Sounds like this may be arguable. The grandparent's argument really applies much more to Vietnam. The kill ratios were similar, and it definitely wasn't anything remotely like a victory.
And we all know that Saddam heartily approved of Al-Qaeda's WTC attacks.
So now people should be attacked for their opinions? Just because he approved of it, doesn't mean he had anything to do with it. Sorry, I know it is terrible to approve of mass murder, but an opinion, however unsavory, is not (yet, at least) a crime.
As long as we successfully hand over the Iraq to the planned Iraqi government, we won.
Does it still count as a victory at that point if the new govenment is not democratic? Does it still count as a victory if US troops keep dying? Or is it just going to be good for another carrier-deck photo op?
To me, this post in and of itself answers the question of whether or not this sort of thing is cool. It isn't, and belongs to a whole category of uncool things the FBI has been doing since the days of Hoover. Very interesting.
it is not a normal request and deserves some followup
Ah, but the question is, does all abnormal activity deserve followup? You assume that it does. But it seems to me that this is so incredibly unlikely to be a threat, that there are probably hundreds of other things those agents could have been doing which would have been much more productive.
If you want the FBI to investigate every time someone does something abnormal, you'd better be prepared for some serious budget hikes.
And your assumption here is that UNI students would never do anything as radical as a bombing in their own Univeristy?
I don' t think the grandparent is assuming that at all. The point is not that a student would never bomb their own University, but that this in itself is not terribly suspicious activity. It's not about race or class, it's about what level of suspicious activity constitutes a threat.
If you walk by your house and see someone in a car with a manual to your security system on the dash and notice that blueprints to your house are on their seat do you do nothing?
But you see, this activity you describe is far more suspicious than researching your school's tunnel system. The question is not whether the government has a right to investigate suspicious activity. Clearly they do. The question is, at what point do you consider an activity suspicious enough to investigate?
However, the really insightful part of the mad poster's original point is that this is one of those waste-of-time PR type of things. If someone really wanted to bomb the school, would this investigation stop them? Probably not. Was there any really good reason to consider this a threat? Probably not. Were there other things that those agents could have been doing which would have been much more effective at keeping us safe? Probably.
You too have many excellent points, WNight. I'm sorry, I was misunderestimating you. (I love that word. Dubya claims he's "not one of the great linguists," but I think he's misunderestimating himself. His mistakes often give rise to accidentally brilliant words, and this is one of them.) Provided you can ensure that it is only used for good purposes, then of course any technology is good. Now, I don't think I ever said that I think genetic engineering should be illegal. I just think it's a bad idea, even using it for supposedly good purposes, because how can you know for sure what good purposes are? What if you're wrong? We don't really understand genetics or evolution all that well yet. Perhaps someday we will. But it is dangerous to tinker with that which you don't understand. Of course, we always do it anyway, and in a way that's kind of cool. But anyway, there is a difference between thinking something is a bad idea and thinking it should be illegal. I feel the same way about heroin, cocaine, Zoloft, and abortion. They are all bad ideas, but they should all be legal.
The reason I feel this way about all of these things is precisely because of your brilliant Genie argument:
I think that not only can't we put the genie back in the bottle, but we can't stop it from escaping in the first place. We might as well let it out in as controlled a fashion as possible and harness it.
This is quite astute of you. I agree completely. Basically, I think we should pursue genetic research as fast as possible, learn as much as we can about it, and use it as little as we possibly can. But this won't happen, that's all I'm saying. Not only is it impossible to prevent the genie from escaping, it is also impossible to prevent it from being used for nefarious purposes not only by outlaws and terrorists, but also by us, by everyday good well-intentioned people who just want to make people happy. Sometimes making people happy is not what's best for them. This is where my earlier reference to "A Brave New World" comes in to the argument. I'm not saying that this scenario is inevitable just because it appears in the book. I'm saying that in the book, the vast majority of the people were perfectly happy to just take their Soma and live out their lives of meaningless slavery. They loved it. It made them happy. It just didn't make them free.
