it doesn't get warmer, it gets more violent. like... more tornadoes
the only silver lining in the current rash of tornadoes in the country's midsection is that the country's midsection is also home to more conservatives, who are more likely to doubt climate change gloom and doom
but with twisters bearing down on the usa's conservative areas, conservatives have no more reason to doubt climate fears, and a solid incentive to make sure the atmosphere is less violent, which means less warm, which means less CO2, which means changes in their politics
one can hope, at least, that the twisters are a wake up call for some about climate change. it doesn't mean balmy weather, it means atmospheric violence
you do realize that governments are made of human beings, just like you, and not some alien species. because you speak of govt as if they have some sort of money grubbing gene the rest of us don't have. no, there's nothing special about these thuggish regimes in the world like in iran. look in the mirror: everything you despise about government is inside you, inside all of us. government is us, all of our follies, writ large. when it succeeds, it is because of our best qualities, our common best qualities. when it fails, it is because of our own low qualities as well, just as common. there's nothing bizarre or exotic about govts in this world. these thuggish leaders wake up each morning and sit on a toilet, just like you. it may be a gold toilet, but that just means their ass is colder. don't exoticize power. it's really quite mundane when you get right down to it
all religions are simply whatever the believers make of it
christianity, in terms of how it is defined by the majority of its believers, was once just as silly as islam's current crop of hotheads. but christianity went through centuries of religious wars in europe, killing millions, over exactly the same silly stupid ideas about power and dominance that islam is now going through
islam will survive, but those who believe islam in the future will believe a form if islam that is very different from the islam that is now dominant. more tolerant muslims need to wait for the moron muslims to kill each other off, just like what happened in christianity in the wars of religion in europe a couple centuries ago
unfortunately, i see no other way around this problem except for the tribal chest thumping muslims to kill each other off by the millions, because this is what they most fervently want to do: "you don't believe like i believe!? then die!" and die they shall, since the way of such barbarity is pretty straightforward and ends pretty predictably. just ask the europeans, they know how the stupidity of militant religious fundamentalism plays out from their own history:
a country in charge of its own destiny is far superior to a govt backed by foreign powers, no matter what positive attributes you can attribute to the puppet regime
without self-determination, there is no validity in a govt, and it is therefore weak and living on borrowed time. this, of course, is an argument against the current govt as well, so we will see nothing but revolution after revolution in iran, and every other nondemocratic country, until real democracy gets there
the problem is, a revolution is under no one's control. there WERE voices for democracy in the 1979 revolution. they just got beat out by the religious nutjobs. no matter, this is temporary. all non-democratic govts are inherently unstable: the agenda of the ruling class and the agenda of the people naturally part ways over time, in any country, after every revolution. at the time of revolution, the will of the people and the government are one. then what happens? only a govt that frequently submits itself to the will of the people, ie, a democracy, is able to survive long term and have legitimacy in the eyes of its people, and therefore real stability
so iran is doomed to revolution after revolution, until democracy takes hold. then there is no need for revolutions. the same holds true for china, which is a real estate bubble away from the chinese people losing faith in the distracting power of economic growth, and cuba, which to it's leaders' credit is taking baby steps towards plurality, and every other nondemocracy: you are a regime living on borrowed time. pandemocracy is the fate of the world
IBM is not the picture of gold in middle age. IBM is the picture of gold in the elderly years. IBM's business acumen makes steve job's heroics look tiny
apple is a business. it is a not a shell of its former self, it is a roaring success
but i think you are speaking of apple in the religious sense. while the apple fanboy is an odd pitiable creature, oddballs like you probably kept apple afloat in the 90s. if you didn't do that, apple wouldn't have been around in the early 2000s to turn around and reach their current mass market popularity
so, thanks for that, apple fundamentalists, even though you can safely be forgotten and discarded now, your life support duties no longer necessary or welcome
begone, strange religious fundamentalists of the tech world
they cross breed and pollinate with each other, and therefore survive and prosper. when cultures wall themselves off in isolation, they wither and die. you can't preserve your country by locking it up. that's a recipe for obsolescence
iranian govt: you want persian minds to grow up in an echo chamber, unaware of the wider world. which simply means you want persian minds to be inferior minds. you are also extremely condescending and insulting to your own people: you don't think that they can handle exposure to other cultures. you think they will lose their persianness, as if iran is a weak thing that will go *POOF* at the first exposure to the decadent west. well, considering your street protests you brutally suppressed in 2009, you are close: the iranian GOVERNMENT is weak and will go *POOF* when it's people see how much better it is without your control freak nature at the helm. soon enough, you ignorant, arrogant assholes, your people will understand the problem is not the decadent west, but YOU
you would rather hobble your own people than liberalize the iranian government. all you do is hurt iran, just because you are insecure
you're the one who wants to obliterate how the natural world functions because it offends your infantile sensibilities that animals are cute cuddly things with feelings, so lions and boa constrictors have to be reprogrammed. to be cute and cuddly and not lions and boa constrictors
and i'm the psychopath?
