addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group Message Board › HUMANIANITY: The Most Important Religion

HUMANIANITY: The Most Important Religion

A former member
Post #: 6
Ok.. just taking on One point for a minute:

You mention there should be "as little pain, suffering, disability, and ealy death." Unfortunatly, these are NOT things we can entirely control. 1. Physical pain is not avoidable. We may be able to work safely, lift safely, ect, avoid being in car accidents, ect and thereby not suffer physical pain; but with age comes pain.. the most anyone can do for uncontrollable pain is what doctors usually do now, prescribe pain killers and/or surgery.
2. Mental pain/suffering: death and loss of job ect are the biggest things that cause suffering which are usually uncontrollable ..
3. Disability: also uncontrollable, unless you are talking about pre-screening babies in the womb and recommending abortions for those that will be born with a disability - be it mental or physical. Of course, you could suggest dumping billions of money into even more scientific research to solve these problems, but all the money in the world would still not make a scientist find cures.. - For the most part, humans can arguably stop certain behavior (such as smoking or doing drugs while pregnant), which could lead to birth defects and disabilities.. But that only covers a small portion of disabilities.
4. Early death - (death of a child, teen, young adult) 1. "early" in 2008 used to be the norm way back hundreds of years ago. In Shakespeares time, Romeo and Juliet were young adults/ in those times 13 or even younger would be the marrying age. 20's would be older, 30's would be about the norm for people to start dying.. of course, this all varies by what country and history book your referring to, in any case the USA age of marrying and adulthood is not what it was in the 1800's. Point being that science and education has already increased the years people live in the USA - also the age at which children are viewed to be adults has increased, and where it used to be that a 12 or 13 year old would get married was the norm, now it is not the norm for anyone under 18 to get married. Yes, for the 2000 century, anything under 21 would be considered an "early death" I suppose.
But here is where "survival of the fittest" is needed - say there were no "early deaths".. suddenly everyone lives to be 200 years old, 50 is the new "early death age".. the population would double, maybe triple from people living longer lives and having more children. China realized this overpopulation problem decades ago and tried to force couples to only have one child, taxing them extra if they had two children.. (if anyone remembers those horryfing pictures of baby girls tied to beds in an adoption/drop off room caused by all the families wanting boys..) point is China tried to get their population under control for the greater good - so in the future the whole city would not be straving to death and struggling because there are simply too many people and not enough work, food, ect. This may seem stupid, silly, or unrealistic to think that humans can just run out of food, run out of resources, and mass starvation could ensue.. but that is what the forecast was for an evergrowing population in China. Then you look at the poor people in Africa that they always show on tv as being hungry and starving to death in this desolate place with no food and wonder why they didn't just move somewhere else, or stop having children when there is obviously (supposedly) no food, clothing, or shelter for them.. Sort of like Bob Barker telling everyone to "Spade and Neuter your pets" so we can save the cats and dogs from ending up as strays.. population control. Most people don't think twice about having their pet spade or neutered, but to have a human spade or neutered?

I've sidetracked here, but the human species has already taken away land, shelter, homes, food supply and water supply from countless animal and wildlife species.. humans as a whole decide to spade and neuter pets, kill dangerous wildlife in their backyards ( it used to be the alligators lake, but now we built a house here and must kill all the alligators...) we've been the cause of extinction to species of animals and creatures through our expansions.. "Early death" is just as part of life and necessary to control the expansion of population as a normal death, or death of old age.. Sure, I think it sucks that a child dies in childbirth.. but in a way it is also population control, and survival of the fittest.. I think it's horrible that anyone has to suffer, period. But that is life.. and there were no wars, no diseases, only more and more expansion and increased population, then eventually the human species would find themselves in a situation where there is overpopulation - and people would begun starving by the masses due to lack of food, lack of resources, ect.

I realize this probably sounds cruel, unsympathetic, ect.. But honestly if we cry at the death of EVERY PERSON in the world, we would spend every minute of every day in tears.. It is impossible, and illogical to be upset over deaths of strangers for this reason.. that every minute someone dies, and every minute someone is born.. If you are religious (believing in a higher being) then good for you - let that be your soothing thoughts.. that all death ends in the transgression of the soul to someplace.. Having stated that, if you are not religious (like myself), then I guess you have little thought to soothe you..