Your view seems like dislike of the machines rather than dislike of the owners who control them.
OK, please don't get me wrong, here, WNight, I actually have a high opinion of your intelligence, but I can't resist the opportunity for a witty retort.
I see where the confusion arises, which is that I was employing a literary device commonly known as a metaphor.;-)
Of course, you knew that, and were commenting on my tone. But when I refer to "the machine" in my earlier comments, I am not actually referring to machines themselves. So far at least, machines are still our servants, not our masters. But neither are their "owners" our true masters. They are slaves just like us, slaves to the society as a whole, which is what I mean by "the machine". It is not actually a machine, it is a socio-political-cultural-economic phenomenon. But it is like a machine in that it moves around a lot and does lots of things, but has no soul.
I like machines in general, but there are particular long-accepted machines that I don't like. Cars, for instance are a terribly badly designed technology, hideously unsafe and totally non-sustainable. (Though I do use one, I tell myself that it's only until I can afford an electric one. Hypocritical, I know.)
I think we have more common ground then we at first realized, and I am sorry for arguing with you so vehemently.
OK, so I was going to just go ahead and let you have the last word, which is fine with me, but I do feel compelled to correct one thing.
You may think what you will of my argument, or lack thereof. If you examine the original post, you may find some facts, assumptions, and logic buried in there somewhere (although I admit I'm alluding to much of it, via the reference to Durkheim, whom I highly recommend). The logic is like this: increasing specialization of labor leads to increasing anomie, anomie makes people less capable of functioning in society, therefore it is in society's best interest to use technology to artificially decrease anomie, rather than dealing with the cause. Anyway, I don't object to any of that, you are entitled to your opinion.
What I feel compelled to address, though, is this:
Good luck luddite
I am not a luddite. If I were, what the hell would I be doing using a computer to communicate with you, on slashdot no less? This is a common confusion. Some people, like myself, advocate the responsible use of technology. I love technology. I just think we should be very careful how we use it, as it gives us enormous power. I would think this was obvious. However, there are others who are in favor of the rapid implementation of all tech as soon as it comes along, regardless of the effects or concequences of doing so, on the assumption that all tech and all uses of tech are inherently good. Such people often accuse those who advocate responsible use of tech of being luddites, thus dismissing our views, but in fact we are not.
I am all in favor of using tech in ways that are sustainable, that promote human freedom, happiness, and well being, and the good of the planet as a whole. I am opposed to uses of technology which are contrary to these ends, and I think using technology to modify human nature obviously falls into this category.
The reason I see the abuse of this tech, and others, as inevitable, is that our society is structured in such a way that tech will always be used for the advancement of the interests of the machine itself, rather than toward the above ends. It has to do not with the technology itself, but with the nature of our society.
The thing is, the way I see it, we're already living in a dystopia, not because of our technology, but because of the failure of our culture. But that's just my opinion, for whatever it's worth. I'm mostly saying this for the record, so that when the dust settles and the archaologists are picking through the ruins, I will be counted among those who saw it coming and tried to do something about it. Silly, I know, but that's the way it is.
thanks for taking the time to tell me how it will be
I don't know why I waste my time doing this, I know you won't listen anyway. In the larger picture, this is really among the least of our problems. Our way of life is not sustainable, therefore it will not last. It is only a matter of time. If you're interested in the solution, check out Permaculture, it rocks.
Think what you like, only time will tell, and of course by the time we know the answer for sure, things will really suck, but hey, that's life for you.
Wow, Venner, thanks for the link, that is awesome. OK, so I was wrong about it being closer than it was in the '80s, but 7 minutes is still pretty damn close.
I guess in retrospect it should have been set at its closest during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Vasily Arkhipov, quite probably the greatest hero who ever lived, singlehandedly saved the world from nuclear destruction. (It's a long article, do a search for his name if you just want this part of the story.)