the NATURAL WORLD buddy. you want to rewrite it. that makes you extremely ignorant and arrogant. and please don't lecture me on advances in human morality or human technology. that's not the natural world, fool
what next moron? outlaw disease because it kills cute rabbits?
to further the parallel, you would be asking bill gates to come back and somehow microsoft becomes a force that kills the cable giants and netflix as everyone moves to their boxes for television and movie content. and this is what microsoft becomes known for in the late 2010s
someone's going to converge the internet and the traditional cable company's market space, it could be microsoft. and then to complete the parallel to apple's story, windows 8 or 9 or 10 etc becomes a has been as Google OS takes over that space. or something like that
oh wait, didn't they just buy skype? there's another internet/ traditional phone company convergence story that hasn't played out yet. maybe that's what the minds at microsoft are hoping to do steve jobs style in terms of reinventing microsoft
could happen, who knows. or apple could master the telephone/ internet convergence or cable/ internet convergence. or google. who knows
And I remember this happening with other movies too, obscure science stories tangentially related to what's currently in the multiplex coming to the mass media front page. I don't think these occurrences are a matter of weird coincidences, nor do I think movie PR firms are investing in astronomy or marine archeology. To use a word I hate: it's synergy. But it's natural, without coordinated effort:
1. It works for the scientists: all the movie hype can be milked for some extra interest in Blackbeard's anchor while Blackbeard is in every suburban multiplex. 2. The news media source wins too: you're going to get a lot more clicks on your news story if it dovetails with what everyone is watching in the movies. 3. And I guess you can call it a little extra bang for your movie advertising buck, as it keeps interest in your movie humming along. 4. And the general public wins too, I guess, if watching Green Lantern or Pirates of the Caribbean sends one or two suburban kids down the path of science.
I don't think you're getting what you think you are asking for.
These are large crude parallels being drawn here: "Steve Jobs returned to Apple and saved it" is an interesting story, but Apple's story is certainly exceedingly unique.
Not many companies crawl back from hasbeens to dominance. Apple was a joke in the 1990s, a shell of its former '80s self. The natural arc is to go from dominance to hasbeen. This is Microsoft's fate. Google's. Facebook's. etc. Apple is the weird exception, not the rule, and I wouldn't let its experience try to teach us anything. It's like seeing someone hit the lottery and trying to figure out how they did and repeat that. No, Apple is a pretty unique story in technology and business. Microsoft can't find their Steve Jobs in Bill Gates.
"Humans suffer. Animals suffer. My morality seeks to minimize unnecessary suffering. The logic is very simple. There is no divide on this point, just sound logical consistency."
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."
"Actually, I'm absolutely repulsed by the suffering that occurs in nature, including that which is inflicted on animals by other animals. Ideally I would like to stop this suffering too. Currently however, the immense difficulty in achieving this makes it untenable, but I believe that in the future with further technological and other advancements it may become viable."
okaaay
the weight of reality, of hundreds of millions of years of natural reality. and you do not wish to learn from it. you wish to change it. you are a speck of dust that understands not one bit of the reality you live in, but you seek to reverse it, because it offends your simple-minded sense of "consistency"
you are an absurd, arrogant little bit of nothing, without the slightest understanding of your relation to the real world, and worse in your attitude towards it than the worst polluting, natural environment destroying selfish fool. at least he just wants to consume and not think about his consequences. you? you see the natural world, are offended by it because of your silly little infantile ignorant feelings, and therefore, you wish to destroy all of it! why? because are animals are cute and shouldn't cry. ha!
what an insufferable asshole you are
know the natural world for what it is. let it teach you the way of the world, reality. or crawl back to suburbia where animals are cute stuffed plush toys or coddled genetic derivatives of canines or felines or dancing happy feet or kung fu pandas or other farts of whimsy. and just please, coddled suburbanite: please shut the fuck up about that which you wish to remain ignorant of and yet still condemn
i saw a chick walking down the street once, she wore a shirt that read "animals are people too." the essential absurdity succinctly, yet laughably, seriously stated
that is the root of your problem. animals aren't human. across that divide, there is no argument you can make for extending human considerations onto nonhumans. it's just so absurd
why aren't you angry with lions? you do realize they start ripping and chewing into zebras in terror while they are still breathing? children? mothers? take the boa constrictor. it finds its prey. it squeezes. the creature dies in terror trying to breathe. all of your bullshit emotional resonance arguments above: why aren't you angry at the boa constrictor?
