Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
I kept out of Jay Hansons way for a long while now, especially since some intelligent and very persevering people like Eva Durant answered him sufficiently, but reading this just made my blood boil again. One wonders if there is no ecological list where these same ongoing crazy discussions are not overshadowing what is really important. -- > Van: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Aan: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: How hard is it to change opinions? > Datum: zondag 21 februari 1999 19:12 > > - Original Message - > From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > jay> In all cases, when I use "rational", I mean in the sense of Homo > economicus -- a Machiavellian calculator. spencer> >About biology and survival: From the (hypothetical) point of view of a > >species, survival comes first. If rationality is available to the > jay> This is a misconception. Darwinian survival is the survival of the > fittest "genes" -- not species or individuals. Rational actions from > an evolutionary standpoint are those that tend to propigate genes. But evolution is not rational, isn't it? Leaves the Machiavellian calculator, who now is going to take the place of evolution and decide what's right? > >Is the only way to avoid global catastrophe to do evil? The Second > >Law and biology may or may not tell us how to avoid catastrophe but it > >surely won't tell us whether or not it's possible to remain humane and > >civil persons if we do so. > > How about the "survival of civilization"? Yea, save the planet, save civilization, like in every bad American movie, > We know that if people continue to destroy our life-support system > as they have, then our civilization will inevitably collapse (immutable > 2nd law arguments). What 'our' civilization will collapse? You could just as well say that the way it's been going for the last century or two, western civilization has been going completely the wrong way. > We also know that if civilization collapses, then industrial supply lines > will breakdown and then, billions of innocent people will starve. Boy, are you ethnocentric. Billions of innocent people are starving right now, while our great civilization stands, and what is more, is mostly responsible for this. What you seem to be so scared of, or scaring other people about, is that the same might happen to the West, and the only way to avert it, is "temporarily" turning off democracy, turning the world over to the 'Uebermenschen', the elite of experts and scientists, who are at this moment co-responsible for what's going on. > Are billions of people to be condemed to death because of YOUR > hundreds-of-years-old "beliefs" about "rights"? So that's civilisation for you, doing away with everything valuable people have died FOR in the past, like democracy for example, and indeed rights, human rights, which the majority of this world is still lacking, and which is actually one of the main reasons they are actually starving. So instead of giving up those rights, that DO make up whatever civilisation we have here, we should see they are extended to everyone else on this planet. This would solve a lot if not all of the so-called overpopulation problems. Not possible? Why would it be easier to sterilize the whole planet, as jay is proposing in one of his crazy schemes? Jan Matthieu Flemish Greens
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
... > Like it or not we have notions of good and evil, they're > important and we're stuck with them. I don't like the notions of "good" and "evil" as they imply relative (thus non-existent) human values. However there are objectively definable and measurable qualities, such as human rights, including the one not to be treated like a herd animal. > To muddle an aphorism, a purely > scientific solution to intrinsically social problems will likely be > little more scientific than Soviet "scientific socialism" and not much > less evil than this century's rational attempts to make the world safe > for the master race. > Science is a method whereby you analyse all the data from the past/present, you look for pattern and having find one, you make predictions for the workings of this pattern for the future. You design experiments and perfect your pattern. Social science should be the same if it claims to be a science, even if there is no scope for experiments and even if the most important aspect is still making patterns for the future, especially when the present accidental/coincidental social framework has been shown to be inefficient to solve the problems of present and the future and we developed the ability of conscious, collective manipulation of the economic/social structure. I can't see what other way you may call rational. Accordingly, the fascist and the stalinist "thinking" could be hardly called rational or scientific; the fascists claimed a supremacy of a given race, not supported by history or biology, the stalinists claimed (well, assumed) that socialism can succeed without democracy. Both succeeded to power due to specific historical power-gaps; in the fascist case the old capitalist class was to weak to stay in power, in the stalinist case the new working class was to week to take power. Both had a major contempt against most of humanity, one pictured it inferior, one pictured it child-like. Both lead to catastrophy. And worryingly, lots of our privileged scientists etc seem to be returning to these sad ideas - including our Jay. Eva > > - Mike > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html > --- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