I'm just asking people to look at the end result objectively
This is redundant with an AC comment, but I'm going to say it anyway just to emphasize the point.
The end does not justify the means.
This is elementary ethics, any philosophy prof can tell you that. One of the many reasons for this is that it is impossible to predict with certainty what the actual end result will be. History shows that even the best plans generally have unforseen results. The common way to put this is that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Because you cannot predict with certainty what the concequences of an action will be, you must evaluate the ethical worth of an action independently of its intended consequences.
Genocide is wrong on its face. If I need to explain to you why that is, there is not much hope of reaching you anyway. So to undertake genocide, even with the best of intentions, is still wrong, regardless of what you think the result will be. Because the thing is, what if you're wrong, and you kill all these people, and you end up doing more harm than good anyway?
I am sometimes amazed by some of the ideas that get discussed seriously on Slashdot. I guess that's why I like it so much. It's good to talk about things, even things which should probably have been settled definitively a long time ago.
It doesn't have to be that way though
Well, no, it doesn't, but the problem is, it can be, and almost certainly will be.
I've already talked about the religious and evolutionary perspectives, so let me talk about the political perspective. I would think this would be obvious on its face, but here we go...
The trouble with Eugenics is that it can, has, and almost certainly will again, be manipulated for political purposes. It is inevitable, I think, as long as our society continues on its current course, that it will be. I'm OK with that, actually, I'm prepared for the massive chaos and destruction we're in the process of unleashing on ourselves, and if not, oh well, that's evolution in action. But I intend to go kicking and screaming all the way. Even if resistance is futile, it's still important.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, things like this will inevitably be used to enforce some artificial standard of "normality" on the human population. The reason for this is that increasing industrialization and specialization of labor leads to increasing anomie (Durkheim). Another way of putting this is that people don't like being slaves to a faceless machine. Thus as technology increases, it will obviously be in the best interests of that machine to use technology to mould human nature to make it fit better into our way of life. This will happen, whether we like it or not, regardless of the stories we tell ourselves to reconcile ourselves to it. Mark my words, or in the words of our illustrious Governator, "hear me now and believe me later."
I have the same problem with the way we use prescription drugs. There are commercials on TV now for the use of Zoloft to treat "social anxiety disorder." I'm sure you've seen them. WTF? This used to be called "shyness." It is a character trait, and one which I find rather appealing. Now suddenly it's a disorder, and we are expected to medicate ourselves for it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zoloft should be illegal, people have a right to do this to themselves if they want, but I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Instead of admitting that our way of life is fundamentally incompatible with human nature, we are undertaking to simply modify human nature to fit with our way of life. We create these "disorders" by living in insanely overcrowded, mechanical, dehumanizing conditions, then we treat the symptoms with drugs.
The same thing will be done with genetic engineering. Oh, sure, it will start with the clear-cut cases, just as the use of prescription drugs in psychiatry did, things like schitzophrenia, or like surgery did, treating cancer and so forth. But then, before long, you have people going under the knife to get their voice modified so that it sounds younger. Where do you draw the line? The distinction between "good" and "bad" uses of human modification technology is, like all other distinctions, arbitrary. But in a society such as ours, it is enevitable that they will be used to keep us asleep, to keep us under control, to make us conform, so that we will fulfil our role in the machine without question and be happy little slaves.
Have you ever read "A Brave New World"?
Anyway, that's a very quick and dirty version of the argument, there's a lot more to it than that of course, but I think you can get the general idea.
"It's one of those things we wish we could un-invent" -- Nicholas Cage in "The Rock"
"This species has amused itself to death." -- Roger Waters
Actually, I did. I found it rather disturbing. Oh, don't get me wrong, there were good bits, like the allegory of the cave, but in general I thought it was elitist, repressive, and dangerous. It actually reminded me a lot of "Brave New World", or at least an ancient Greek version thereof. "Ever heard of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle?... Morons!" --Vizzini (actually, I thought Socrates (if he existed, outside Plato's imagination) and Aristotle were brilliant, just didn't like the "Republic")
Eugenics is absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race.