you and other rich westerners grow up in this artificial environment, disconnected form the simple truths of the natural world. and in this fantasy land, you derive all of these incredibly stupid ideas about animals and their nature
if you are an animal, it is possible or probable one day you will be eaten, and you will die in horror and terror. WELCOME TO REALITY, you coddled suburbanite
this is nature my friend. this is the way everywhere on the globe, on land and sea. it has been this way for hundreds of millions of years. this is the basis for our relationship with the natural world: food. you don't extend human morality onto the natural world. it's an absurdity
but no matter. you keep building castles in the sky, i will have lunch. tasty, meaty lunch. mmm
it's in belgium. the belgians were probably trying to crossbreed the potato and the waffle. the belgians are always doing dark science with waffles. who wants to eat a belgian potato frankenwaffle? not me. stop messing with the holy sanctity of the waffle you evil belgians!
although i do like your experiments with potato fries. have at the potato fry belgians, your science there is good
There's enough information on how Thailand's authorities view both the book and it's claims. Feeling sorry for him is like feeling sorry for the drug smugglers in a Bali prison, they knew the laws of the country, and if not, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
if i go in a bad neighborhood, and get beat up, yeah, maybe i'm an idiot. but that still doesn't change the fact that a neighborhood where people can go and get beat up for no reason is the primary problem
likewise, yeah, you should know the laws of the country you visit. but if some of those laws are fucking ignorant, such as this thai law, that's the REAL problem
so maybe i would shut up about the king before visiting thailand. but i certainly won't ever respect that law. nor should your thought on the subject end at "their country, their laws." no, fucking bullshit. if a country passes a law which grossly trangresses against basic human freedoms, i will say that law sucks and should be overturned, and until then, that country deserves less respect
If I jump out at you from the dark, you are afraid. This is ephemeral and without validity. If you see the guy driving the car in front of you on the highway start to drift to the side of the road, you are afraid. This fear is based on a rational reason to be afraid, for yourself and that sleepy driver.
Likewise, if I see pictures from a war torn part of the world, I feel empathic. This is based on my affinity and care for my fellow human beings. The feeling is not ephemeral, because it involves my relationship with other human beings, the basis for the human social fabric, our relative prosperity and peace, and everything else that describes my quality of life in this world, from the most crass materialism to the most transcendant spiritualism: my fellow human beings and their well-being and happiness, and my well-being and happiness: moral behavior.
I can see expressions of terror on the faces of animals too. The underlying emotion is real, just like the fear if I jump out at you from the dark. But just like that "boo!", the empathy is discarded as without merit, because it is directed at ANIMALS. You know, lunch. I can discern a face in terror. And? It's a fucking herbivore. It tastes good. It's happiness has no merit to me, it's taste on my tongue does.
You ask why should this empathy be discarded. I am asserting why should the empathy be respected. You seem to argue that because the emotion exists, that is all the validity it needs. I am saying that the emotion is real but that is only the one ingredient into whether or not it figures into a moral judgment. You seem dismissive of my appeal to reason, that that appeal is undergirded by some sort of emotion in me too. No, you are avoiding my point: without reason, there is no basis for any moral judgment, no matter the emotion involved. This entire conversation would be pointless without reason. There is nothing holding us together as a human society without it. Emotion is only part of it, not the whole, and not the only thing of import. Just because the emotion exists, it is not automatically morally valid. You have to agree that lots of ephemeral emotions are just pointless, and without deeper moral or logical value. I am saying that when it comes to your feeling for the suffering of animals to become my dinner, that that is a pointless and ephemeral empathy that is without moral weight, and you should discard it, but if you don't, I certainly will discard you as a hysteric whose emotions has overwhelmed your sense of reason.
i am certain that animals suffer to get on my dinner plate. my problem is understanding why an animal suffering is an issue
it must be a matter of empathy. i empathize with other human beings. i even empathize when an animal suffers. but this is an atavistic connection, not a moral or logical one. if someone jumps out at me and goes "boo!" i will jump, or if someone taps my knee i will reflexively kick. likewise, if an animal suffers, i will feel something
but this is just an empty reflex without moral meaning
something to be afraid of is something like nuclear terrorism. something not to be afraid of is the boogeyman in the closet. even though both forms of fear have the same emotional root, the higher mental faculties cut out the extraneous pointless sources of fear
likewise, to me it is a sort of infantilism to continue empathizing with animals in the same moral way one would empathize with another human being. let me ask you: do you empathize with the suffering of an animal more than a human? the same as? 1/10th? for me, it is zero. it is not a matter of me feeling nothing, it is a matter of my higher mental faculties discarding empty, invalid emotional stimulation
for me it is simply a matter of an extraneous childlike kneejerk response that must be dismissed, in the name of being an adult, rational human being. because we are talking about animals, not humans. we do not go "i am afraid of the dark, and that is all the rationale we need for making fear of the dark 100% valid." no, logically, as adults, we don't think like children, we rationalize why the fear is without merit
in the same way, that i feel for a dog's face or a goat suffering, does not justify the emotion on the simple merit of the emotion existing. no, the empathy logically has no merit- we're talking about dinner, not people, and so the atavistic impulse to feel something about it is real, but it does not result in any higher mental faculties being engaged. the emotion should be discarded
i suppose some people are emotionally wrought hysterics, and cannot dismiss their base emotions. these are silly people with random lives, being yanked from one emotion to the next, completely at the mercy of them. this is not someone i respect, and certainly not someone in any capacity to say something valid to me about morality. i am not at the mercy of the whims of my adrenal glands nor do i have a imbalances in my brain chemistry. i am a master of my emotions, not vice versa. on what basis am i to respect someone whose thoughts are simply derivative of the chemical weather of their brain, more impressionable to the face of a koala bear than logic and reason?
