What constitutes a "climate trend"? Climate scientists have been noticing "trends" since the 1970's. What we are observing today is what was predicted (overall) since then. Rachael Carson's predictions in "Silent Spring" are increasingly manifesting themselves every year. The time scales may be slightly different but the trend is certainly there. There is also a concept known as the "precautionary principle" in the world of science. When one is attempting to make predictions, especially with something as complex as the ecosystem, the wisest course of action is to "proceed with caution".
I for one could grant that a workplace should be apolitical. However, it's a substantial stretch to assert it should be amoral. The "amorality" of capitalism is one of it's inherent flaws. The only thing free-markets are currently premised upon is 1. Self-interest. 2. Some degree of regulation, because without oversight to ensure contract law etc. free-markets would be complete chaos. One the other hand, there have been countless instances of free-market fraud, cheats, manipulation, theft, etc. All because the self-interest motive is amoral. It seeks wealth and power "by any means necessary" regardless of cultural norms expected in other social spheres. Was it the junk bond trader Michael Milkin who once asserted, "greed is good"? Greed has become a sacred cow in western capitalism because self-interest trumps morals (unless you get caught breaking some law).
VR environments and technology unwittingly provides yet another avenue for technocrats, tech companies and advertisers to track and monitor individual behaviors and biometrics (such as reaction times, peripheral vision, atononomic reflexes, etc.). Which makes it easier to "predict" someone's actions. Having the means to predict responses and future behavior serves to enable those with money and/or power to control you and others. I for one believe anonymous others already have access to too much personal information. Match biometrics with DNA and you have a formula for a truly Orwellian world.
Being hawkish won't necessarily prove anything. Witness Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Argentina, etc. Armed conflict should always be a last resort because of the property and lives destroyed in the process.
It would be illogical to annex another area halfway around the globe. For one it's not defendable because of the proximity of other hostile countries (I.e. Russia). We'd be less successful than the Russians were when they invaded Afghanistan. Second, we'd be fighting the indigenous people as well. The reality of world politics is that (and the U.S. has proven) you can't project your power over the entire globe: it's just not practical.
The U.S. no longer has the wherewithal to be bossing around Russia and China. Russia for one has vast untapped natural resources within its own boundaries. Their military is larger than the U.S. and it's easier to *call up" troops in a country that has fewer freedoms as those in the West. Finally, Europe, having had numerous wars fought on their land, is weary of war and does not have the combined will to face up to the Russians. Europe gets a lot of its fuel from the Russians. The reality of the matter is this, thanks to Ronald Reagan and his capitalistic sycophants since the fall of the Berlin Wall have made Russia a much stronger world power and they'll do pretty much what they want. The West is declining and the East is rising. Grab your skivvies, it's going to be a rough ride.
Such assertions about the free market are untenable in the long run. Every historical civilization experienced crisis and dissolution as a result of many factors but one in particular has been the excessive allocation of resources without limit until *progress" ultimately undermined existence. The success of free-market cannot be ascertained on a short-term basis, at least the "western style" free-market. Sweden (for one) has a free market economy but is also very socialistic. Yet that does not impede their national ability to be creative, innovative and maintain a good standard of living for it's citizens. The "free-market" ideology is in an innocuous way undermining our very existence by virtue of polluting our fresh water, air and land resources (in addition to the global oceans). The "externalities" of the free-market are rarely accounted for. The fact that one can purchase ever increasing gadgets for one's own pleasure does not necessarily mean the human race is better off in the long run. Milton Freidman took his modern brand of "free-markets" to South America in the 1960's (and early 1970's) and every single attempt failed miserably at improving their standard of living. Unfettered free-markets is also amoral in the sense that capital markets rarely take into account for moral actions. Witness the externalities that corporations (and other business) pass on to the general public in the form of pollution and ever more questionable methods of extraction (Fracking, strip mining, off shore oil wells, Fukushima garbage on the beaches of Hawaii and California, etc.) Strict free-market economics rarely take into consideration its adverse effects.
I find that assertion very difficult to sustain when there are major political leaders (like Senator McCain, Feinstein, et Al) calling Snowden a "traitor". When you have so many wealthy and powerful individuals labeling Snowden as a traitor it is superbly implausible that Snowden would garner whistleblower status under our judicial system. Once the elites have scapegoated someone, the expectation of just treatment is ludicrous.
I'm not convinced intelligence has anything to do with it. I'd be more inclined to attribute motivation as the main ingredient in deciding whom to detain.