I disagree with this completely. I think it threatens the survival of the human race. You see, the thing is, evolution works regardless of circumstances. That which survives, in whatever environment, "natural" or not, is by definition fit to survive. We simply don't have enough information to decide which traits are desirable and which aren't (I will grant you some clear-cut cases, maybe, but there are far more borderline cases). How do you know that, by some quirk of circumstance, it will not someday be vital to our survival as a species that some or even all of us are fat, lazy fools? There is no way you can guarantee this will not happen, unlikely though it may seem. Sometimes the strangest genetic quirks end up coming in handy. The Koala, for instance, bases its entire survival strategy on being fat and lazy. Since there is no way to predict this, it would be foolish to start reducing the genetic diversity of the species artificially in order to create a supposedly more "fit" population.
we're a lot more likely to see a small nuke or two go off
The meme of "limited" nuclear warfare is extremely dangerous. What about all those former soviet missiles which are on obsolete trigger systems? Do you trust them not to go off in the case of a "limited" nuclear strike? Don't fool yourself, we're still on very thin ice, and probably will be for the forseeable future. Not that I'm worried, life is a risky business under any circumstances, that's just part of the game. But it's good to be aware of the risks you face.
Please, don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of freedom of speech, and a strong interpretation thereof. I'm not trying to censor you, I just disagree with you. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
but who gave them to us? our governments?
Funny, we were just talking about this last night. Personally, I'm of the "endowed by their Creator" school of thought on this one, but of course you are free to disagree, that's the great thing about having rights.
I qualified the 'leisure time' with 'all the time'
Ah, yes, of course, good pont, you did. Still think it's worth pointing out, though. Personally, I'm some sort of techno-tribalist. I like technology (and so do indigenous people, they've been using it for millions of years), I just don't like large-scale society. I'm hoping that eventually we'll get past all this industrial revolution junk and go back to living in small communities, but with enough good, sustainable, small-scale technology to realize your dream of dedicating most or even all of our time to "higher" pursuits. I don't see it happening any time soon, though, maybe it's just a pipe dream, but it would sure be nice. You never know.
The bong it is, then.;) Nah...I have to go back to work...I'll just have some Bourbon instead.
IOMHO, that's much more likely to impair your ability to work. I don't smoke at the moment, but I once passed what is widely acknowledged as one of the hardest physics tests in the world while stoned off my ass like St. Francis of Assisi. I've never bought all that reduction of productivity crap, at least not in my case.
Well, I am a "pussy I love everyone person", and I would consider many of the most courageous people in history to fall into that category as well. Don't get me wrong, MMaster, I agree completely with everything you said, I just don't like that one meme.
As such a pussy, I would like to interject a religious perspective. The principle of Universal Love is the hallmark of all true religion, and exists in nearly every major religion on the planet. Loving everyone is not cowardly or weak, it is actually one of the most difficult and dangerous things you can do. Look where it got most of its main exponents.
From this perspective, killing people is just not okay for any reason whatsoever. All humankind is worthy of your love and respect and should be treated as such. Any other perspective leads eventually to abomination.
I would also like to add an evolutionary perspective, as well. From that point of view, the problem with Eugenics is that we simply do not have enough data or intelligence to decide which traits are desirable and which are not. "Survival of the fittest" is either false or tautological. "Fitness" is simply the ability to survive. It is entirely possible that some trait you consider "weak" will turn out to be vital to the survival of the species some time in the future. If you eliminate it from the gene pool, you may unwittingly cause our extinction. Genetic diversity is a good thing, it leads to a healthy and adaptive population as a whole, even if it means that there will be some individuals which some would consider weak.
Is it a violation of Godwin's law to call the moderators Nazis?;-) Actually, I agree with the parent. Sure, this possiblity should be discussed, and the parent of this whole thread did discuss it by raising the possibility. However, it is a possibility that sane people would only discuss in order to dismiss it quickly and hopefully perminantly. Considering it seriously is your right, of course, but I for one wouldn't mod it up.
