lincoln's alleged opinions.
When it comes down to it, is "I was born here" a good enough argument to base "this land is mine" on? The "native americans" warred amongst themselves too, and shifted borders - where they also the bad guys? How 'bout Israel? Are aborigenes the only ones entitled to a land? How about those of us with three citizenships and twelve different kinds of blood on our veins?
Seriously, it's a non-trivial issue. I'll shut up now.
I've read Lincoln himself said, "this is not war, this is armed robbery". I can't pinpoint the source at the moment, so take it with a grain of salt.
I'm not going into whether spoils of war are OK or not, and the "might makes right" argument. It's too complex for a couple of paragraphs. But at least many people (including scholars, historians and politicians on both sides of the border) consider the Mexican-American war as little more than the strong taking from the weak and saying "shut up or I'll take more".
Advertisements for slaughter victims in a german canabilism newsgroup.
Well, cannibalism should worry you (unless you are a robot or run real fast). Cannabilism, on the other hand, shouldn't - I don't think it's a real word, but if I had to assign it meaning, it would be "compulsive consumption of cannabis"...
...I can think of worse things you could find! A cute stoner chick who may be in the next Apple "switch" commercial.
1) This is trivial to refute, but let's say for the sake of argument that I only smoke in the privacy of my own home while wearing a deep-diving helmet.
2) Granted. I hope artificial replacement parts for other organs continue to appear, I have no problem with that. Quick detection should be easier as time passes (tricorder built into bathroom mirror, anyone?), and it will take quite a while to spread beyond chances to repair anyway.
I'm a tobacco smoker, and have been for many years. Yeah, it's a filthy habit, and bad for you, and stinks and whatever, but I happen to enjoy it.
Lots of people tell me "you'll die of lung cancer!", to which my standard reply is "by the time I get lung cancer, I'll be able to buy new lungs at the seven-eleven!".
I have many other witty counterarguments, but the one people seem to like best (especially women) is "My Body, My Choice!"
But I'm glad to see I may be able to purchase those lungs at some point. Rather not have cancer, rather not quitting smoking either.
With human chess it's a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth: one person plays better than a team of people.
Oh, nothing could be further from the truth! Sure, "leapfrog" chess is a handicap, where two guys alternate moving the white pieces, without any conversations among them. But if they are allowed to share, discuss and think together, the result is greater than either could have done individually, most of the time. It's called Consultation Chess, and it's rare, but not dead.
Andy Soltis (IM or GM, I forget), the writer of the "Chess to Enjoy" column of Chess Life magazine, wrote several columns about it long ago (compiled in "Karl Marx plays Chess", a wonderful book about the coolness of chess, not about how to play better). Including a game where the top ten soviet GMs of the 70s (IIRC) broke off in two teams and played a game, while locked in separate rooms (a gopher carrying the moves back and forth). It's one of the greatest games I've seen.
It's rare, but lots of fun, and produces masterpieces. I have no links, but google should be your friend. I think the book I mentioned is out of print, but PowellsBooks should have it.
I think the best analogy I heard about Napster is this: Imagine if we had a duplicator. So lets say we could duplicate apples from one original apple. Farmer's would be out business. Would we stamp out such technology on the basis that we are pirating apples and destroying a farmer's ability to make an income?
About your duplicator example - yes, it will be a very hairy question when the time comes. I always found it interesting that Asimov, in his "The end of Eternity", mentioned a mass duplicator as "one of those things, like slavery, that just aren't supposed to exist - mankind cannot cope" (paraphrased from memory).
So yeah. I'd like one. The farmers will be pissed, but I want one - I'm just very afraid on how we'll handle it (human cloning is trivially easy in comparison, and see the debate and stupidity around it!).
Slashdot Mirror
For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, gene patenting, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
... and don't get me started on the "terminator gene".
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
IMDB link. [imdb.com]
-Sin Maíz no hay País-
For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
IMDB link.