Yes, it would be nice if life was good for everyone, all the time. And what is probably the most interesting is hapiness, and how some people can be happy with nothing, and others cannot. I went to Dominican Republic when I was a child and saw children pretty much in the same state as the children in the commercials (living in Africa that are hungry, in need of clothes and shelter.. so won't you give today? You're small donation can help feed this poor child).. Yes, they had houses made of straw, they climbed palm trees and shook off coconuts, they climbed without shoes, in raggedy shorts, and a raggedy shirt.. nothing top dollar here.. Anyhow, they ran barefoot down the sanded street, in their raggedy clothing, but the thing I saw, that I don't think I'll ever forget, was that these children living in "poverty" were happy. They were smiling. Playing naked in the water, running barefoot in the streets, they would smile. A little boy about 6 years old, throws wet rags on peoples windshields when they stop at red lights, he wipes the windshield down quick as he can and holds out his hand wanting money for his windshield wiping service. And he smiles with his big gleaming eyes.. American culture is soo different from other places. In America, this would be suffering, in DR it would be living. As for those poor kids in Africa, the charity people are shoving the whole suffering thing down our throats.. spending billions of money on ad campaigns, telephone workers, ceo's and budgeters for their campaign, all so we can give them our 60cents a week.. Really, wtf? Just take that billion dollars and oh, I don't know, maybe work on irrigation?? Farming? Plans to relocate them to a better place? Anyhow, I don't believe the people on tv are suffering as these charities would have us believe.. That is just the life they know, are when you only know one life you tend to be happy in that setting because you are accostomed to it.. Perception/cultural ect.

Btw: thanks for inviting me to the message board. :D
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 305
Hi Michelle,

Thanks for contributing.

My responses will be in red

Ok.. just taking on One point for a minute:

You mention there should be "as little pain, suffering, disability, and ealy death." Unfortunatly, these are NOT things we can entirely control. Could not agree more. That's why I said "as little as possible."1. Physical pain is not avoidable. We may be able to work safely, lift safely, ect, avoid being in car accidents, ect and thereby not suffer physical pain; but with age comes pain.. the most anyone can do for uncontrollable pain is what doctors usually do now, prescribe pain killers and/or surgery.
2. Mental pain/suffering: death and loss of job ect are the biggest things that cause suffering which are usually uncontrollable .. What about relationship breakdown? Crime? Religious conflict? Inappropriate expectations? Bullying? Ridicule? Substance-induced mental disorder?
3. Disability: also uncontrollable, unless you are talking about pre-screening babies in the womb and recommending abortions for those that will be born with a disability - be it mental or physical. Of course, you could suggest dumping billions of money into even more scientific research to solve these problems, but all the money in the world would still not make a scientist find cures.. - For the most part, humans can arguably stop certain behavior (such as smoking or doing drugs while pregnant), which could lead to birth defects and disabilities.. But that only covers a small portion of disabilities. The vast, vast amount of disability is contributed to or caused by unhealthy lifestyle, in addition to war and crime.
4. Early death - (death of a child, teen, young adult) 1. "early" in 2008 used to be the norm way back hundreds of years ago. In Shakespeares time, Romeo and Juliet were young adults/ in those times 13 or even younger would be the marrying age. 20's would be older, 30's would be about the norm for people to start dying.. of course, this all varies by what country and history book your referring to, in any case the USA age of marrying and adulthood is not what it was in the 1800's. Point being that science and education has already increased the years people live in the USA - also the age at which children are viewed to be adults has increased, and where it used to be that a 12 or 13 year old would get married was the norm, now it is not the norm for anyone under 18 to get married. Yes, for the 2000 century, anything under 21 would be considered an "early death" I suppose. Early is indeed undefined, but certainly not meaningless. A mother dying of alcoholism, breast cancer, auto accident, etc., would generally be regarded as "early," don't you think?
But here is where "survival of the fittest" is needed - say there were no "early deaths".. suddenly everyone lives to be 200 years old, 50 is the new "early death age".. the population would double, maybe triple from people living longer lives and having more children. Right, so population control (birth control) will prevent much PSDED, right?China realized this overpopulation problem decades ago and tried to force couples to only have one child, taxing them extra if they had two children.. (if anyone remembers those horryfing pictures of baby girls tied to beds in an adoption/drop off room caused by all the families wanting boys..) point is China tried to get their population under control for the greater good But in such a way as to cause PSDED, right?- so in the future the whole city would not be straving to death and struggling because there are simply too many people and not enough work, food, ect. This may seem stupid, silly, or unrealistic to think that humans can just run out of food, run out of resources, and mass starvation could ensue.. but that is what the forecast was for an evergrowing population in China. Then you look at the poor people in Africa that they always show on tv as being hungry and starving to death in this desolate place with no food and wonder why they didn't just move somewhere else, or stop having children when there is obviously (supposedly) no food, clothing, or shelter for them.. Sort of like Bob Barker telling everyone to "Spade and Neuter your pets" so we can save the cats and dogs from ending up as strays.. population control. Most people don't think twice about having their pet spade or neutered, but to have a human spade or neutered? We have to live a different way. Exactly what way remains to be seen.