Wow, that's some scary stuff. Of course, you've hit the nail on the head yourself: the reason Eugenics is a bad idea is precisely the issue of who gets to decide what stays. Besides, who are you to say that sociopaths don't have a right to live?
"Awww, judge, your damn laws, the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em, so what use are they?"
--Amon Hannessy (described by Utah Phillips as "a Catholic anarchist, pacifist, draft-dodger in two world wars, tax refuser, vegetarian, one-man revolution in America...")
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like this may be arguable. The grandparent's argument really applies much more to Vietnam. The kill ratios were similar, and it definitely wasn't anything remotely like a victory.
So now people should be attacked for their opinions? Just because he approved of it, doesn't mean he had anything to do with it. Sorry, I know it is terrible to approve of mass murder, but an opinion, however unsavory, is not (yet, at least) a crime.
As long as we successfully hand over the Iraq to the planned Iraqi government, we won.
Does it still count as a victory at that point if the new govenment is not democratic? Does it still count as a victory if US troops keep dying? Or is it just going to be good for another carrier-deck photo op?
Oh, good, that's a load of my mind then! ;-)
To me, this post in and of itself answers the question of whether or not this sort of thing is cool. It isn't, and belongs to a whole category of uncool things the FBI has been doing since the days of Hoover. Very interesting.
(Aside to FBI: Hi guys. Thanks for watching!)
Ah, but the question is, does all abnormal activity deserve followup? You assume that it does. But it seems to me that this is so incredibly unlikely to be a threat, that there are probably hundreds of other things those agents could have been doing which would have been much more productive.
If you want the FBI to investigate every time someone does something abnormal, you'd better be prepared for some serious budget hikes.
I don' t think the grandparent is assuming that at all. The point is not that a student would never bomb their own University, but that this in itself is not terribly suspicious activity. It's not about race or class, it's about what level of suspicious activity constitutes a threat.
If you walk by your house and see someone in a car with a manual to your security system on the dash and notice that blueprints to your house are on their seat do you do nothing?
But you see, this activity you describe is far more suspicious than researching your school's tunnel system. The question is not whether the government has a right to investigate suspicious activity. Clearly they do. The question is, at what point do you consider an activity suspicious enough to investigate?
However, the really insightful part of the mad poster's original point is that this is one of those waste-of-time PR type of things. If someone really wanted to bomb the school, would this investigation stop them? Probably not. Was there any really good reason to consider this a threat? Probably not. Were there other things that those agents could have been doing which would have been much more effective at keeping us safe? Probably.
The reason I feel this way about all of these things is precisely because of your brilliant Genie argument:
I think that not only can't we put the genie back in the bottle, but we can't stop it from escaping in the first place. We might as well let it out in as controlled a fashion as possible and harness it.
This is quite astute of you. I agree completely. Basically, I think we should pursue genetic research as fast as possible, learn as much as we can about it, and use it as little as we possibly can. But this won't happen, that's all I'm saying. Not only is it impossible to prevent the genie from escaping, it is also impossible to prevent it from being used for nefarious purposes not only by outlaws and terrorists, but also by us, by everyday good well-intentioned people who just want to make people happy. Sometimes making people happy is not what's best for them. This is where my earlier reference to "A Brave New World" comes in to the argument. I'm not saying that this scenario is inevitable just because it appears in the book. I'm saying that in the book, the vast majority of the people were perfectly happy to just take their Soma and live out their lives of meaningless slavery. They loved it. It made them happy. It just didn't make them free.
Your view seems like dislike of the machines rather than dislike of the owners who control them.
OK, please don't get me wrong, here, WNight, I actually have a high opinion of your intelligence, but I can't resist the opportunity for a witty retort.