"Cabritos" is "little goat". For "asshole" you are thinking "cabrón", which is a bigger goat, and has no direct ethymological relationship with anus. In this context, I guess "cabritos" means "tykes".
Let us show the little tykes how to install Linux with Dora!
Cheers,
Your friendly random bilingual grammar Nazi.
For an AC, you attracted a lot of varied, interesting responses. Good for you. 8-)
Some ramblings from another ex-pat Mexican (not in the US):
Mexico really should be a wealthy country. They have a wealth of natural resources. They are a member of OPEC after all. They are next door to one of the wealthiest nations on Earth.
Mexico is not part of OPEC. Although production levels fluctuate, it is generally considered the largest non-OPEC oil producer, and the largest producer of silver, amongst several other things.
Mexico's problem is really corruption. Massive amounts of it. I mean you may complain about the US and well the UN, but Latin America is trying to Silver Medal in the Global Corruption Olympics (Africa is the out and out Gold Medal winner.) And this creates Mexico's problem.
Not incorrect, but oversimplified. First, Latin America is big and varied - corruption and similar issues are very different in Mexico, Chile, Bolivia or Costa Rica. But yes, there is a lot of corruption in Mexico. About this, three thoughts:
- The low-level corruption of bribery-for-everything, double books, unbridled abuse of bureaucratic authority, is way down. Still too high by any "expectations", but certainly not what it was in the 70s or 80s. I remember. More people today do take a personal stand on "doing the right thing", if there are ways of doing it legally.
- The armed corruption of all kinds (cops, armed forces, federales, unnofficial shock groups) is as bad or worse as it used to be. This, in my opinion, is the biggest problem: abuse of power through intimidation and repression, including beating people to death, raping female prisoners, and essentially disappearing people. The worst incidents do happen less often (only three or so this term), but you always know that anyone with a gun is not your friend, regardless of badge or paperwork.
- The greatest increasing corruption nowadays is first-world, US-style corruption of institutions and lawmaking. The concentration of wealth at the top has increased drastically, as have the amount of "sold-out" legislation, giving away media, farms, control and sovereignty to "the few", either local "old money" families or overreaching multinational interests (the usual suspects). These few tend to control several of the armed groups noted above.
This third point is at the root of the increased migration issue. Thanks to overreaching legislation, special interests & US farm subsidies, vast amounts of farms are closing, and farmers losing their livelihood. Sure, it would be convenient for you if they just starved to death quietly in their ghost towns, but some of them start walking to where there seems to be stuff for them to do.It's like wallmart. Big wallmart opens in a small town, all mom&pop shops can't compete, are forced to close, and work for slave wages & conditions at wallmart. Such is the wisdom of the invisible hand, just different people find different wallmarts.
Of course, it's way more complicated than that.
Why do anything if corruption is just going to take away your hard work? So, you are left with two choices (a) be lazy, or (b) leave.
There are more choices. The adage for the US used to be "love it, leave it, or change it". You can also change it from afar.
Cheers,
Random Lurker.
The Mexican government role is minimal, and mostly irrelevant. It is written in the (Mexican) constitution that the government does not have the authority to stop you from leaving the country anywhere and anyhow you want. Mind you, it may refuse to issue you a passport, but if you choose to swim to Japan, they can't stop you. So if people (smartly or dumbly) choose to go, the gov't has to at least stay out of their way. This ain't Cuba or Soviet Russia, leaving ain't treason.
From everything I've heard Mexico has some serious problems in this area. My understanding is that 10% of Mexican citizens are living in the US (either legally or not). 12% of the Mexican work force is working in the US (again, legally or not). I have heard estimations that if flow of money from workers and families in the US to their relatives back home in Mexico were to be stopped, the Mexican economy would collapse. According to the figures I can find the underemployment/unemployment rate in Mexico is as high as 25%.