The problem of health, commodities, the left vs. the right, or the mental models that we bring to these discussions seems to be making people angry everywhere .The future of work is an interesting thought except everyone only seems to want to discuss the future of their work or their favorite philosopher/economist. (At this point I would prefer Peter Senge) I wrote a letter to a friend last night and thought I would share it because he seems to be encountering the same issues of those wanting not to explore but to conquer. The boys mentioned are his two sons who he also had to rescue from the system. Is there any hope for a discussion on what work means and what kind of multiplicity there must be to create a humane, happy future together?Well probably not, but maybe the following will be of interest. John wrote: > Which brings us back to the first point. I used a simple declaritive > 'common man/common sense' construction, Fred, to demonstrate how far from > useful some of our dialogues have come. You see, I put down my pen as a > theoretical linguist back in the '70s when I realized that language is the > tool man uses to describe the universe and that for each man or woman in > that universe, there is a separate universe. In order to completely > understand meaning, (in the way in which you and AT are trying to > understand it in this thread) we would have to first understand each of > these separate universes in terms of our own, and then, we would need to > change our own understanding because of it. We would then be in search of > knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Would wisdom ever come? John you assume a hell of alot about their ability to understand, don't you think? After all there were all of those circles on "Another World" in the Soaps of the 1950s-60s and they didn't get it then. If it's too hard for the soap operas to teach then what hope is there on the net? I'm having a terrible discussion with a H C who lives in England on another list. You would think she was a right winger or something. No practicality anywhere, just "make work" to prove that the lack of a need of workers is not real. Anyway, you are one smart fellow and much more optimistic than myself in this instance.I couldn't even bring myself to reply to At on the last post and that must mean I'm depressed. How are the boys? My daughter's doing great, now. I just worked on some Stanislavsky theory with her this weekend and realized how difficult it is compared to the academics. Now I understand why they don't teach performance theory in most high schools, much less music theory and those contrapuntal fugues. If they can't deal with the three Rs or History then this is impossibly abstract. Abstract, what music is, is a dirty word to most of these folks. She's been out of school for a semester with a medical and pesticide issue. (The NYTimes documented what her homeopath stated, in Friday's paper, only to be removed from their net site immediately.) We sent her to MRIs, Neurologists, Gastrointestinal folks, every kind of blood test possible etc. and they all came back negative and healthy (within "acceptable" levels) except that she couldn't perform much less stop her nose bleeds, headaches, nausea, dizziness and fainting spells, chronic red throats or thrush on the tongue and very little memory.I know it sounds adolescent but it was much more. She was a mess, so I took her to an Internist MD trained in France and registered here as a homeopath and nutritionist. I took her because he had helped so many students of mine who had chronic issues as well.You can't perform on the stage if you are chronically ill and if you don't work you don't eat. So they tend to go to people who help. "The show must go on!" The Doctor ordered another battery of tests and then said that she had little wrong except for her digestive issues. He taught her food mixing and put her on a diet to detox for pesticides and no micro-wave. The symptoms are gone except for the throat which he now controls with herbs. He insists that she eat properly and must scrub any non "organically grown" produce as well as cleanse it in a solution he gives her. Some things are also peeled and many things are avoided completely. He encourages the total use of organically grown foods where possible.The change has been radical. She's back in school, happy and working hard It coincides completely with the NYTimes article on pesticide toxicity in Friday's NYTImes from Consumer Reports: "A spokesman for the agency (EPA) said it was 'in the process of implementing the Food Quality Protection Act.'...In addition to choosing foods with lower levels of toxicity, pesticide exposure can be reduced by peeling produce and by buying organically grown fruits and vegetables.'There are plenty of ways parents can get healthy foods into kids without exposing them to high risk stuff.' Nancy Metca
ViperScan 4.5 Remediator Introductory Offer
