Ask yourself which type gets eaten more often, and therefore whether fear or rationality has better survival value:)
I would say that fearful mice get eaten more often than non-fearful humans. Is that an apples and oranges comparison? Of course. Survivability is situational. What works for mice in a predator/prey situation probably won't work for humans in a civil society. Why should we hold on to the emotional reactions we inherited from our meek ancestors? Undoubtedly they served us well then. Do they now? I would argue, on the average, no.
And, in answer to your question, rationality does have a better survival value for humans, at least in societies I would like to live in.
The Litany against Fear is a pretty good guide: Fear is the mind-killer. Fear wipes the mind of rational thought. "Sometimes," you might say, "this is a good thing. Sometimes you need to act quickly." But I ask you, in our day and age, how often do those times come up, and how often is wiping your mind of rational thought useful? I'd argue that the drastic measures fear employs are rarely needed. And, if fear were eliminated, would be needed even less.
Besides, you can train yourself to act decisively without fear and with all of your mental facilities intact. Various martial arts do this well, as do other disciplines that teach self awareness. All it takes is mindfullness and awareness of one's surroundings.
I've got one thing to say about these kind of "math" analyses: GIGO. If your assumptions are garbage, a few + and - signs strewn about don't amount to much.
It's TIN foil hats, thank you very much. They work just FINE! Makes you wonder why there's only aluminum foil these days, huh? Not like the good OLD DAYS?
The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID.
Well, then, it's your responsibility to be your brother's keeper, isn't it? The folks pushing ID are, for the most part, fundamentalists like yourself. Why don't you go have a chat with them?
Any fundamentalist worth his salt could accept and refute these points merely by referring to the Old Testament:
(Disclaimer: I'm agonstic, so don't flame the shit out of me for being a fundie.)
Multiple Designers
In the Old Testament there were multiple gods. Ours came out on top. So, evolution produced multiple designs? So what? Our god won, so our god's design (i.e. Us) should get all of the spoils. Nicely justifies multiple designers and anti-environmentalism.
Flawed Designer
See above.
Lazy Designer
God rested on the seventh day, didn't he? And, besides, who are we to judge God's designs as flawed? Our purpose is to procliam God's glory and not to question the quality of his designs. Oh, and see above...
Considering how difficult it's been to get any disclosure about any lobbyist influence (Cheney's energy bill meetings come to mind, with the courts to back him up) I seriously doubt this would happen in our lifetimes. It's a nice thought, though.
Nobody has any "right" to have their opinion heard.
If I put a bullhorn up to your ear and shout in it, I have no right to have my opinion heard. You have a right to not listen, too.
The first amendment says that the government will not abridge my right to free speech. Are you saying that those who want to become the government (i.e. political candidates) DO have the right to shout me down? Candidates can be as dirty as they want while seeking office, but once they get into office they have to clean up their ways?
Because when we make a Conservative post as ourselves, we get flamed and our karma gets trashed...
Jesus, are all conservatives these days such quivering pussies? For christ's sake, man, stand up for yourself and don't be such a coward. Don't blame someone else because you're too chickenshit to speak your mind in public.
Great ideas, except for one key point: how would you enforce this?
It's probably impossible without totolitarian type tracking. Voluntary disclosure of meetings? Not likely. Mandatory RFID based tracking of people's movements and recording of conversations? Way not likely.
Releasing all information is meaningless if the information cannot be gathered. Garbage in, garbage out.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we need a new big predator :)
The chosen "big predator" at the moment seems to be international terrorism. Sex offenders and liberals seem to be competing for second place...
Ask yourself which type gets eaten more often, and therefore whether fear or rationality has better survival value :)
I would say that fearful mice get eaten more often than non-fearful humans. Is that an apples and oranges comparison? Of course. Survivability is situational. What works for mice in a predator/prey situation probably won't work for humans in a civil society. Why should we hold on to the emotional reactions we inherited from our meek ancestors? Undoubtedly they served us well then. Do they now? I would argue, on the average, no.
And, in answer to your question, rationality does have a better survival value for humans, at least in societies I would like to live in.
The Litany against Fear is a pretty good guide: Fear is the mind-killer. Fear wipes the mind of rational thought. "Sometimes," you might say, "this is a good thing. Sometimes you need to act quickly." But I ask you, in our day and age, how often do those times come up, and how often is wiping your mind of rational thought useful? I'd argue that the drastic measures fear employs are rarely needed. And, if fear were eliminated, would be needed even less.