While these are not entirely incorrect, I think they are exaggerated or viewed too negatively. Flow of money from migrant's wages is an income similar to that of the tourism industry, and ranks fourth or so in GDP share. The economy would certainly suffer without it, but would suffer more if other things (like Oil or Silver) went. 10-15% of 1st and 2nd generation Mexicans live in the US, yes, but this is not necessarily a bad thing - it's right next door, after all. Brain/Hand drain is a problem around the globe, but if people are productive, who cares where?
Do Mexicans blame their government for all this? Is there anything of a movement to get it fixed, or is it just easier to try to get the US government to help by taking on people?
Fuck yeah, Mexicans blame their government. But a movement to get what fixed? To stop people from leaving? no can do, se above. To make things better internally? Hell yes, and it's much better than it was 20 years ago (I remember). Many people still choose to go, but that will be the case always - the North is just too shiny and glittery, and hordes of people all over the world can't resist its siren call.
What do you think of the "Pay backed taxes, a fine, and prove you know English and you can become a citizen" proposal? Obviously that is somewhat simplified.
I like it. Again, it becomes a matter of personal responsibility of the individual in question, whether that's good enough an incentive or not. If it makes more people go, that's OK, if not, that's fine too. If you can't tell, I'm pro-mobility.
My last question is, does the issue of illegal immigration strike you as ironic at all? There are so many people (and groups, which I don't understand) that are pushing for (illegal) immigrant rights in the US and saying they should be treated like citizens. But illegal immigrants into Mexico from South and Central America face robbing, beatings, rapes, and other terrible fates from Mexican officials if they are caught. Mexico is not kind to those who sneak in, yet the President of the country is asking the US to be kind to those who sneak in. Is that issue raised at all in the Mexican media?
Hell yes. The immigration goons in the US are horrible and I detest them, but I'm glad I'm not Guatemalan trying to go to Mexico - the goons are worse. One of the gravest, deepest, most destructive problems Mexico has is the relentless abuse of power its armed authorities have. From police to customs to federales to soldiers, the vast majority are in it to get a gun and unleash their despotic demons on the unsuspecting - pity those that have to be in their clutches. Is there a movement to fix this? Yes, and
"If you can't take a little bloody nose maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross, but it's not for the timid."
- our favourite omnipotent being.
But I also agree that today's launch, while inspiring and reassuring, ain't good enough. It's a road already walked, and the adventure requires a lot more commitment. It's a good thing and an important step, though.
Being an atheist, you must believe that the ultimate necessity of your existence is purely biological. You have no soul or spirit, and your total existence is nothing more than an elaborate mechanism for replicating DNA. When you die - that's it, you're gone.
Careful: being an atheist does not necessitate this. I do believe it, as do many atheists, but rejecting "god" is largely about how you define "god" (and "reject"), and some atheists allow some very wild possibilities. Not me, though, I'm Kosher.
Given that premise, what is it that stops you from taking advantage of other people at every opportunity?
Intelligence. Specifically, pattern-recognition. "Do not harm others" is not an order given by a deity, but a conclusion reached by logical thought or intuition, and then adopted through choice. I do not refrain from harming because I must, I merely choose not to, in the belief that that increases my chances not to be harmed in return, and that it generally improves the outcome of the game for everyone.
Within theist reasoning, you are given free will, and must choose for yourself whether to harm or not - it just so happens that if you don't, you get better treatment from above. Many theists still choose to harm, obviously, due to many reasons. My atheist point of view is fundamentally the same, except that I believe I get my cloud and harp (or boiling oil) in this world, not in the next.
It's not that far off, really. If you look behind the curtain, you'll notice there's no need for the big guy in the beard.
But of course, the devil is in the details. 8-)
Cheers,
Wolfe.
I find that it strengthens my observation that richness of belief is more valuable than consistency of belief.
Amen, brother!
8-)
Wolfe.
I do not agree that atheism necessitates "might makes right", in the sense of using force to impose your point of view on others.
I'm an atheist, and I do agree that at the fundamental level it is all about choice. The problem is that it also seems to be about "good".
If you want to get at the plain truth,
Forget about right and wrong.
