"...I've never used a cell phone in my life and have no intention of ever buying one. There are pay-phones on almost every corner everywhere in the world."
So what you're really saying then is that you're the only person on the whole planet?
i hope it doesnt land on a planet full of silicon based life forms and return in the future with a different name and a no-nonsense attitude... what would its name be? pieer? pie? ponee?
Based on purely linguistic analysis considerations, the name would be "peener", but I don't know of any actor who could pull that one off with a straight face.
Brin's heroes are the very definition of fuedalism. ALL his heroes are the "Best of Breed"
The dolphins in sundiver, the chimps in uplift, etc. ONLY the best and brightest are allowed
off-planet and reproductive privledges.
[...]
Sure the humans and their clients rail about the "injustice" of the system, but to the characters in the book it is more of an intellectual injustice because they have PASSED the test. You don't hear these upstanding examples fighting for the rights of the Probies. Quite the contrary. The probies are reviled, and portrayed as convenient villians blocking the progress of the race as a whole.
The question really raised here is, "is it racism if it's true?". The Probationers are proven to be violent. The chimps are provably genetically improved with each generation. Our modern egalitarianism is based on the truth, held to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. On the real Earth that is true.
In Brin's world, this is not true . The idea of genetically superior (smarter, more psi power, whatever) folks genetically tinkering with pre-sentients to make them better is the central macguffin of his story. He makes an interesting play out of it. Worth reading, btw.
both on and *off* the web that I'm not about to start worrying about it now. More to the point, I 've said a good deal that a prospective date or employer will take offense at that *I don't regret at all.*
[...]
I'm dead serious and I'm not about to go about my life worrying about what some future unnamed and unknowable personage is going to think about me because of something I believed or said once upon a time.
Just worth noting here... if you're a young idealist planning to go into politics, avoid the Internet like the plague. That is, be very wary of what you post to Usenet, blogs, slashdot, etc. One "funny" "joke" could torpedo you forever.
We pause here to note that Google's ranking algorithm is popularity based. You're looking for the girl that has been "linked" the most. Jesus, dude, why not just read the bathroom walls?
</aghast>
I note you don't have any problem teaching them about the scientific method, or "freedom of (lots of things)", which are just as much a cultural construct as Christianity, and whose adoption would change their society. It seems your objection is not so much to changing the natives' society, as teaching them Christianity.
Science is not a cultural construct and comparing it to the blind-faith that is Christianity debases it. Teaching primitive cultures about medicine, food safety, irrigation, and so forth improves their lives. Teaching them about Christianity denigrates their religious belief systems for no valid purpose.
Do be aware of your own biases. The scientific method is an invention. The idea of "1/2 proof + 1/2 proof = zero proof" (gauss who said that?) came very late in history. The idea of "radical doubt" is a recent invention. You are trying to press your rational atheism on these people just as much as I'm trying to push my own religion on them.
Hopefully, they (random tribesmen) will enjoy the material improvements to life that Westernity has to offer until we finish arguing over philosophy...;)
I doubt that in '97 the agreement I actually clicked "I Agree" on says that I agree to bend over and get fucked in the ass by any affilate Yahoo ever decides to every do any sort of marketing arangement with.
Dude, you didn't read it too carefully then. Hark:
NO LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall Yahoo! or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use thE software product, even if Yahoo (WHO, INCIDENTALLY, RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE YOU BEND OVER AND GET FUCKED IN THE ASS BY ANY AFFILIATE YAHOO EVER DECIDES TO EVER DO ANY SORT OF MARKETING AGREEMENT WITH) has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Because some states and jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, the above limitation may not apply.
[... Trek sucking...] It's like watching your favorite sports team. They have good years and bad years, but you still watch for the fun and excitement
You Trek guys are a bunch of lightweights. My beloved Celtics haven't won the championship for seventeen long years, and I haven't given up hope. Trek releases 10 movies of which +/- 7 suck and you guys are despairing?
Doubtless they'll take the parts they like, and skip the rest. What's wrong with that?
I don't know why you think that they will "skip" anything. Think about this hypothetical situation: Primitive villagers are confronted by people exiting a helicopter carrying walkie-talkies, radios, and computers. The people teach the primitive villagers about irrigation, treating wounds, safely storing food, etc. In with all this, presented as fact, is that there is a "God" that is invisible, all-powerful, created man, and that does battle with Satan. You know the story. The primitive villagers are going to accept that the wise and powerful westerners that arrived there know that this God exists -- probably without question. It's the same phenomenon that allows parents to convince children that Santa Claus exists.