Besides, you can train yourself to act decisively without fear and with all of your mental facilities intact. Various martial arts do this well, as do other disciplines that teach self awareness. All it takes is mindfullness and awareness of one's surroundings.
Prepare yourselves for horde: the bastard children of Jeff Gannon...
King Kong lived? Nope. Mighty Joe Young? Yep.
All you have to do to beat one is build an identical system but add a new processor or two...
Um...that's the impressive part...
I've got one thing to say about these kind of "math" analyses: GIGO. If your assumptions are garbage, a few + and - signs strewn about don't amount to much.
Terrorism isn't working anymore.
On to the next "we need big government to protect us" fear.
It's TIN foil hats, thank you very much. They work just FINE! Makes you wonder why there's only aluminum foil these days, huh? Not like the good OLD DAYS?
KINDA MAKES YOU WONDER!! YEAH!!!!
The lack of a stable interface is hampering adoption of Linux.
Fine. Let it be hampered.
I never understand those who would sacrifice "good" for "fast." You end up with neither.
Why would anyone use Java?
From now on? Just to piss you off.
The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID.
Well, then, it's your responsibility to be your brother's keeper, isn't it? The folks pushing ID are, for the most part, fundamentalists like yourself. Why don't you go have a chat with them?
Any fundamentalist worth his salt could accept and refute these points merely by referring to the Old Testament:
(Disclaimer: I'm agonstic, so don't flame the shit out of me for being a fundie.)
Multiple Designers
In the Old Testament there were multiple gods. Ours came out on top. So, evolution produced multiple designs? So what? Our god won, so our god's design (i.e. Us) should get all of the spoils. Nicely justifies multiple designers and anti-environmentalism.
Flawed Designer
See above.
Lazy Designer
God rested on the seventh day, didn't he? And, besides, who are we to judge God's designs as flawed? Our purpose is to procliam God's glory and not to question the quality of his designs. Oh, and see above...
Posted anonymously to avoid being modded as a troll ...
I love it. You post about personal responsibility, then refuse to be held personally responsible for the comment. Classic!
Which is easier: convincing a bunch of venture capitalists or a bunch of PhDs?
:)
Well, from experience, I'd have to say the VC's.
Slashdot comment, circa 1904:
"Okay, we have two choices:
a) A lowly patent clerk who can hardly support his family, let alone get a faculty position at a respected university, has revolutionized physics.
b) Yet another cheap fraud/error/delusion.
I'd be thrilled if Occam's razor was wrong this time around..."
I'm not saying they wouldn't be effective. They'd be great. It's just not going to happen any time soon.
Considering how difficult it's been to get any disclosure about any lobbyist influence (Cheney's energy bill meetings come to mind, with the courts to back him up) I seriously doubt this would happen in our lifetimes. It's a nice thought, though.
I suggest you ask Mr. Harrison Bergeron about it.
I suggest Mr Bergeron (and Mr Vonnegut) ask Mr Straw Man about it.
Nobody has any "right" to have their opinion heard.
If I put a bullhorn up to your ear and shout in it, I have no right to have my opinion heard. You have a right to not listen, too.
The first amendment says that the government will not abridge my right to free speech. Are you saying that those who want to become the government (i.e. political candidates) DO have the right to shout me down? Candidates can be as dirty as they want while seeking office, but once they get into office they have to clean up their ways?
Because when we make a Conservative post as ourselves, we get flamed and our karma gets trashed...
Jesus, are all conservatives these days such quivering pussies? For christ's sake, man, stand up for yourself and don't be such a coward. Don't blame someone else because you're too chickenshit to speak your mind in public.
Great ideas, except for one key point: how would you enforce this?
It's probably impossible without totolitarian type tracking. Voluntary disclosure of meetings? Not likely. Mandatory RFID based tracking of people's movements and recording of conversations? Way not likely.
Releasing all information is meaningless if the information cannot be gathered. Garbage in, garbage out.
About as coincidental as a minority keeping a low profile when the KKK is in town.
Goodwin called. He wants his ability for meta Hitlerian hyperbole back.
Ah, yes. Conservatives are so oppressed these days, aren't they?
I usually don't respond to AC's, but...
You obviously have no understanding of the phrase "signal to noise ratio."
Either that, or you're intentionally obsfucating.