this doesn't mean i don't care about the fate of species. we are stewards of this planet, and must care for it. nor do i defend someone who finds pleasure in giving pain to living things, this is a dangerous individual that must be stopped
it simply means i eat meat, i am made to do so. do you suppose it is valid to reason with a lion why it should stop making zebras suffer? again, there is human morality, and natural morality, i am not confusing them, but natural morality dictates our relationship with our food, not human morality. there is nothing but folly in extending human morality to nonhuman realms of existence
i know what i am, and i am comfortable with the way that evolution made me. to me, when i see people concerned about eating meat, i see only infantilism and awkwardness with who and what they are. grow up
but i haven't seen many cheetahs mounting wildebeasts, or snakes getting it on with crocodiles. as such, if humanity says fucking other species is immoral, there's nothing in natural morality that contradicts that
which means that vegetarianism is just as indefensible as what i am saying
which means i can come over and murder you with a nailclipper, you have no argument with that
oh no wait, it means you're an idiot
morality is real, just as real as every other goddamn thing you can discuss in logical and coherent terms. additionally, a lion kills a zebra, an orca kills a seal, i eat a piece of bacon: in natural morality, all are acceptable or equivalent. in human morality, i cannot kill another human being unless in self-defense. who says? WE say. who the hell are we? human society, human civilization, bitch
and if you continue to think these moral statements have no meaning or weight, please shut up and let the adults speak and get back to us when you stop painting your fingernails black, stupid teenager
you didn't read my post. i specifically addressed the difference between natural morality and human morality
human morality governs our relationship with our fellow man
natural morality governs our relationship with the natural world
cognitive errors occur when you try to apply natural morality to social problems (social darwinism, for example, which obviously is pure evil)
or when you try to apply human morality to natural problems (like a chicken deserves the same respect as a your fellow human beings. no. it's just fucking lunch)
i think it's because i'm an omnivore. and i guess you missed my shpiel about your canine teeth in my top post
"No. Historically humans are vegetarians"
and what the hell do you say to that delusion?
from the inuit to the masai, from the butchered animal bones found at caves and archeological sites everywhere...
what do you say to someone completely deluded as to natural human history?
if you want to make the case for vegetarianism, that's fine. if you want to deny the full and obvious weight of history, all you do is undermine your own credibility, which means maybe your argument for vegetarianism is as unsound as your grasp on reality and natural history
that's a good argument about the teeth, evolution does have a lag period. well said
as for the sustainability of eating meat, that's more a function of there being too many humans. i think this problem will correct itself (disease or war), but that's another discussion. but mostly, pretty much all of our problems with sustainability: energy, food, climate change, etc., its really a function of too many people as the root of the problem, not anything else. you can make some amazing leaps of technology to give us a little breathing room, and we have over the past century, but eventually, more people are born, and all of your great advances in solar energy sources or growing wheat in the desert: rendered moot. the only really effective solution to sustainability is less people. all other solutions just buy you temporary time, and only put off the inevitable reckoning of just too many damn people
as for the rest of what you have written: there is human morality, and there is natural morality. natural morality governs our relationship with our planet. lack of sustainability for example. also: it's perfectly fine to eat meat
the problem comes when you confuse human morality with natural morality. for example, social darwinism: that we should treat our fellow humans in a struggle for survival or capital as cruelly as life on the savannah. no: human morality is separate, and takes precedence in how we govern our behavior to our fellow man
but another way to screw up human morality and natural morality is to start applying human morals to our relationship with other animals. bullshit
i saw a chick walking down the street the other day: "animals are people too." that just about sums up your nuttiness right there
there is human morality and there is natural morality. different things, for different domains of society/ life. don't mix the two up, or you wind up with some really stupid thoughts
Slashdot Mirror
it doesn't get warmer, it gets more violent. like... more tornadoes
the only silver lining in the current rash of tornadoes in the country's midsection is that the country's midsection is also home to more conservatives, who are more likely to doubt climate change gloom and doom
but with twisters bearing down on the usa's conservative areas, conservatives have no more reason to doubt climate fears, and a solid incentive to make sure the atmosphere is less violent, which means less warm, which means less CO2, which means changes in their politics
one can hope, at least, that the twisters are a wake up call for some about climate change. it doesn't mean balmy weather, it means atmospheric violence