Well... here's the thing. This scenario has been played out many times, especially in Africa. Native cultures do adapt and survive, and they do end up taking what they want of modernity/westernity. There are still scads of traditional religions in Africa (their adherents are referred to in the news as "animists"), coexisting more or less uneasily with Islam and Christianity. I don't think you're giving these guys enough credit; they are NOT children, they are quite as smart as you or me. If they are not coerced, some of them may convert, and some will not.
(Sigh) I note you don't have any problem teaching them about the scientific method, or "freedom of (lots of things)", which are just as much a cultural construct as Christianity, and whose adoption would change their society. It seems your objection is not so much to changing the natives' society, as teaching them Christianity. Once you concede you want to change their society, the rest is just a matter of taste, isn't it? My mision civilatrice will include free Bibles, yours likely won't.
Why is the world poorer for the loss of cultural diversity? Are you worried about a particular dance no longer being performed? The loss of some pagan religion? The loss of a language (I'll admit, as a linguist that one gives me the heebie-jeebies)? The loss of wearing loincloths?
I am worried about all of that. And I am worried about the loss of history. Oral traditions tell us much about a culture. When those oral traditions are abandoned because missionaries have "taught" the "Word of God", that's a horrible loss. Yes, I'm worried about dances, religions, languages, and native garb being tossed aside.
Imagine National Geographic if every person they profiled was basically the same.
Let's be careful here... are you in favor of preserving culture for their sake, or for yours? What's it to you that they become Christian, or do the Tango instead of (insert-native-dance)? Is this just voyeurism at work?
(As a side note, it is not Christianity that will destroy the locals' oral tradition, but literacy. But I don't want to go there now.)
I find it interesting to note your use of the terms "some pagan religion" and "loincloths" rather than simply "their religion" and "native clothing." Were those terms meant to be pejoritive, either consciously or subconsciously?
Loincloths were cited in the original article. Actually, fairly sensible for the climate of the Amazon, if you don't have modern-weave "breathable" clothing.
And "some pagan religion" means just that... pagan means non-Christian. "Heathen" is a pejorative.;) I find it equally... odd... that you seem happy that the natives keep any religion *but* Christianity; it sounds like you have some particular animus against that religion.... Interestingly, this little disagreement of ours does speak to the fact that "Western Culture" is not so monolithic as at first glance.
Because it supplants the tribe's own belief systems, losing that part of their culture and making the world poorer for the loss. You may feel that teaching primitive, innocent people to feel shame about their own bodies is good. I, and others, do not.
What about teaching them to read? Are you against that too?
What really saddens me is that you, presumably a Westerner, seem to believe that all cultures are equally valid, and that the only reason you have the ideals and lifestyle you have is that you were born here (for some value of here).
I like to think that universal literacy, the scientific method, freedom of (lots of things), not getting shot with arrows, etc, are great things, not just my particular tribal taboos. I am genuinely sad for people who don't have these things, and would like to offer them the benefits of our culture.
They don't have to accept, that's certainly their right, but I think they'll be silly to turn down the things the West has to offer. Doubtless they'll take the parts they like, and skip the rest. What's wrong with that?
One more thing here, and I want a sincere answer. Why is the world poorer for the loss of cultural diversity? Are you worried about a particular dance no longer being performed? The loss of some pagan religion? The loss of a language (I'll admit, as a linguist that one gives me the heebie-jeebies)? The loss of wearing loincloths? Please tell.
The point is that an otherwise prospering culture has been given the shiny beads treatment. A couple simple rules to life: Diversity = good, Homogenity = death.
How insultingly patronizing can you get? The Wai Wai are just as intelligent as we are; they are capable of picking parts of Western culture they want to adopt, and leaving the rest behind. Just like the Japanese. Hell, just like the West.
Would you be so concerned if some people in, say, California became Buddhist? Aren't you sad that they've been hoodwinked by the mysteries of the East, and their diversity reduced? Give it a break.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that "all cultures are equal" and should be cherished equally. Forget it. These people's precious culture didn't invent writing for them, or medicine, or clothing, or Christianity, but guess what? They like all that stuff. They want it. Don't ghettoize these poor folks into a nice little illiterate culture zoo just so you can be happy that "diversity is being protected". Fuck that. I say offer every last fucking tribe on Earth a refrigerator, some good shoes with arch support, and a writing system if they don't have one.
Stop treating the Wai Wai as children that you have to protect from our poisonous culture. Give them the respect and dignity that they deserve, and let them make their own choices.