Although I agree it might be difficult to determine just what kind of punishment could be considered "cruel", one other important reason solitary confinement is utilized in the prison system is because the guards have been pushing for such measures. It makes their jobs easier. As to whether or not that is a "just" premise, well I have concerns about such an attitude. One important reason is the fact that it is NOT uncommon for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime. It's bad enough having your freedoms taken from you (as an innocent). I don't know about you but I'd be real pissed . And then to be thrown into solitary would be criminal in and of itself. Over two-hundred persons on death row over the past decade have been exonerated and set free. I hesitate to ponder how many in U.S. prisons and convicted of lesser crimes are in fact innocent.
In large part I'd have to agree, with perhaps one caveat. That being the government does care about it's citizens insofar as it can utilize them to its advantage. In other words, people are tools to be used for any project government authorizes. The USA can no longer honestly claim government "of, by and for the people" unless one wants to confuse government with "the people". As the power of government has increased over the past century, it has waged a very effective propaganda campaign that the US is "the greatest country in the world" and the ambassador of free societies. But that is merely a diversion for government's usurpation of control under the ruse of safety and national security. It's important to recognize that all totalitarian governments in history have utilized the same ideals and processes and Nazi Germany was one good example. The Nazi party used the "fer us or agin us" argument as part of Hitler's ascension to power.
The more powerful governments become the more protective they become of their influence and capabilities. Unfortunately, most Americans today are more than willing to sacrifice their privacy and liberties for a mere promise of (personal) security of which no government can guarantee at any given time or place. But it's a comforting delusion nonetheless. Kind of reminds me of theistic belief of which there are promises made but evidence strongly suggests there is no such thing (as life after death or intercessory prayer for two examples). It's also interesting to note how large numbers of Americans often draw correlations between their god and their government ("for god and government"). So, is government supplanting god? It also becomes all too apparent that Americans are getting "soft" from a character perspective as the evidence suggests for the very reason they expect government to protect as opposed to Americans assuming the responsibility for their own protection especially on a local scale. And finally, the US appears to be moving in the direction of western Europe (in particular Gr. Britain) which as no "constitution" or guarantee of civil liberties.
That's one problem with most people, they use "theory" synonymously with "hypothesis". They are not the same. A (scientific) theory is supported by certain facts and accepted by consensus. A hypothesis is as yet untested. Way to many people misuse the terms just like they most often misuse "faith" by equating it with "trust". It would greatly improve understanding if people had clear understandings of the terms they use (or misuse).
There's more to being a good parent than doing what only benefits your own child. Being a good parent includes creating a community for the benefit of everyone, which in the end benefits each individual. Parents abandoning the public school system only benefit your own child or an elitist sub-group of students. Parent should have the ability to "home school" if they choose. But that process should merely be an option via the local public school system. Meaning materials etc. are distributed via the local public schools. Not via some *for profit" (read "personal gain) enterprises. School vouchers are undermining not only local public schools but also dumbing down national public school systems by sucking valuable resources out of those educational systems. For what? The ability of a select group of parents to send their kids to elitist schools? Charter schools have the option of selecting who they want to educate. Public schools don't have that option. And privately run charter schools often require that parents be "engaged" in their children's educations. Public schools don't have the ability to demand the same. Their mandated to take any and all, where the parents are engaged or not. And that's why the public schools give the appearance of "failing". Parents have a sense of entitlement and feel ALL the educational responsibility falls upon the public schools and teachers. When the biggest problem is a vast majority of parents have abandoned their responsibilities to ensure their students are meeting educational standards. So, the problem with the public schools is the attitude on the part of parents in general.