Announcing the release of ViperScan Automator 4.5 ViperScan Remediator 4.5 New Release Special - receive $100.00 or 20% off the regular price until 28/2/99 ViperScan, since its release in August 1998 and has taken the Year 2000 remediation world by storm. Version 4.5 is a completely new rewrite of previous versions and adds more power, speed and functionality than any other product available and any previous version of ViperScan. Remediating your Access and Excel files to year 2000 compliancy has never been easier. ViperScan Remediator automatically scans all Access and Excel files on your network or local PC, detects non-compliant dates, fixes those dates and reports - ALL AUTOMATICALLY - yet you remain in FULL control and can initiate, override or allow changes. ViperScan also works with ODBC compliant files and data, ASCII files and mainframe data. ViperScan is fast - 50 times faster - processsing upto 4Mb of data every minute ! Visit http://www.viperscan.com and see for yourself, read the complete specs, download a demonstration and ... PURCHASE before 28/2/99 and recieve a 20% discount off of ALL marked prices. Data remediation has never been this easy and NO OTHER product available today can achieve the results you need. Visit http://www.viperscan.com and buy today or if you have any questions or comments please "Reply" to this email and I will get back to you. Yours sincerely Tony Hancock Director IT Wiseguys - exclusive worldwide online distributors of ViperScan - You have been sent this message because you visited or downloaded a product from our website in the past or have an interest or responsibilty in Y2K matters - if you wish to be removed from our list please email me at the above address with the Subject "Remove ViperScan". This message is sent in compliance of the e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html Further transmissions to you may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to this email address with the phrase "Remove ViperScan" in the subject line. -
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
Good subject title! :-) Jan Matthieu wrote: > One wonders if there is no ecological list where these same ongoing crazy > discussions are not overshadowing what is really important. Hope you agree that "what is really important" is 100% OPINION. > who now is going to take the place of evolution and decide > what's right? System properties & characteristics are not "right" or wrong. The latter are value judgements - OPINIONS. > like in every bad American movie, Aesthetic OPINION - "bad" > > western civilization has > been going completely the wrong way. Ethical OPINION - "wrong" > > > We also know that if civilization collapses, then industrial supply > lines > > will breakdown and then, billions of innocent people will starve. I think Jay means starve to death in a matter of a week or so. > Boy, are you ethnocentric. Billions of innocent people are starving right > now, There are perhaps 2 billion that are undernourished & drinking polluted water, but not billions dying each week. > So that's civilisation for you, doing away with everything valuable Economic, aesthetic, ethical OPINION - "valuable". You are entitled to yours as is everyone else. > we should see they are extended to everyone else on this planet.(rights) Easier said than done even if we agree via social contract what rights are mutually beneficial to all when universally extended. You forgot to mention responsibilities. > This > would solve a lot if not all of the so-called overpopulation problems. Really? The unlimited right to breed is nearly universal now. > Not > possible? Why would it be easier to sterilize the whole planet, as jay is > proposing in one of his crazy schemes? Fabricated strawman by a sensitive, distressed person. (Never even implied by Jay or by me) We are probably in agreement about concentration of economic & military power, conservation, biodiversity, biotech-agribusiness...But these are all OPINIONS - the subject of this thread. Steve
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
From: Jan Matthieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Are billions of people to be condemed to death because of YOUR >> hundreds-of-years-old "beliefs" about "rights"? > >So that's civilisation for you, doing away with everything valuable people >have died FOR in the past, like democracy for example, and indeed rights, Let me make sure that I have this straight. Billions should be willing to die in the future for YOUR beliefs because millions have died in the past? Does that make sense to you? It sure doesn't make sense to me. They are called "sunk costs". The people who died are now dead. So what? Why should I care what someone died for? You are confusing your own personal political ambition with good sense. Try looking forward instead of backwards. Think of it as an IQ test: "We humans no longer rely on the muscle of fight, the speed of flight, or the protective mask of shape and coloring for survival. We have come to depend on intelligence for life. This is a fateful gamble. It has put at stake our collective survival, and that of the whole biosphere. "About five million years ago, the evolutionary line that led to modern humans diverged from African apes, the common ancestors of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Apes are knuckle-walking quadrupeds; Homo is an erect biped. Apes have large jaws