For the conflict between right and wrong,
Is the sickness of the human mind.
--Alan Watts.
But, discounting zen, at least as an atheist I believe more strongly in my right to not choose "might makes right" as a principle, than the contrary. Atheism does not necessitate agression. Note that self defense, on the other hand, is perfectly okay. (oops, another slippery slope?)
Cheers,
Wolfe.
[Sorry to interject.]
Choice.
This is the principle that is missing from your description and definitions above - it's in there, it's just implicit.
The point of wrf3, I believe, is that the weak point in your philosophy is that of other people not sharing it, and choosing to blow you up.
I grant (and fundamentally share) all your points regarding reality, people, proof, god and "being good". But this is because I choose it to be.
When you say "normal", you mean people with shared choices amongst common questions. But a person can enjoy living in a tiny shit box, or choose to do it because of other (including moral/ethical) motivations. Trivial example: three meals a day is better than starving to death, but that didn't stop Gandhi.
Therefore, as long as Gandhi is "within a broad definition of normal", wrf3's first point is granted: there's nothing other than personal opinion to judge between competing moralities.
I also grant that the principal, and easiest way to impose your personal opinion is force. I do not grant that it is the only one or the necessary one.
Going back to the beginning, you (paraphrase) "believe that other people are people too and of similar value". I agree. I also recognize that the fundamental expression of sentience is free will, and thus I choose to respect their equivalent right to self-determination, in the belief that it is for the common good (see below).
This generally refrains me from "might makes right". I understand that there are others who may choose differently, but this is not my failing, it's theirs.
About the common good, and on the original topic:
I believe, though I can't prove, that we are one; that Humanity as a group is greater than the sum of its individuals, and that the common good is a higher goal than that of self-interest, or self-preservation at an individual level.
I'll go back to lurking now.
Cheers,
Wolfe.
How does this newfangled thunderthing compare with my trusty Ximian Evolution? I'd appreciate any first-hand pointers on feature comparisons or migration notes.
I've been using Evolution as my primary mail client both at home and at work. At the office, it handles my 2-3GB mailbox pretty well (it's slower than I'd like sometimes, when getting/indexing email). Virtual folders are a godsend, it's pretty good at composing, searching, etc.
I'm pretty happy, but not ecstatic, with Evo, but there are things I think could be done better (speedier, better spam control, some rendering bugs). Is Thunderbird what I've been waiting for?
That's what we wanted you to think! Haven't you been following the news, and seeing the antics of tovarisch Putin?
You're right. I have been trolled. Serves me right.
Oh well, another day another dollar.
8-)
Wolfe.
The parent poster specifically referred to the modern military. MOAB on yo'ass military. If Mr. Ashcroft or Rummy want in, your Winchester ain't gonna stop'em.
I wish it would, brotha, I wish it could.
Thousands of mortar rounds, thousands of RPGs and at least several thousand "well armed" militia met a sorry fate. Sure, it would be an entirely different conflict on every level, but it is not going to matter how much firepower your militia can muster.
Get over it.
Wolfe.
"Unices", according to The Jargon File, and a few other sources.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/Unix
HTH
Carlos VI, HRE
Uh, leaving aside the fact that "the mexicans" and "the native americans" are almost the same thing, I mentioned that the whole "Might Makes Right" argument is difficult and a hard one to discuss in a couple of paragraphs.
The area was part of the Aztec Empire, then the Viceroyalty of Mexico (part of the Spanish Empire). The people (those "native americans") living there, were citizens of the Empire - the ethnic cleansing was done by cowboys, not aztecs (who only wanted a few thousand for human sacrifices, but left the rest alone). Then both were enslaved (but not killed off or sent to reservations) by the Spaniards.
Sure, they were (more likely than not) annexed to the Empire through blood and conquest. Why was it OK then, but not now? (hard question! Don't dismiss). And if it wasn't OK then, would that make 1848 more justifiable?
Of course, conquest and bloodshed go back way longer. Was it OK for the Roman Empire? The Mongols? Hirohito in Manchuria? Who gets to say?