Muslims want to take over the world in the footsteps of Christianity's crusades. There is always more than one side to an issue. For the past 300 years (and much before). Christian theology has had the objective of subduing and converting the rest of the world and has utilized capitalism as it's driving force. In the past 100 years, the West has had designs on the world's resources regardless of the interests of indigenous peoples. A perfect example was the (nearly) secret accord between the U.S. and the ruling Arab family for the U.S. to provide the ruling family "security" in exchange for dirt cheap oil. That was why gas prices in the U.S. up until the mid 70's was 75 cents while the rest of the western nations were paying three or four times the U.S. rates. It wasn't until Arabia was forced into OPEC by the other major oil producing middle east nations because of their opposition to the Six Day War. American military has even been used by international (originally U.S. based) corporations to force indigenous people off their land for access to free or nearly free oil in Africa, Indo-China, etc. Terrorism in large part has reached its breaking point as a result of U.S. (and Christian) hegemony over the past 100 years. Third world peoples are merely tired of the world serving U.S. and Western interests. Ironically, it was the U.S. who have trained the terrorists that now rebel. We backed Hussein because it was in our interests to (attempting) the defeat of Iran. Why? For the oil. We've done the same over and over in our own short-term interests. We trained bin Laden in the Afghani war against the Soviets. Why? Didn't want the Soviets to gain better access to middle east oil. We taught them how to fight us. And now we're angry because they've taken what we taught them how to do to declare their independence from U.S. hegemony? You may assert that terrorists had no moral right to act on 9-11. That a lot of innocent people were killed. But in a democracy, the citizens cannot claim ignorance or righteousness for the despicable things done by their government (and industries) in their name. Ultimately a free people are in fact responsible for the acts (good or bad) done by it's people. Don't criticize the outrage on the part of other cultures and nations until you've walked in their shoes.
The government in general believes the average american is either stupid or just plain gullible. Look at out secondary school math, science, history, etc. scores compared to other nations including those who are educated in communist china. Let's not forget the communist ideology still exists, particularly in china. They finally wised up to "capitalism" but have not (and are not to thus day) willing to abandon their communist political system. They still have the goal of conquering the world. Be it for the validation of the communist ideology or for global hegemony. They've just got smarter about how world domination is achieved, just watch the West. Money equals power. With powered comes domination. Why would china care if they undermine the western economies if their ultimate goal is ideological? To be able to claim they "defeated the west", regardless of how it's done makes no difference. Economically of militarily success is success. Look at how the U.S. bragged about defeating the "communist soviet union". It was one of Reagan's favorite claims. How was the soviets defeated? Financially. The Chinese are a little more "wise". They realized they could "allow" a freer economy while maintaining a communist power structure. What does debt mean to them if they are aiming for global domination in which they can call the shots as opposed to the U.S. Domination merely requires money and military. Whose the latest to land on the moon? Sure, the U.S. did it 30 some years ago, but then we abandoned space development (thanks to Nixon, Carter and Reagan). Why? Too costly. Well, whose got the money now? The Chinese have publicly stated they plan to put people on the moon. The moon has significant resource and strategic advantages. We don't have the money for it because the U.S. spends billions on "policing" the rest of the world. And the Chinese live us for it. They more resources they can "force" the U.S. to spend on global conflict, the fewer resources we can devote to space development. The U.S. doesn't even have the launch capabilities to put people into space. We have to pay the Russians millions of dollars every time they put one of our astronauts up to the International Space Station. Imagine that! The communist threat of past generations are now being paid by the "free world" to put humans into space. While the NSA spends billions on surveillance of everyone on the planet, for "national security". The real national security lies in self reliance and forward looking national goals.
I always thought the idea of "driving" was to get from one place to another quicker than walking, running or riding a bike. A couple years ago I went into the local Nissan to look for a new vehicle, in particular the Altima. I walked away from it mainly because it appeared to resemble the cockpit of an airliner. It had more gadgets, information displays,etc that I decided driving one had two distinct disadvantages. One being the technological distractions. The other was why pay for all that crap when it's not only a dangerous distraction but also useless crap. Who needs to know what the humidity is, what the name of the song on the radio is (HD radio), getting text messages on a display, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure there are those out there who have an addiction to information" and couldn't live without their phones, video games, and every available tech device that can be had. But in a situation in which "safety" is of prime importance, the fewer distractions from the road the better. Too many drivers, especially younger drivers can no longer distinguish between that is safe and what is unnecessary entertainment. Believe it or not, there are situations in which complete attention to the primary task is the thing that matters. And in operating a motor vehicle the task is getting from one place to another safely. The number of traffic accidents due to distracted driving (and excessive speed) has grown substantially over the past decade. No one ever believes something will happen to them... until it happens. Then it's too late. Common sense is something sadly lacking on the highways and all those tech gadgets only complicates things. Where does the self indulgence end and safety prevail?
A cursory review of human history provides adequate evidence that morality is relative to some other situation and is in constant change. If it weren't for the baser human instincts of mistrust, scapegoating, quest for power, wealth and status, the world would be a more idyllic place. Unfortunately our baser individual instincts often oppose what may be best for society overall. In the mean time we have to judge morality according to what actors do with certain tools and what provides relative stability to the cultures in which we occupy. There are no absolutes.