you do realize that governments are made of human beings, just like you, and not some alien species. because you speak of govt as if they have some sort of money grubbing gene the rest of us don't have. no, there's nothing special about these thuggish regimes in the world like in iran. look in the mirror: everything you despise about government is inside you, inside all of us. government is us, all of our follies, writ large. when it succeeds, it is because of our best qualities, our common best qualities. when it fails, it is because of our own low qualities as well, just as common. there's nothing bizarre or exotic about govts in this world. these thuggish leaders wake up each morning and sit on a toilet, just like you. it may be a gold toilet, but that just means their ass is colder. don't exoticize power. it's really quite mundane when you get right down to it
all religions are simply whatever the believers make of it
christianity, in terms of how it is defined by the majority of its believers, was once just as silly as islam's current crop of hotheads. but christianity went through centuries of religious wars in europe, killing millions, over exactly the same silly stupid ideas about power and dominance that islam is now going through
islam will survive, but those who believe islam in the future will believe a form if islam that is very different from the islam that is now dominant. more tolerant muslims need to wait for the moron muslims to kill each other off, just like what happened in christianity in the wars of religion in europe a couple centuries ago
unfortunately, i see no other way around this problem except for the tribal chest thumping muslims to kill each other off by the millions, because this is what they most fervently want to do: "you don't believe like i believe!? then die!" and die they shall, since the way of such barbarity is pretty straightforward and ends pretty predictably. just ask the europeans, they know how the stupidity of militant religious fundamentalism plays out from their own history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
some become vampires, and feast on the living
uh, profit is success, for a business. i don't understand how you can talk about success or failure for a business without talking about profit
a country in charge of its own destiny is far superior to a govt backed by foreign powers, no matter what positive attributes you can attribute to the puppet regime
without self-determination, there is no validity in a govt, and it is therefore weak and living on borrowed time. this, of course, is an argument against the current govt as well, so we will see nothing but revolution after revolution in iran, and every other nondemocratic country, until real democracy gets there
the problem is, a revolution is under no one's control. there WERE voices for democracy in the 1979 revolution. they just got beat out by the religious nutjobs. no matter, this is temporary. all non-democratic govts are inherently unstable: the agenda of the ruling class and the agenda of the people naturally part ways over time, in any country, after every revolution. at the time of revolution, the will of the people and the government are one. then what happens? only a govt that frequently submits itself to the will of the people, ie, a democracy, is able to survive long term and have legitimacy in the eyes of its people, and therefore real stability
so iran is doomed to revolution after revolution, until democracy takes hold. then there is no need for revolutions. the same holds true for china, which is a real estate bubble away from the chinese people losing faith in the distracting power of economic growth, and cuba, which to it's leaders' credit is taking baby steps towards plurality, and every other nondemocracy: you are a regime living on borrowed time. pandemocracy is the fate of the world
IBM is not the picture of gold in middle age. IBM is the picture of gold in the elderly years. IBM's business acumen makes steve job's heroics look tiny
apple is a business. it is a not a shell of its former self, it is a roaring success
but i think you are speaking of apple in the religious sense. while the apple fanboy is an odd pitiable creature, oddballs like you probably kept apple afloat in the 90s. if you didn't do that, apple wouldn't have been around in the early 2000s to turn around and reach their current mass market popularity
so, thanks for that, apple fundamentalists, even though you can safely be forgotten and discarded now, your life support duties no longer necessary or welcome
begone, strange religious fundamentalists of the tech world
they cross breed and pollinate with each other, and therefore survive and prosper. when cultures wall themselves off in isolation, they wither and die. you can't preserve your country by locking it up. that's a recipe for obsolescence
iranian govt: you want persian minds to grow up in an echo chamber, unaware of the wider world. which simply means you want persian minds to be inferior minds. you are also extremely condescending and insulting to your own people: you don't think that they can handle exposure to other cultures. you think they will lose their persianness, as if iran is a weak thing that will go *POOF* at the first exposure to the decadent west. well, considering your street protests you brutally suppressed in 2009, you are close: the iranian GOVERNMENT is weak and will go *POOF* when it's people see how much better it is without your control freak nature at the helm. soon enough, you ignorant, arrogant assholes, your people will understand the problem is not the decadent west, but YOU
you would rather hobble your own people than liberalize the iranian government. all you do is hurt iran, just because you are insecure
long live iran: death to its feeble govt
you're the one who wants to obliterate how the natural world functions because it offends your infantile sensibilities that animals are cute cuddly things with feelings, so lions and boa constrictors have to be reprogrammed. to be cute and cuddly and not lions and boa constrictors
and i'm the psychopath?