One last thing... you say "Diversity = good, Homogenity = death". Please clarify. I understand how that works out in agriculture, or heck, even population genetics, but I don't see the relevance to cultural choices. Not trying to troll here, I'm trying to understand what you're getting at.
Lets face it, we're still dependent upon the 7 "low-tech" discoveries/inventions of the Neanderthals
I don't know if the Neandies had this one, but the sine-qua-non of our existence that didn't make your list is:
CONTAINERS!
Yes, the lowly BAG. Hunting and gathering really, really sucked when you had to jam those tubers up your ass in order to free your hands to pick more.
The mighty BAG made it possible to carry your stuff around. Unfortunately, it made warfare and plunder possible, as it made it possible for other people to carry your stuff around, too.;)
Forget this fancy-schmancy "fire" stuff. BAG all the way!
Mac users are all one big team, wonderful. But some of the lines in the article puzzle me: "It's hard to sleep comfortably knowing some asshole has your Mac and is doing god knows what with it."
Was it easier for him to sleep when he thought the cashier's check was good?
If some jerk hadn't stolen his money maybe the poor guy could've, I dunno, bought some sleeping pills!
Everyone in this thread seems to be agreed that illicit distribution of resources can, in the long run, increase exposure, increase desire, and stir up future business. You can't sell something that nobody knows about.
Fortunately, there are still some of us left with an "outdated morality model".;) I *really* doubt that software pirates are thinking "hey, I'm generating some network effect for AutoCAD, w00t!". They're thinking, "I can get this n33t program without paying for it, w00t!".
In short, if a company deliberately distributes its stuff, or a version thereof, for free, that's one thing. If people pirate programs that the author/publisher wants sold, that's theft and any good effect from this is entirely coincidental to the pirates' main goal, which is to get stuff free.
What happened to honor? Isn't anyone ashamed anymore?
"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers."
This from a man who died in 339 B.C. Every generation subsequent has had the same complaint. Thus our civilization has been in a moral decline for the past 2341 years.
I believe Socrates also complained about how his 20 year old bronze spear was just fine, dammit, as opposed to these cheap Phrygian imports.
I'm serious. These guys seem to be missing the point entirely.
The Founding Dads didn't give a hoot about hunting deer, or stopping muggers. These guys were a bunch of fire-eyed revolutionaries who had just won a war against their own government, in part because everyone had an "assault rifle" in his house.
what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers
are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit
of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right
as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives
lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its
natural manure.
The impression I get is that they wanted to preserve for their children the same deal they got -- you don't like the gov't, and are sufficiently motivated, and all your friends agree; revolve! Er, revolute! Well, you get the point.
The part about the 'well-regulated militia' makes me wonder if they'd intended this to be one or more states fighting against the federal gov't (doh). But the documentary evidence seems to support the idea that stopping street crime has very little to do with the 2nd amendment.
Neither the Brady crowd or the NRA crowd seem willing to say these things aloud. I want to see this argued in front of the Supremes: right up front, does the 2nd Amendment forbid all gun control laws or not? Does the 2nd actually require ("well-regulated militia") all gun-owners to register their guns and themselves? Stop tap-dancing around the issue!
I do wish the TV stations would provide their own XML-based listings (SOAP?) - it'd certainly be in their best interests.
Clearly they don't think so. They probably like being able to force people to go to their website and view their ads, etc. I may be missing something, but really, what's in it for TV Guide (et al) to provide that data in nice format for free? I know they currently sell that feed for money.
Actually, while our design is very complicated, there are many ways in which it doesn't seem particularly intelligent
Now a lot of people say this, or something much like it, at the drop of a hat. I'd like to drill deeper.
Let's second-guess the work of the Design Firm of God & Son, just as a thought experiment. What would you change?
I'll toss out a few, just for starters:
-- No appendix! Never heard a good word about it.
-- How about a little chlorophyll in the skin, so we have to eat less, and can hold our breath underwater longer.
Slashdot Mirror
In Brin's world, this is not true . The idea of genetically superior (smarter, more psi power, whatever) folks genetically tinkering with pre-sentients to make them better is the central macguffin of his story. He makes an interesting play out of it. Worth reading, btw.
We pause here to note that Google's ranking algorithm is popularity based. You're looking for the girl that has been "linked" the most. Jesus, dude, why not just read the bathroom walls?
</aghast>
Hopefully, they (random tribesmen) will enjoy the material improvements to life that Westernity has to offer until we finish arguing over philosophy...
For God's sake man, don't you read?
Whoops ... I meant to post that under my own name. Ah well.
Please.