I see where the confusion arises, which is that I was employing a literary device commonly known as a metaphor. ;-)
Of course, you knew that, and were commenting on my tone. But when I refer to "the machine" in my earlier comments, I am not actually referring to machines themselves. So far at least, machines are still our servants, not our masters. But neither are their "owners" our true masters. They are slaves just like us, slaves to the society as a whole, which is what I mean by "the machine". It is not actually a machine, it is a socio-political-cultural-economic phenomenon. But it is like a machine in that it moves around a lot and does lots of things, but has no soul.
I like machines in general, but there are particular long-accepted machines that I don't like. Cars, for instance are a terribly badly designed technology, hideously unsafe and totally non-sustainable. (Though I do use one, I tell myself that it's only until I can afford an electric one. Hypocritical, I know.)
I think we have more common ground then we at first realized, and I am sorry for arguing with you so vehemently.
You may think what you will of my argument, or lack thereof. If you examine the original post, you may find some facts, assumptions, and logic buried in there somewhere (although I admit I'm alluding to much of it, via the reference to Durkheim, whom I highly recommend). The logic is like this: increasing specialization of labor leads to increasing anomie, anomie makes people less capable of functioning in society, therefore it is in society's best interest to use technology to artificially decrease anomie, rather than dealing with the cause. Anyway, I don't object to any of that, you are entitled to your opinion.
What I feel compelled to address, though, is this:
Good luck luddite
I am not a luddite. If I were, what the hell would I be doing using a computer to communicate with you, on slashdot no less? This is a common confusion. Some people, like myself, advocate the responsible use of technology. I love technology. I just think we should be very careful how we use it, as it gives us enormous power. I would think this was obvious. However, there are others who are in favor of the rapid implementation of all tech as soon as it comes along, regardless of the effects or concequences of doing so, on the assumption that all tech and all uses of tech are inherently good. Such people often accuse those who advocate responsible use of tech of being luddites, thus dismissing our views, but in fact we are not.
I am all in favor of using tech in ways that are sustainable, that promote human freedom, happiness, and well being, and the good of the planet as a whole. I am opposed to uses of technology which are contrary to these ends, and I think using technology to modify human nature obviously falls into this category.
The reason I see the abuse of this tech, and others, as inevitable, is that our society is structured in such a way that tech will always be used for the advancement of the interests of the machine itself, rather than toward the above ends. It has to do not with the technology itself, but with the nature of our society.
The thing is, the way I see it, we're already living in a dystopia, not because of our technology, but because of the failure of our culture. But that's just my opinion, for whatever it's worth. I'm mostly saying this for the record, so that when the dust settles and the archaologists are picking through the ruins, I will be counted among those who saw it coming and tried to do something about it. Silly, I know, but that's the way it is.
I don't know why I waste my time doing this, I know you won't listen anyway. In the larger picture, this is really among the least of our problems. Our way of life is not sustainable, therefore it will not last. It is only a matter of time. If you're interested in the solution, check out Permaculture, it rocks.
Think what you like, only time will tell, and of course by the time we know the answer for sure, things will really suck, but hey, that's life for you.
Good luck. I expect you'll need it.
love and blessings,
freejung
I guess in retrospect it should have been set at its closest during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Vasily Arkhipov, quite probably the greatest hero who ever lived, singlehandedly saved the world from nuclear destruction. (It's a long article, do a search for his name if you just want this part of the story.)
This is redundant with an AC comment, but I'm going to say it anyway just to emphasize the point.
The end does not justify the means.
This is elementary ethics, any philosophy prof can tell you that. One of the many reasons for this is that it is impossible to predict with certainty what the actual end result will be. History shows that even the best plans generally have unforseen results. The common way to put this is that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Because you cannot predict with certainty what the concequences of an action will be, you must evaluate the ethical worth of an action independently of its intended consequences.
Genocide is wrong on its face. If I need to explain to you why that is, there is not much hope of reaching you anyway. So to undertake genocide, even with the best of intentions, is still wrong, regardless of what you think the result will be. Because the thing is, what if you're wrong, and you kill all these people, and you end up doing more harm than good anyway?