and they have small brains (in the range of 300-600 cubic centimeters). Homo has a small jaw, and a fourfold brain size in the range of 1400-1600 cc. Most apes are adapted to life in the trees; Homo is suited to life on the ground. It is this adaptability to terrestrial life that proved to be the decisive factor in the evolution of intelligence. Why some bands of pre-hominids left the trees is still somewhat mysterious (some anthropologists maintain that they were pushed from the forest into the savannah by physically more developed arboreal primates), but once they left the trees their destiny was sealed: they were condemned to a form of intelligence -- or to extinction. The question we now face is whether the kind of intelligence that evolved is sufficient for survival into the twenty-first century. Humanity, as Buckminster Fuller said, is facing its final exam. It is an exam of intelligence: the collective IQ test of the species." VISION 2020 -- Ervin Laszlo, [1994 p. 97] Gordon and Breach 212-206-8900 Jay
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
-Original Message- From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 21, 1999 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists > >Dear Henry: > >Thanks for your in-depth response. I guess what I hear you saying is that >Y2K personnel are highly specialized and that there is no army of unemployed >that could be mobilized to provide manpower. > >Chris Reuss responded in another post: > >India has them, for instance. India is one of the main profiteers of the >y2k >business. According to the Indian association of software producers >(Nasscom), >India has y2k orders in the volume of more than 2 billion dollars, and >demand >is still bigger than supply. > >Thomas: > >Now these two answers neatly bracket my dilema. Henry is saying, as have >others, it is tough to solve and requires a broad range of expertise and the >side effects of mistakes may be just as bad as the original problem. On the >other hand, I get, it's already taken care of, it's no big deal and by the >way, we can send the problem offshore to India as they understand >(apparently) all our languages and our networks and our business models >better or at least as well as anyone in North America. > >Henry wrote: > >>- the changes to datebases I referred to earlier do not happen in >>isolation. Databases can be used by tens, hundreds or even thousands >>of other programs and changes must be carefully planned and coordinated. > >Thomas: > >Now I don't have to be an expert to understand this paragragph. And it's >not hard to see how complex accessing data bases must be and how difficult >it would be to fix if all that data got scrambled in some way. So, it seems >to me that turning that over to programmers a half a world away and trusting >them to solve it is the highest form of irresponsibility. After they finish >the job, will there be anyone left on our side who can understand all the >changes they have made or in the worst case, if they fuck it up, do we still >have the talent to change it back or forward to a system that works. > >Now, I'm sort of a simple guy who fixes washing machines for a living. It's >not rocket science but it is amazingly more complex than most would think. >It requires all the skills - diagnosis - which can often be wrong - >replacement of parts - which may stress other parts of the system - external >factors such as water pressure or wiring problems, etc and etc. Though one >can go through a 6 month or year course, I can assure you that the variety >and complexity of the problems you can run into boggle the mind. And this >is in a very simple system of electro-mechanical design. Because I fix >broken things, I have a healthy respect for the difficulties of even simple >problems and I am far from re-assured about the confident tone we are taken >to this world wide problem. > >So, with great persistence, I'm still stuck at my original question. Do we >have the manpower with the expertise to do the job and if so, what would >constitute proof? The fact that there does not seem to be much demand for >Y2K specialists is very suspect given the amounts of money, complexity and >variety of systems affected and the potential downside if we do not get it >all fixed. It's easy to have opinions but I'm looking for a few facts. I >have yet to read a little story of a complete Y2K fix. From analysis, >diagnosis, repair, testing and final result in terms of manpower and money, >for even a small company or government dept. > >Respectfully, > >Thomas Lunde > > > >Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists > > >>Good morning all >> >>I have been following the debate on training people to fix y2k >>problems and the apparent lack of success in doing this with some >>interest. >> >>It seems that once again we have people debating an issue about >>which they have only limited or theoretical knowledge. >> >>The reasons that it has not been possible to train droves of staff >>are many and varied and in my view include at least the following: >> >>- fixing the problem in most cases does not involve just changing a >>few lines of code. In many cases database files must be changed and >>output layouts modified. >> >>Since these outputs are in many cases very specific in nature, fields >>on forms, data in EDI files, etc, care must be taken with every change. >> >>- not all systems that will be effected are what might be thought of >>as traditional business systems. Many are complex interrelated >>systems which cannot be changed in isolation. An understanding of the >>whole process is very often required. With early programming >>techniques it was much easier to make changes to individual >>programmes, but that is not true any more. >> >>- the changes to datebases I referred to earlier do not happen in >>isolation. Databases can be used by tens, hundreds or even thousands >>of other programs and changes must be carefully planned and coordinated. >> >>- in the non business syst