Slashdot Mirror
What constitutes a "climate trend"? Climate scientists have been noticing "trends" since the 1970's. What we are observing today is what was predicted (overall) since then. Rachael Carson's predictions in "Silent Spring" are increasingly manifesting themselves every year. The time scales may be slightly different but the trend is certainly there. There is also a concept known as the "precautionary principle" in the world of science. When one is attempting to make predictions, especially with something as complex as the ecosystem, the wisest course of action is to "proceed with caution".
I for one could grant that a workplace should be apolitical. However, it's a substantial stretch to assert it should be amoral. The "amorality" of capitalism is one of it's inherent flaws. The only thing free-markets are currently premised upon is 1. Self-interest. 2. Some degree of regulation, because without oversight to ensure contract law etc. free-markets would be complete chaos. One the other hand, there have been countless instances of free-market fraud, cheats, manipulation, theft, etc. All because the self-interest motive is amoral. It seeks wealth and power "by any means necessary" regardless of cultural norms expected in other social spheres. Was it the junk bond trader Michael Milkin who once asserted, "greed is good"? Greed has become a sacred cow in western capitalism because self-interest trumps morals (unless you get caught breaking some law).
VR environments and technology unwittingly provides yet another avenue for technocrats, tech companies and advertisers to track and monitor individual behaviors and biometrics (such as reaction times, peripheral vision, atononomic reflexes, etc.). Which makes it easier to "predict" someone's actions. Having the means to predict responses and future behavior serves to enable those with money and/or power to control you and others. I for one believe anonymous others already have access to too much personal information. Match biometrics with DNA and you have a formula for a truly Orwellian world.
Being hawkish won't necessarily prove anything. Witness Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Argentina, etc. Armed conflict should always be a last resort because of the property and lives destroyed in the process.
It would be illogical to annex another area halfway around the globe. For one it's not defendable because of the proximity of other hostile countries (I.e. Russia). We'd be less successful than the Russians were when they invaded Afghanistan. Second, we'd be fighting the indigenous people as well. The reality of world politics is that (and the U.S. has proven) you can't project your power over the entire globe: it's just not practical.
Agreeing and "doing" are two different things.
The U.S. no longer has the wherewithal to be bossing around Russia and China. Russia for one has vast untapped natural resources within its own boundaries. Their military is larger than the U.S. and it's easier to *call up" troops in a country that has fewer freedoms as those in the West. Finally, Europe, having had numerous wars fought on their land, is weary of war and does not have the combined will to face up to the Russians. Europe gets a lot of its fuel from the Russians. The reality of the matter is this, thanks to Ronald Reagan and his capitalistic sycophants since the fall of the Berlin Wall have made Russia a much stronger world power and they'll do pretty much what they want. The West is declining and the East is rising. Grab your skivvies, it's going to be a rough ride.
Such assertions about the free market are untenable in the long run. Every historical civilization experienced crisis and dissolution as a result of many factors but one in particular has been the excessive allocation of resources without limit until *progress" ultimately undermined existence. The success of free-market cannot be ascertained on a short-term basis, at least the "western style" free-market. Sweden (for one) has a free market economy but is also very socialistic. Yet that does not impede their national ability to be creative, innovative and maintain a good standard of living for it's citizens. The "free-market" ideology is in an innocuous way undermining our very existence by virtue of polluting our fresh water, air and land resources (in addition to the global oceans). The "externalities" of the free-market are rarely accounted for. The fact that one can purchase ever increasing gadgets for one's own pleasure does not necessarily mean the human race is better off in the long run. Milton Freidman took his modern brand of "free-markets" to South America in the 1960's (and early 1970's) and every single attempt failed miserably at improving their standard of living. Unfettered free-markets is also amoral in the sense that capital markets rarely take into account for moral actions. Witness the externalities that corporations (and other business) pass on to the general public in the form of pollution and ever more questionable methods of extraction (Fracking, strip mining, off shore oil wells, Fukushima garbage on the beaches of Hawaii and California, etc.) Strict free-market economics rarely take into consideration its adverse effects.
I find that assertion very difficult to sustain when there are major political leaders (like Senator McCain, Feinstein, et Al) calling Snowden a "traitor". When you have so many wealthy and powerful individuals labeling Snowden as a traitor it is superbly implausible that Snowden would garner whistleblower status under our judicial system. Once the elites have scapegoated someone, the expectation of just treatment is ludicrous.
I'm not convinced intelligence has anything to do with it. I'd be more inclined to attribute motivation as the main ingredient in deciding whom to detain.