Nice to see you've come around, Your Majesty. ;-)
Sorry, benzapp, my irony detector must have been turned off. Yes, very amusing.
I sure hope you're right. But AIDS medication is not a weapon of mass destruction.
It doesn't have to be that way though
Well, no, it doesn't, but the problem is, it can be, and almost certainly will be.
I've already talked about the religious and evolutionary perspectives, so let me talk about the political perspective. I would think this would be obvious on its face, but here we go...
The trouble with Eugenics is that it can, has, and almost certainly will again, be manipulated for political purposes. It is inevitable, I think, as long as our society continues on its current course, that it will be. I'm OK with that, actually, I'm prepared for the massive chaos and destruction we're in the process of unleashing on ourselves, and if not, oh well, that's evolution in action. But I intend to go kicking and screaming all the way. Even if resistance is futile, it's still important.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, things like this will inevitably be used to enforce some artificial standard of "normality" on the human population. The reason for this is that increasing industrialization and specialization of labor leads to increasing anomie (Durkheim). Another way of putting this is that people don't like being slaves to a faceless machine. Thus as technology increases, it will obviously be in the best interests of that machine to use technology to mould human nature to make it fit better into our way of life. This will happen, whether we like it or not, regardless of the stories we tell ourselves to reconcile ourselves to it. Mark my words, or in the words of our illustrious Governator, "hear me now and believe me later."
I have the same problem with the way we use prescription drugs. There are commercials on TV now for the use of Zoloft to treat "social anxiety disorder." I'm sure you've seen them. WTF? This used to be called "shyness." It is a character trait, and one which I find rather appealing. Now suddenly it's a disorder, and we are expected to medicate ourselves for it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zoloft should be illegal, people have a right to do this to themselves if they want, but I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Instead of admitting that our way of life is fundamentally incompatible with human nature, we are undertaking to simply modify human nature to fit with our way of life. We create these "disorders" by living in insanely overcrowded, mechanical, dehumanizing conditions, then we treat the symptoms with drugs.
The same thing will be done with genetic engineering. Oh, sure, it will start with the clear-cut cases, just as the use of prescription drugs in psychiatry did, things like schitzophrenia, or like surgery did, treating cancer and so forth. But then, before long, you have people going under the knife to get their voice modified so that it sounds younger. Where do you draw the line? The distinction between "good" and "bad" uses of human modification technology is, like all other distinctions, arbitrary. But in a society such as ours, it is enevitable that they will be used to keep us asleep, to keep us under control, to make us conform, so that we will fulfil our role in the machine without question and be happy little slaves.
Have you ever read "A Brave New World"?
Anyway, that's a very quick and dirty version of the argument, there's a lot more to it than that of course, but I think you can get the general idea.
"It's one of those things we wish we could un-invent" -- Nicholas Cage in "The Rock"
"This species has amused itself to death." -- Roger Waters
Actually, I did. I found it rather disturbing. Oh, don't get me wrong, there were good bits, like the allegory of the cave, but in general I thought it was elitist, repressive, and dangerous. It actually reminded me a lot of "Brave New World", or at least an ancient Greek version thereof. "Ever heard of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle? ... Morons!" --Vizzini (actually, I thought Socrates (if he existed, outside Plato's imagination) and Aristotle were brilliant, just didn't like the "Republic")
Eugenics is absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race.
I disagree with this completely. I think it threatens the survival of the human race. You see, the thing is, evolution works regardless of circumstances. That which survives, in whatever environment, "natural" or not, is by definition fit to survive. We simply don't have enough information to decide which traits are desirable and which aren't (I will grant you some clear-cut cases, maybe, but there are far more borderline cases). How do you know that, by some quirk of circumstance, it will not someday be vital to our survival as a species that some or even all of us are fat, lazy fools? There is no way you can guarantee this will not happen, unlikely though it may seem. Sometimes the strangest genetic quirks end up coming in handy. The Koala, for instance, bases its entire survival strategy on being fat and lazy. Since there is no way to predict this, it would be foolish to start reducing the genetic diversity of the species artificially in order to create a supposedly more "fit" population.