Y2K comics
Y'all might enjoy the comics at http://www.glasbergen.com/y2k.html Greetings, Chris
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
Mike raises the issue of human values - individual, cultural, and species wide. The relationship of self-conscious free will and determinism as part of nature is explored in a paper by Tom Clark linked below. A main point I've tried rather unsuccessfully to make for the past two years on this list is that *uncertainty*, although ranging from uncomfortable to unbearable for most of us, is the most reasonable position to hold about the 'big' issues of ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, as well as about the future. Probabilities...opinions... Whenever it is said about human problems that "the only way(or solution) is to..." I am stimulated to rebut. There is an untenable certainty involved with "only" that can be attributed to arrogance, ignorance, or maybe hope...but likely false hope. Enjoy the essay if you've got 10 minutes. Steve http://world.std.com/~twc/morality.htm http://world.std.com/~twc/morality.htm
Forward: The Market as God
Date: February 20, 1999 To: IFFS/CAIA listserve CSARE Ag Ethics Task Force New Economics of Sustainability Group Ecological Economics listserve SANET - MG (Please pardon duplicate mailings, those of you on more than one list). From: J. Patrick Madden Subject:The Market as God The latest issue of Atlantic Monthly contains a very insightful article by Harvey Cox, entitled "The Market as God." (March 1999, vol. 283 No. 3, starting on page 18) Professor Cox does a superb job of unpacking and documenting this concept. After studying the Wall Street Journal and the business pages of weekly news magazines, he discovered a post-modern theology has emerged, complete with "myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption .. chronicles about the creation of wealth, the seductive temptations of statism, captivity to faceless economic cycles, and ultimately, salvation through the advent of free markets, with a small dose of ascetic best tightening along the way, especially for the East Asian economies. The East Asian troubles, votaries argue, derive from their heretical deviation from free-market orthodoxy - they were practitioners of 'crony captialism,' of 'ethnocapitalism,' or 'statist captialism,' not of the one true faith. .. "Soon I began to marvel at just how comprehensive the business theology is. There were even sacraments to convey salvic power to the lost, a calendar of entrepreneurial saints, and what theologians call and 'eschatology' - a teaching about the 'end of history.' At the apex of any theological system, of course, is its doctrine of God. In the new theology this celestial; pinnacle is occupied by The Market, which I capitalize to signify both the mystery that enshrouds it and the reverence it inspires in business folk." He goes on to describe how advocates for this new religion call on doubters to repent and to place full and unquestioning faith in the unseen and often incomprehensible Market God. >From personal experience, I can testify that heretics may be dealt with severely. The article calls to mind my comment during the closing wrap-up session of the IFFS conference in Massachusetts last summer: "The deity most widely worshiped in the world today is the Invisible Hand of the Market." Harvey Cox makes my point exactly, elloquently. So what? What are the implications? First, let us be not deceived about the virtually unlimited power of the market to transform communities, the lives of people, and ecosystems in devastating ways that generate profits for entrepreneurs, especially transnational corporations. Mark Ritchie spelled out the problem during his superb presentation on the last day (should have been the keynote on the first day) of the IFFS conference. Our challenge, the challenge to humanity, is to put a human and ethical face on the market. The challenge is to deliberately reform market institutions and political institutions in directions compatible with quality of life and opportunities for present and future generations, and conducive to continuation of life and emergence of an honorable peace on Planet Earth. If the Harvey Cox thesis is correct, if the Market has become the post-modern deity, and worship of the so-called free market has become the predominant religion of our time, then the United States has surely fallen into a severe and chronic violation of the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state. One of our challenges should be to call a halt to blind and officially sanctioned faith in the Market God. J. Patrick Madden 1153 Melrose Ave. #1 Glendale, CA 91202 USA phone: 818-240-2966 fax: 818-545-0665 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/patrickmadden