the NATURAL WORLD buddy. you want to rewrite it. that makes you extremely ignorant and arrogant. and please don't lecture me on advances in human morality or human technology. that's not the natural world, fool
what next moron? outlaw disease because it kills cute rabbits?
to further the parallel, you would be asking bill gates to come back and somehow microsoft becomes a force that kills the cable giants and netflix as everyone moves to their boxes for television and movie content. and this is what microsoft becomes known for in the late 2010s
someone's going to converge the internet and the traditional cable company's market space, it could be microsoft. and then to complete the parallel to apple's story, windows 8 or 9 or 10 etc becomes a has been as Google OS takes over that space. or something like that
oh wait, didn't they just buy skype? there's another internet/ traditional phone company convergence story that hasn't played out yet. maybe that's what the minds at microsoft are hoping to do steve jobs style in terms of reinventing microsoft
could happen, who knows. or apple could master the telephone/ internet convergence or cable/ internet convergence. or google. who knows
No kidding.
When Pirate of the Caribbean 4 came out last week, with the new Blackbeard character, I saw this story:
http://www.google.com/search?q=blackbeard+anchor&tbm=nws
And I remember this happening with other movies too, obscure science stories tangentially related to what's currently in the multiplex coming to the mass media front page. I don't think these occurrences are a matter of weird coincidences, nor do I think movie PR firms are investing in astronomy or marine archeology. To use a word I hate: it's synergy. But it's natural, without coordinated effort:
1. It works for the scientists: all the movie hype can be milked for some extra interest in Blackbeard's anchor while Blackbeard is in every suburban multiplex.
2. The news media source wins too: you're going to get a lot more clicks on your news story if it dovetails with what everyone is watching in the movies.
3. And I guess you can call it a little extra bang for your movie advertising buck, as it keeps interest in your movie humming along.
4. And the general public wins too, I guess, if watching Green Lantern or Pirates of the Caribbean sends one or two suburban kids down the path of science.
I don't think you're getting what you think you are asking for.
These are large crude parallels being drawn here: "Steve Jobs returned to Apple and saved it" is an interesting story, but Apple's story is certainly exceedingly unique.
Not many companies crawl back from hasbeens to dominance. Apple was a joke in the 1990s, a shell of its former '80s self. The natural arc is to go from dominance to hasbeen. This is Microsoft's fate. Google's. Facebook's. etc. Apple is the weird exception, not the rule, and I wouldn't let its experience try to teach us anything. It's like seeing someone hit the lottery and trying to figure out how they did and repeat that. No, Apple is a pretty unique story in technology and business. Microsoft can't find their Steve Jobs in Bill Gates.
"Humans suffer. Animals suffer. My morality seeks to minimize unnecessary suffering. The logic is very simple. There is no divide on this point, just sound logical consistency."
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays:_First_Series/Self-Reliance
"Actually, I'm absolutely repulsed by the suffering that occurs in nature, including that which is inflicted on animals by other animals. Ideally I would like to stop this suffering too. Currently however, the immense difficulty in achieving this makes it untenable, but I believe that in the future with further technological and other advancements it may become viable."
okaaay
the weight of reality, of hundreds of millions of years of natural reality. and you do not wish to learn from it. you wish to change it. you are a speck of dust that understands not one bit of the reality you live in, but you seek to reverse it, because it offends your simple-minded sense of "consistency"
you are an absurd, arrogant little bit of nothing, without the slightest understanding of your relation to the real world, and worse in your attitude towards it than the worst polluting, natural environment destroying selfish fool. at least he just wants to consume and not think about his consequences. you? you see the natural world, are offended by it because of your silly little infantile ignorant feelings, and therefore, you wish to destroy all of it! why? because are animals are cute and shouldn't cry. ha!
what an insufferable asshole you are
know the natural world for what it is. let it teach you the way of the world, reality. or crawl back to suburbia where animals are cute stuffed plush toys or coddled genetic derivatives of canines or felines or dancing happy feet or kung fu pandas or other farts of whimsy. and just please, coddled suburbanite: please shut the fuck up about that which you wish to remain ignorant of and yet still condemn
you are an ignorant arrogant fool
i saw a chick walking down the street once, she wore a shirt that read "animals are people too." the essential absurdity succinctly, yet laughably, seriously stated
that is the root of your problem. animals aren't human. across that divide, there is no argument you can make for extending human considerations onto nonhumans. it's just so absurd
why aren't you angry with lions? you do realize they start ripping and chewing into zebras in terror while they are still breathing? children? mothers? take the boa constrictor. it finds its prey. it squeezes. the creature dies in terror trying to breathe. all of your bullshit emotional resonance arguments above: why aren't you angry at the boa constrictor?