The meme of "limited" nuclear warfare is extremely dangerous. What about all those former soviet missiles which are on obsolete trigger systems? Do you trust them not to go off in the case of a "limited" nuclear strike? Don't fool yourself, we're still on very thin ice, and probably will be for the forseeable future. Not that I'm worried, life is a risky business under any circumstances, that's just part of the game. But it's good to be aware of the risks you face.
Quite probably. ;-)
LOL, that's great, can I quote you on that? ;-)
Please, don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of freedom of speech, and a strong interpretation thereof. I'm not trying to censor you, I just disagree with you. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
but who gave them to us? our governments?
Funny, we were just talking about this last night. Personally, I'm of the "endowed by their Creator" school of thought on this one, but of course you are free to disagree, that's the great thing about having rights.
Er, if you read the rest of my comment, that's exactly what I said. I agree with you. You agree with me. So why are we arguing?
Ah, yes, of course, good pont, you did. Still think it's worth pointing out, though. Personally, I'm some sort of techno-tribalist. I like technology (and so do indigenous people, they've been using it for millions of years), I just don't like large-scale society. I'm hoping that eventually we'll get past all this industrial revolution junk and go back to living in small communities, but with enough good, sustainable, small-scale technology to realize your dream of dedicating most or even all of our time to "higher" pursuits. I don't see it happening any time soon, though, maybe it's just a pipe dream, but it would sure be nice. You never know.
The bong it is, then. ;) Nah...I have to go back to work...I'll just have some Bourbon instead.
IOMHO, that's much more likely to impair your ability to work. I don't smoke at the moment, but I once passed what is widely acknowledged as one of the hardest physics tests in the world while stoned off my ass like St. Francis of Assisi. I've never bought all that reduction of productivity crap, at least not in my case.
Well, I am a "pussy I love everyone person", and I would consider many of the most courageous people in history to fall into that category as well. Don't get me wrong, MMaster, I agree completely with everything you said, I just don't like that one meme.
As such a pussy, I would like to interject a religious perspective. The principle of Universal Love is the hallmark of all true religion, and exists in nearly every major religion on the planet. Loving everyone is not cowardly or weak, it is actually one of the most difficult and dangerous things you can do. Look where it got most of its main exponents.
From this perspective, killing people is just not okay for any reason whatsoever. All humankind is worthy of your love and respect and should be treated as such. Any other perspective leads eventually to abomination.
I would also like to add an evolutionary perspective, as well. From that point of view, the problem with Eugenics is that we simply do not have enough data or intelligence to decide which traits are desirable and which are not. "Survival of the fittest" is either false or tautological. "Fitness" is simply the ability to survive. It is entirely possible that some trait you consider "weak" will turn out to be vital to the survival of the species some time in the future. If you eliminate it from the gene pool, you may unwittingly cause our extinction. Genetic diversity is a good thing, it leads to a healthy and adaptive population as a whole, even if it means that there will be some individuals which some would consider weak.
Is it a violation of Godwin's law to call the moderators Nazis? ;-) Actually, I agree with the parent. Sure, this possiblity should be discussed, and the parent of this whole thread did discuss it by raising the possibility. However, it is a possibility that sane people would only discuss in order to dismiss it quickly and hopefully perminantly. Considering it seriously is your right, of course, but I for one wouldn't mod it up.
Wow, that's some scary stuff. Of course, you've hit the nail on the head yourself: the reason Eugenics is a bad idea is precisely the issue of who gets to decide what stays. Besides, who are you to say that sociopaths don't have a right to live?
--Amon Hannessy (described by Utah Phillips as "a Catholic anarchist, pacifist, draft-dodger in two world wars, tax refuser, vegetarian, one-man revolution in America...")