So, I'm making no moral judgement, merely presenting a factoid about Lincoln's alleged opinions.
When it comes down to it, is "I was born here" a good enough argument to base "this land is mine" on? The "native americans" warred amongst themselves too, and shifted borders - where they also the bad guys? How 'bout Israel? Are aborigenes the only ones entitled to a land? How about those of us with three citizenships and twelve different kinds of blood on our veins?
Seriously, it's a non-trivial issue. I'll shut up now.
In short, it's the practice of having people post "reviews" or "opinions" into usenet/forums/irc, that are actually paid adverts by the company.
From that page: This isn't like traditional spam, as it's not repetitive or obvious. Some attempts are made to make the posts appear 'genuine'.
Cheers,
Your Friendly Karma Whore.
I've read Lincoln himself said, "this is not war, this is armed robbery". I can't pinpoint the source at the moment, so take it with a grain of salt.
I'm not going into whether spoils of war are OK or not, and the "might makes right" argument. It's too complex for a couple of paragraphs. But at least many people (including scholars, historians and politicians on both sides of the border) consider the Mexican-American war as little more than the strong taking from the weak and saying "shut up or I'll take more".
Viva Mexico, cabrones.
Well, cannibalism should worry you (unless you are a robot or run real fast). Cannabilism, on the other hand, shouldn't - I don't think it's a real word, but if I had to assign it meaning, it would be "compulsive consumption of cannabis"...
8-)~
Kids these days... I wrote thousands of lines of code on these.
We did, dammit!
Wolfe.
Though neither combination is toddler-proof!
Life is tough.
Blah, blah.
1) This is trivial to refute, but let's say for the sake of argument that I only smoke in the privacy of my own home while wearing a deep-diving helmet.
2) Granted. I hope artificial replacement parts for other organs continue to appear, I have no problem with that. Quick detection should be easier as time passes (tricorder built into bathroom mirror, anyone?), and it will take quite a while to spread beyond chances to repair anyway.
My body, my choice.
8-)~
I'm a tobacco smoker, and have been for many years. Yeah, it's a filthy habit, and bad for you, and stinks and whatever, but I happen to enjoy it.
Lots of people tell me "you'll die of lung cancer!", to which my standard reply is "by the time I get lung cancer, I'll be able to buy new lungs at the seven-eleven!".
I have many other witty counterarguments, but the one people seem to like best (especially women) is "My Body, My Choice!"
But I'm glad to see I may be able to purchase those lungs at some point. Rather not have cancer, rather not quitting smoking either.
Life is good.
Wolfe.
Oh, nothing could be further from the truth! Sure, "leapfrog" chess is a handicap, where two guys alternate moving the white pieces, without any conversations among them. But if they are allowed to share, discuss and think together, the result is greater than either could have done individually, most of the time. It's called Consultation Chess, and it's rare, but not dead.
Andy Soltis (IM or GM, I forget), the writer of the "Chess to Enjoy" column of Chess Life magazine, wrote several columns about it long ago (compiled in "Karl Marx plays Chess", a wonderful book about the coolness of chess, not about how to play better). Including a game where the top ten soviet GMs of the 70s (IIRC) broke off in two teams and played a game, while locked in separate rooms (a gopher carrying the moves back and forth). It's one of the greatest games I've seen.
It's rare, but lots of fun, and produces masterpieces. I have no links, but google should be your friend. I think the book I mentioned is out of print, but PowellsBooks should have it.
I'll go back to lurking now...
About your duplicator example - yes, it will be a very hairy question when the time comes. I always found it interesting that Asimov, in his "The end of Eternity", mentioned a mass duplicator as "one of those things, like slavery, that just aren't supposed to exist - mankind cannot cope" (paraphrased from memory).
So yeah. I'd like one. The farmers will be pissed, but I want one - I'm just very afraid on how we'll handle it (human cloning is trivially easy in comparison, and see the debate and stupidity around it!).