you remind of this enthusiastic moron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell
you and other rich westerners grow up in this artificial environment, disconnected form the simple truths of the natural world. and in this fantasy land, you derive all of these incredibly stupid ideas about animals and their nature
if you are an animal, it is possible or probable one day you will be eaten, and you will die in horror and terror. WELCOME TO REALITY, you coddled suburbanite
this is nature my friend. this is the way everywhere on the globe, on land and sea. it has been this way for hundreds of millions of years. this is the basis for our relationship with the natural world: food. you don't extend human morality onto the natural world. it's an absurdity
but no matter. you keep building castles in the sky, i will have lunch. tasty, meaty lunch. mmm
it's in belgium. the belgians were probably trying to crossbreed the potato and the waffle. the belgians are always doing dark science with waffles. who wants to eat a belgian potato frankenwaffle? not me. stop messing with the holy sanctity of the waffle you evil belgians!
although i do like your experiments with potato fries. have at the potato fry belgians, your science there is good
There's enough information on how Thailand's authorities view both the book and it's claims. Feeling sorry for him is like feeling sorry for the drug smugglers in a Bali prison, they knew the laws of the country, and if not, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
if i go in a bad neighborhood, and get beat up, yeah, maybe i'm an idiot. but that still doesn't change the fact that a neighborhood where people can go and get beat up for no reason is the primary problem
likewise, yeah, you should know the laws of the country you visit. but if some of those laws are fucking ignorant, such as this thai law, that's the REAL problem
so maybe i would shut up about the king before visiting thailand. but i certainly won't ever respect that law. nor should your thought on the subject end at "their country, their laws." no, fucking bullshit. if a country passes a law which grossly trangresses against basic human freedoms, i will say that law sucks and should be overturned, and until then, that country deserves less respect
If I jump out at you from the dark, you are afraid. This is ephemeral and without validity. If you see the guy driving the car in front of you on the highway start to drift to the side of the road, you are afraid. This fear is based on a rational reason to be afraid, for yourself and that sleepy driver.
Likewise, if I see pictures from a war torn part of the world, I feel empathic. This is based on my affinity and care for my fellow human beings. The feeling is not ephemeral, because it involves my relationship with other human beings, the basis for the human social fabric, our relative prosperity and peace, and everything else that describes my quality of life in this world, from the most crass materialism to the most transcendant spiritualism: my fellow human beings and their well-being and happiness, and my well-being and happiness: moral behavior.
I can see expressions of terror on the faces of animals too. The underlying emotion is real, just like the fear if I jump out at you from the dark. But just like that "boo!", the empathy is discarded as without merit, because it is directed at ANIMALS. You know, lunch. I can discern a face in terror. And? It's a fucking herbivore. It tastes good. It's happiness has no merit to me, it's taste on my tongue does.
You ask why should this empathy be discarded. I am asserting why should the empathy be respected. You seem to argue that because the emotion exists, that is all the validity it needs. I am saying that the emotion is real but that is only the one ingredient into whether or not it figures into a moral judgment. You seem dismissive of my appeal to reason, that that appeal is undergirded by some sort of emotion in me too. No, you are avoiding my point: without reason, there is no basis for any moral judgment, no matter the emotion involved. This entire conversation would be pointless without reason. There is nothing holding us together as a human society without it. Emotion is only part of it, not the whole, and not the only thing of import. Just because the emotion exists, it is not automatically morally valid. You have to agree that lots of ephemeral emotions are just pointless, and without deeper moral or logical value. I am saying that when it comes to your feeling for the suffering of animals to become my dinner, that that is a pointless and ephemeral empathy that is without moral weight, and you should discard it, but if you don't, I certainly will discard you as a hysteric whose emotions has overwhelmed your sense of reason.
i am concerned with human suffering
i am certain that animals suffer to get on my dinner plate. my problem is understanding why an animal suffering is an issue
it must be a matter of empathy. i empathize with other human beings. i even empathize when an animal suffers. but this is an atavistic connection, not a moral or logical one. if someone jumps out at me and goes "boo!" i will jump, or if someone taps my knee i will reflexively kick. likewise, if an animal suffers, i will feel something
but this is just an empty reflex without moral meaning
something to be afraid of is something like nuclear terrorism. something not to be afraid of is the boogeyman in the closet. even though both forms of fear have the same emotional root, the higher mental faculties cut out the extraneous pointless sources of fear
likewise, to me it is a sort of infantilism to continue empathizing with animals in the same moral way one would empathize with another human being. let me ask you: do you empathize with the suffering of an animal more than a human? the same as? 1/10th? for me, it is zero. it is not a matter of me feeling nothing, it is a matter of my higher mental faculties discarding empty, invalid emotional stimulation
for me it is simply a matter of an extraneous childlike kneejerk response that must be dismissed, in the name of being an adult, rational human being. because we are talking about animals, not humans. we do not go "i am afraid of the dark, and that is all the rationale we need for making fear of the dark 100% valid." no, logically, as adults, we don't think like children, we rationalize why the fear is without merit
in the same way, that i feel for a dog's face or a goat suffering, does not justify the emotion on the simple merit of the emotion existing. no, the empathy logically has no merit- we're talking about dinner, not people, and so the atavistic impulse to feel something about it is real, but it does not result in any higher mental faculties being engaged. the emotion should be discarded
i suppose some people are emotionally wrought hysterics, and cannot dismiss their base emotions. these are silly people with random lives, being yanked from one emotion to the next, completely at the mercy of them. this is not someone i respect, and certainly not someone in any capacity to say something valid to me about morality. i am not at the mercy of the whims of my adrenal glands nor do i have a imbalances in my brain chemistry. i am a master of my emotions, not vice versa. on what basis am i to respect someone whose thoughts are simply derivative of the chemical weather of their brain, more impressionable to the face of a koala bear than logic and reason?