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
- Original Message - From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> "An Englishwoman...was accused of heresy in 1704... >> [splatter details elided] >> Remember that all she had to do to avoid torture was to change her >> opinion. > >You leave us to infer that so doing would have been "rational". In all cases, when I use "rational", I mean in the sense of Homo economicus -- a Machiavellian calculator. >axioms explicitly. That ending excruciating pain is a good -- even >best -- thing to do is such a default axiom. Two difficulties emerge >when we try to talk about the rationality of actions or propose >rational a course. I agree with you. Ending pain is the norm, but some people seem to like it. >About biology and survival: From the (hypothetical) point of view of a >species, survival comes first. If rationality is available to the This is a misconception. Darwinian survival is the survival of the fittest "genes" -- not species or individuals. Rational actions from an evolutionary standpoint are those that tend to propigate genes. >Is the only way to avoid global catastrophe to do evil? The Second >Law and biology may or may not tell us how to avoid catastrophe but it >surely won't tell us whether or not it's possible to remain humane and >civil persons if we do so. How about the "survival of civilization"? We know that if people continue to destroy our life-support system as they have, then our civilization will inevitably collapse (immutable 2nd law arguments). We also know that if civilization collapses, then industrial supply lines will breakdown and then, billions of innocent people will starve. Are billions of people to be condemed to death because of YOUR hundreds-of-years-old "beliefs" about "rights"? How is this any different from the religious nut allowing her children die because she doesn't "believe" in medicine? Do MY grandchildren have to die just because John Locke ate psychedelic mushrooms 400 years ago? Two hundred years ago, Thomas Paine asked whether the Earth belongs to the living or the dead. It's time to ask that question again. Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
Jay wrote: > "An Englishwoman...was accused of heresy in 1704... > [splatter details elided] > Remember that all she had to do to avoid torture was to change her > opinion. You leave us to infer that so doing would have been "rational". The scare quotes are intentional because rationality is much misconstrued, I think. Rationality -- the ability to reason or understand -- offers no guidance for action without some axioms for what may be that is good to do or attempt. Colloquially, we say that an act or a choice of course is resonable -- rational -- using default axioms of what's good in the context. Typically we don't state those axioms explicitly. That ending excruciating pain is a good -- even best -- thing to do is such a default axiom. Two difficulties emerge when we try to talk about the rationality of actions or propose rational a course. One is that default axioms of what's good differ between cultures, between subcultures (such as those of economists, artists or saints) and between individuals. A banker friend to whom I talk every year or two remarked, when Gorbachev had just fallen from power, "Hey, tell him to just lose Russia. If he comes here he can make millions on the lecture circuit." Someone on the list may know many more details of Gorbachev's circumstances that I do but it appears to me that he had other default axioms than my friend upon which to base rational choices. (As I write this, I anticipate that Jay will give me both barrels -- the inevitability of the 2nd Law and an argument from biology and survival -- and I'm trying to keep in mind how I'll address at least the latter. I will, I think, :-) get back to it.) The other difficulty that arises when we try to evaluate rationality, is that axioms of the good may be volitionally chosen. Innes's Englishwoman was either neurologically abnormal or had very strong axioms of what was right and good. That isn't intrinically irrational. It is not irrational to choose pain or poverty if the options and consequences are understood and the alternatives subvert ones axioms of what it is that is good to do. About biology and survival: From the (hypothetical) point of view of a species, survival comes first. If rationality is available to the individual, perhaps it can be employed by an individual to decide whether its/his/her survival contributes more or less to species survival than death. But species don't really have viewpoints. Species just have the traits of earlier survivors. If we want to arrogate to ourselves the species viewpoint and make species survival the chief axiom from which we derive our decisions of what's good to do, we can make a pretty good case that the first and most urgent step is to exterminate about 80% of the extant specimens, beginning with billion or so heaviest consumers of resources and generators of pollution (present company, of course, excluded), then moving on to the resurrected zombie of 19th c. eugenics, suitably catechized with the current and putatively scientific conventional wisdom on population