(Sigh) I note you don't have any problem teaching them about the scientific method, or "freedom of (lots of things)", which are just as much a cultural construct as Christianity, and whose adoption would change their society. It seems your objection is not so much to changing the natives' society, as teaching them Christianity. Once you concede you want to change their society, the rest is just a matter of taste, isn't it? My mision civilatrice will include free Bibles, yours likely won't. Let's be careful here
(As a side note, it is not Christianity that will destroy the locals' oral tradition, but literacy. But I don't want to go there now.) Loincloths were cited in the original article. Actually, fairly sensible for the climate of the Amazon, if you don't have modern-weave "breathable" clothing.
And "some pagan religion" means just that
What really saddens me is that you, presumably a Westerner, seem to believe that all cultures are equally valid, and that the only reason you have the ideals and lifestyle you have is that you were born here (for some value of here).
I like to think that universal literacy, the scientific method, freedom of (lots of things), not getting shot with arrows, etc, are great things, not just my particular tribal taboos. I am genuinely sad for people who don't have these things, and would like to offer them the benefits of our culture.
They don't have to accept, that's certainly their right, but I think they'll be silly to turn down the things the West has to offer. Doubtless they'll take the parts they like, and skip the rest. What's wrong with that?
One more thing here, and I want a sincere answer. Why is the world poorer for the loss of cultural diversity? Are you worried about a particular dance no longer being performed? The loss of some pagan religion? The loss of a language (I'll admit, as a linguist that one gives me the heebie-jeebies)? The loss of wearing loincloths? Please tell.
Would you be so concerned if some people in, say, California became Buddhist? Aren't you sad that they've been hoodwinked by the mysteries of the East, and their diversity reduced? Give it a break.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that "all cultures are equal" and should be cherished equally. Forget it. These people's precious culture didn't invent writing for them, or medicine, or clothing, or Christianity, but guess what? They like all that stuff. They want it. Don't ghettoize these poor folks into a nice little illiterate culture zoo just so you can be happy that "diversity is being protected". Fuck that. I say offer every last fucking tribe on Earth a refrigerator, some good shoes with arch support, and a writing system if they don't have one.
Stop treating the Wai Wai as children that you have to protect from our poisonous culture. Give them the respect and dignity that they deserve, and let them make their own choices.
One last thing... you say "Diversity = good, Homogenity = death". Please clarify. I understand how that works out in agriculture, or heck, even population genetics, but I don't see the relevance to cultural choices. Not trying to troll here, I'm trying to understand what you're getting at.
CONTAINERS!
Yes, the lowly BAG. Hunting and gathering really, really sucked when you had to jam those tubers up your ass in order to free your hands to pick more.
The mighty BAG made it possible to carry your stuff around. Unfortunately, it made warfare and plunder possible, as it made it possible for other people to carry your stuff around, too.
Forget this fancy-schmancy "fire" stuff. BAG all the way!
In short, if a company deliberately distributes its stuff, or a version thereof, for free, that's one thing. If people pirate programs that the author/publisher wants sold, that's theft and any good effect from this is entirely coincidental to the pirates' main goal, which is to get stuff free.
What happened to honor? Isn't anyone ashamed anymore?
I believe Socrates also complained about how his 20 year old bronze spear was just fine, dammit, as opposed to these cheap Phrygian imports.
Didn't he also say, "Plus c'a change..."
X-Windows P!
The Founding Dads didn't give a hoot about hunting deer, or stopping muggers. These guys were a bunch of fire-eyed revolutionaries who had just won a war against their own government, in part because everyone had an "assault rifle" in his house.
To quote the Big J: The impression I get is that they wanted to preserve for their children the same deal they got -- you don't like the gov't, and are sufficiently motivated, and all your friends agree; revolve! Er, revolute! Well, you get the point.
The part about the 'well-regulated militia' makes me wonder if they'd intended this to be one or more states fighting against the federal gov't (doh). But the documentary evidence seems to support the idea that stopping street crime has very little to do with the 2nd amendment.
Neither the Brady crowd or the NRA crowd seem willing to say these things aloud. I want to see this argued in front of the Supremes: right up front, does the 2nd Amendment forbid all gun control laws or not? Does the 2nd actually require ("well-regulated militia") all gun-owners to register their guns and themselves? Stop tap-dancing around the issue!
Let's second-guess the work of the Design Firm of God & Son, just as a thought experiment. What would you change?
I'll toss out a few, just for starters:
-- No appendix! Never heard a good word about it.
-- How about a little chlorophyll in the skin, so we have to eat less, and can hold our breath underwater longer.