Although I agree it might be difficult to determine just what kind of punishment could be considered "cruel", one other important reason solitary confinement is utilized in the prison system is because the guards have been pushing for such measures. It makes their jobs easier. As to whether or not that is a "just" premise, well I have concerns about such an attitude. One important reason is the fact that it is NOT uncommon for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime. It's bad enough having your freedoms taken from you (as an innocent). I don't know about you but I'd be real pissed . And then to be thrown into solitary would be criminal in and of itself. Over two-hundred persons on death row over the past decade have been exonerated and set free. I hesitate to ponder how many in U.S. prisons and convicted of lesser crimes are in fact innocent.
In large part I'd have to agree, with perhaps one caveat. That being the government does care about it's citizens insofar as it can utilize them to its advantage. In other words, people are tools to be used for any project government authorizes. The USA can no longer honestly claim government "of, by and for the people" unless one wants to confuse government with "the people". As the power of government has increased over the past century, it has waged a very effective propaganda campaign that the US is "the greatest country in the world" and the ambassador of free societies. But that is merely a diversion for government's usurpation of control under the ruse of safety and national security. It's important to recognize that all totalitarian governments in history have utilized the same ideals and processes and Nazi Germany was one good example. The Nazi party used the "fer us or agin us" argument as part of Hitler's ascension to power. The more powerful governments become the more protective they become of their influence and capabilities. Unfortunately, most Americans today are more than willing to sacrifice their privacy and liberties for a mere promise of (personal) security of which no government can guarantee at any given time or place. But it's a comforting delusion nonetheless. Kind of reminds me of theistic belief of which there are promises made but evidence strongly suggests there is no such thing (as life after death or intercessory prayer for two examples). It's also interesting to note how large numbers of Americans often draw correlations between their god and their government ("for god and government"). So, is government supplanting god? It also becomes all too apparent that Americans are getting "soft" from a character perspective as the evidence suggests for the very reason they expect government to protect as opposed to Americans assuming the responsibility for their own protection especially on a local scale. And finally, the US appears to be moving in the direction of western Europe (in particular Gr. Britain) which as no "constitution" or guarantee of civil liberties.
That's one problem with most people, they use "theory" synonymously with "hypothesis". They are not the same. A (scientific) theory is supported by certain facts and accepted by consensus. A hypothesis is as yet untested. Way to many people misuse the terms just like they most often misuse "faith" by equating it with "trust". It would greatly improve understanding if people had clear understandings of the terms they use (or misuse).
There's more to being a good parent than doing what only benefits your own child. Being a good parent includes creating a community for the benefit of everyone, which in the end benefits each individual. Parents abandoning the public school system only benefit your own child or an elitist sub-group of students. Parent should have the ability to "home school" if they choose. But that process should merely be an option via the local public school system. Meaning materials etc. are distributed via the local public schools. Not via some *for profit" (read "personal gain) enterprises. School vouchers are undermining not only local public schools but also dumbing down national public school systems by sucking valuable resources out of those educational systems. For what? The ability of a select group of parents to send their kids to elitist schools? Charter schools have the option of selecting who they want to educate. Public schools don't have that option. And privately run charter schools often require that parents be "engaged" in their children's educations. Public schools don't have the ability to demand the same. Their mandated to take any and all, where the parents are engaged or not. And that's why the public schools give the appearance of "failing". Parents have a sense of entitlement and feel ALL the educational responsibility falls upon the public schools and teachers. When the biggest problem is a vast majority of parents have abandoned their responsibilities to ensure their students are meeting educational standards. So, the problem with the public schools is the attitude on the part of parents in general.