this doesn't mean i don't care about the fate of species. we are stewards of this planet, and must care for it. nor do i defend someone who finds pleasure in giving pain to living things, this is a dangerous individual that must be stopped
it simply means i eat meat, i am made to do so. do you suppose it is valid to reason with a lion why it should stop making zebras suffer? again, there is human morality, and natural morality, i am not confusing them, but natural morality dictates our relationship with our food, not human morality. there is nothing but folly in extending human morality to nonhuman realms of existence
i know what i am, and i am comfortable with the way that evolution made me. to me, when i see people concerned about eating meat, i see only infantilism and awkwardness with who and what they are. grow up
i can tell the difference between my fellow humans, and lunch
why can't you?
lions eat zebras, orcas eat seals, i eat bacon
eating other species is natural morality
but i haven't seen many cheetahs mounting wildebeasts, or snakes getting it on with crocodiles. as such, if humanity says fucking other species is immoral, there's nothing in natural morality that contradicts that
anything else i can help you with today?
which means that vegetarianism is just as indefensible as what i am saying
which means i can come over and murder you with a nailclipper, you have no argument with that
oh no wait, it means you're an idiot
morality is real, just as real as every other goddamn thing you can discuss in logical and coherent terms. additionally, a lion kills a zebra, an orca kills a seal, i eat a piece of bacon: in natural morality, all are acceptable or equivalent. in human morality, i cannot kill another human being unless in self-defense. who says? WE say. who the hell are we? human society, human civilization, bitch
and if you continue to think these moral statements have no meaning or weight, please shut up and let the adults speak and get back to us when you stop painting your fingernails black, stupid teenager
you didn't read my post. i specifically addressed the difference between natural morality and human morality
human morality governs our relationship with our fellow man
natural morality governs our relationship with the natural world
cognitive errors occur when you try to apply natural morality to social problems (social darwinism, for example, which obviously is pure evil)
or when you try to apply human morality to natural problems (like a chicken deserves the same respect as a your fellow human beings. no. it's just fucking lunch)
i think it's because i'm an omnivore. and i guess you missed my shpiel about your canine teeth in my top post
"No. Historically humans are vegetarians"
and what the hell do you say to that delusion?
from the inuit to the masai, from the butchered animal bones found at caves and archeological sites everywhere...
what do you say to someone completely deluded as to natural human history?
if you want to make the case for vegetarianism, that's fine. if you want to deny the full and obvious weight of history, all you do is undermine your own credibility, which means maybe your argument for vegetarianism is as unsound as your grasp on reality and natural history
that's a good argument about the teeth, evolution does have a lag period. well said
as for the sustainability of eating meat, that's more a function of there being too many humans. i think this problem will correct itself (disease or war), but that's another discussion. but mostly, pretty much all of our problems with sustainability: energy, food, climate change, etc., its really a function of too many people as the root of the problem, not anything else. you can make some amazing leaps of technology to give us a little breathing room, and we have over the past century, but eventually, more people are born, and all of your great advances in solar energy sources or growing wheat in the desert: rendered moot. the only really effective solution to sustainability is less people. all other solutions just buy you temporary time, and only put off the inevitable reckoning of just too many damn people
as for the rest of what you have written: there is human morality, and there is natural morality. natural morality governs our relationship with our planet. lack of sustainability for example. also: it's perfectly fine to eat meat
the problem comes when you confuse human morality with natural morality. for example, social darwinism: that we should treat our fellow humans in a struggle for survival or capital as cruelly as life on the savannah. no: human morality is separate, and takes precedence in how we govern our behavior to our fellow man
but another way to screw up human morality and natural morality is to start applying human morals to our relationship with other animals. bullshit
i saw a chick walking down the street the other day: "animals are people too." that just about sums up your nuttiness right there
there is human morality and there is natural morality. different things, for different domains of society/ life. don't mix the two up, or you wind up with some really stupid thoughts