dynamics, good and bad genes etc. Eva wouldn't approve. Nor would I. In a slightly roundabout approach, here's why. The classical notion of tragedy was of one who does right, even does well, who suffers nevertheless because of somthing called "fate". We don't believe in the Three Blind Norns who weave our fate anymore but there remains tragedy in loss or suffering as a forseen and accepted consequence of doing right. With human consciousness and abstraction and our other powers of mind comes the ability not to harm another even if we suffer for it. Our knee jerk responses, our hormones, our inclinations may emanate from biology that hasn't changed appreciably since we left the Olduai Gorge but we can *choose* not to behave like protohominids. Especially, when we try to arrange a part of the social system, we can *choose* to arrange it, insofar as our knowlege and wit permit, to avoid exploitation, suffering, cruelty or whatever we like. The Second Law? Yeah, okay. We can't choose magic. Or rather, we can but we can't rationally expect it to work. We can't choose more of the same for us billion greasies and a fresh serving of the same -- cars, indoor plumbing, central HVAC and a lot of animal protein per diem -- for the two or four billion who know they want it. We can't because we're not likely to magic up much more oil and we certainly won't magic up any more good farmland or waterfront real estate. That doesn't mean that the only rational action is a global marketplace in which we exterminate the losers to make room for the winners' beef cattle and and rubbish tips. Is the only way to avoid global catastrophe to do evil? The Second Law and biology may or may not tell us how to avoid catastrophe but it surely won't tell us whether or not it's possible to remain humane and civil persons if we do so. John Ralston Saul quotes Carl-Henning Wijkmark: "[T]he sign of authent
Re: How hard is it to change opinions?
> >I am motivated to strive for a > >survivable option for the future - so sorry. > > That's the point Eva. You have a specific agenda in mind, and then reject > any information that doesn't support it. > > We all do that to some extent, but "thinkers" will revisit beliefs when > presented with new scientific evidense that opposes them. "Observers" will > revisit beliefs when their own senses oppose them. But true idealogues > neither "think" nor "observe", and are willing to burn for their beliefs: > I arrived to that "agenda" through some thinking over the years, and your evidence just might be unsatisfactory. I had the chance to experience both capitalism and the failed attempt at socialism from the side of a "grassroot" person bringing up a family, so I am ahead of you in the observation department, thank you very much. As usual - I fail to see the relavence of your quote. It wasn't her opinion, but reality or even truth she was clinging to, probably because his church ordered her not to lie the first place. I would have confessed to everything especially with the forsight of being released as a consequence... Thinking that the "rich" are more rational than other humans is a piece of information I find reasonable to reject. (Do I really have to bother with explanation??) Socialism is a very practical idea, and in the course of the last year (feels like a few decades...) I listed numerous reasons to underly this statement, you are the one who failed addressing these arguments, but crawled back to repeat the strawman arguments and the fallacies. To sum up: we cannot solve the population problem that is your main concern based on the present market economy system, and you cannot solve it in any undemocratic/elitist/fascist manner that treats people as cattle, because people don't only want to survive, they also want to live human lives complete with intellectual and emotional satisfaction that can only come from conscious and responsible self-government. Eva > "An Englishwoman, who was married to a Portuguese named Vasconcellos in > Madeira, was accused of heresy in 1704, and sent to the Inquisition in > Lisbon. There she was kept in prison for over nine months; she was flogged > several times to persuade her to confess, and her breast was burnt in three > places with a red-hot iron. At last, she was taken to the torture chamber > and strapped into the Spanish chair; an iron slipper, heated in the fire > until it was red hot, was placed on her left foot. The flesh was burnt to > the bone, and she fainted. When she came to, she was once more flogged until > her whole back was a mass of blood, and then threatened with the slipper on > her other foot. Unsurprisingly, she signed her confession, and was > eventually released." [ pp. 78-79, THE HISTORY OF TORTURE, by Brian Innes, > St Martin's Pr., 1998 ] > > ( Remember that all she had to do to avoid torture was to change her > opinion . ) > > That is precisely why our Founding Fathers left America in the hands of the > rich. America's government was designed to be corrupt because the moneyed > class is more "rational" (calculating) than either elected officials or the > general public. http://dieoff.com/page168.htm > > "Irrational" political movements like communism scare the hell out of > "rational" people -- except of course, those who have nothing to lose. > > Jay > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