Muslims want to take over the world in the footsteps of Christianity's crusades. There is always more than one side to an issue. For the past 300 years (and much before). Christian theology has had the objective of subduing and converting the rest of the world and has utilized capitalism as it's driving force. In the past 100 years, the West has had designs on the world's resources regardless of the interests of indigenous peoples. A perfect example was the (nearly) secret accord between the U.S. and the ruling Arab family for the U.S. to provide the ruling family "security" in exchange for dirt cheap oil. That was why gas prices in the U.S. up until the mid 70's was 75 cents while the rest of the western nations were paying three or four times the U.S. rates. It wasn't until Arabia was forced into OPEC by the other major oil producing middle east nations because of their opposition to the Six Day War. American military has even been used by international (originally U.S. based) corporations to force indigenous people off their land for access to free or nearly free oil in Africa, Indo-China, etc. Terrorism in large part has reached its breaking point as a result of U.S. (and Christian) hegemony over the past 100 years. Third world peoples are merely tired of the world serving U.S. and Western interests. Ironically, it was the U.S. who have trained the terrorists that now rebel. We backed Hussein because it was in our interests to (attempting) the defeat of Iran. Why? For the oil. We've done the same over and over in our own short-term interests. We trained bin Laden in the Afghani war against the Soviets. Why? Didn't want the Soviets to gain better access to middle east oil. We taught them how to fight us. And now we're angry because they've taken what we taught them how to do to declare their independence from U.S. hegemony? You may assert that terrorists had no moral right to act on 9-11. That a lot of innocent people were killed. But in a democracy, the citizens cannot claim ignorance or righteousness for the despicable things done by their government (and industries) in their name. Ultimately a free people are in fact responsible for the acts (good or bad) done by it's people. Don't criticize the outrage on the part of other cultures and nations until you've walked in their shoes.
The government in general believes the average american is either stupid or just plain gullible. Look at out secondary school math, science, history, etc. scores compared to other nations including those who are educated in communist china. Let's not forget the communist ideology still exists, particularly in china. They finally wised up to "capitalism" but have not (and are not to thus day) willing to abandon their communist political system. They still have the goal of conquering the world. Be it for the validation of the communist ideology or for global hegemony. They've just got smarter about how world domination is achieved, just watch the West. Money equals power. With powered comes domination. Why would china care if they undermine the western economies if their ultimate goal is ideological? To be able to claim they "defeated the west", regardless of how it's done makes no difference. Economically of militarily success is success. Look at how the U.S. bragged about defeating the "communist soviet union". It was one of Reagan's favorite claims. How was the soviets defeated? Financially. The Chinese are a little more "wise". They realized they could "allow" a freer economy while maintaining a communist power structure. What does debt mean to them if they are aiming for global domination in which they can call the shots as opposed to the U.S. Domination merely requires money and military. Whose the latest to land on the moon? Sure, the U.S. did it 30 some years ago, but then we abandoned space development (thanks to Nixon, Carter and Reagan). Why? Too costly. Well, whose got the money now? The Chinese have publicly stated they plan to put people on the moon. The moon has significant resource and strategic advantages. We don't have the money for it because the U.S. spends billions on "policing" the rest of the world. And the Chinese live us for it. They more resources they can "force" the U.S. to spend on global conflict, the fewer resources we can devote to space development. The U.S. doesn't even have the launch capabilities to put people into space. We have to pay the Russians millions of dollars every time they put one of our astronauts up to the International Space Station. Imagine that! The communist threat of past generations are now being paid by the "free world" to put humans into space. While the NSA spends billions on surveillance of everyone on the planet, for "national security". The real national security lies in self reliance and forward looking national goals.
I always thought the idea of "driving" was to get from one place to another quicker than walking, running or riding a bike. A couple years ago I went into the local Nissan to look for a new vehicle, in particular the Altima. I walked away from it mainly because it appeared to resemble the cockpit of an airliner. It had more gadgets, information displays,etc that I decided driving one had two distinct disadvantages. One being the technological distractions. The other was why pay for all that crap when it's not only a dangerous distraction but also useless crap. Who needs to know what the humidity is, what the name of the song on the radio is (HD radio), getting text messages on a display, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure there are those out there who have an addiction to information" and couldn't live without their phones, video games, and every available tech device that can be had. But in a situation in which "safety" is of prime importance, the fewer distractions from the road the better. Too many drivers, especially younger drivers can no longer distinguish between that is safe and what is unnecessary entertainment. Believe it or not, there are situations in which complete attention to the primary task is the thing that matters. And in operating a motor vehicle the task is getting from one place to another safely. The number of traffic accidents due to distracted driving (and excessive speed) has grown substantially over the past decade. No one ever believes something will happen to them ... until it happens. Then it's too late. Common sense is something sadly lacking on the highways and all those tech gadgets only complicates things. Where does the self indulgence end and safety prevail?
A cursory review of human history provides adequate evidence that morality is relative to some other situation and is in constant change. If it weren't for the baser human instincts of mistrust, scapegoating, quest for power, wealth and status, the world would be a more idyllic place. Unfortunately our baser individual instincts often oppose what may be best for society overall. In the mean time we have to judge morality according to what actors do with certain tools and what provides relative stability to the cultures in which we occupy. There are no absolutes.