I've sidetracked here, but the human species has already taken away land, shelter, homes, food supply and water supply from countless animal and wildlife species.. humans as a whole decide to spade and neuter pets, kill dangerous wildlife in their backyards ( it used to be the alligators lake, but now we built a house here and must kill all the alligators...) we've been the cause of extinction to species of animals and creatures through our expansions.. "Early death" is just as part of life and necessary to control the expansion of population as a normal death, or death of old age.. Sure, I think it sucks that a child dies in childbirth.. but in a way it is also population control, But surely not the best??and survival of the fittest.. You get my point that survival of the fittest (natural selection) has nothing to do with quality of life, right? I think it's horrible that anyone has to suffer, period. But that is life.. and there were no wars, no diseases, only more and more expansion and increased population, then eventually the human species would find themselves in a situation where there is overpopulation - and people would begun starving by the masses due to lack of food, lack of resources, ect. So you advocate for war and disease as a way of reducing PSDED??

I realize this probably sounds cruel, unsympathetic, ect.. But honestly if we cry at the death of EVERY PERSON in the world, we would spend every minute of every day in tears.. It is impossible, and illogical to be upset over deaths of strangers for this reason.. that every minute someone dies, and every minute someone is born.. If you are religious (believing in a higher being) then good for you - let that be your soothing thoughts.. that all death ends in the transgression of the soul to someplace.. Having stated that, if you are not religious (like myself), then I guess you have little thought to soothe you.. I am soothed the more I see us working toward the good life for all of us, now and in the future.
(Continued in next post)
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 316
(Continued from previous post)
Yes, it would be nice if life was good for everyone, all the time. And I hope you don't think I think that is possible.And what is probably the most interesting is hapiness, and how some people can be happy with nothing, and others cannot. I went to Dominican Republic when I was a child and saw children pretty much in the same state as the children in the commercials (living in Africa that are hungry, in need of clothes and shelter.. so won't you give today? You're small donation can help feed this poor child).. Yes, they had houses made of straw, they climbed palm trees and shook off coconuts, they climbed without shoes, in raggedy shorts, and a raggedy shirt.. nothing top dollar here.. Anyhow, they ran barefoot down the sanded street, in their raggedy clothing, but the thing I saw, that I don't think I'll ever forget, was that these children living in "poverty" were happy. They were smiling. Playing naked in the water, running barefoot in the streets, they would smile. A little boy about 6 years old, throws wet rags on peoples windshields when they stop at red lights, he wipes the windshield down quick as he can and holds out his hand wanting money for his windshield wiping service. And he smiles with his big gleaming eyes.. American culture is soo different from other places. In America, this would be suffering, in DR it would be living. As for those poor kids in Africa, the charity people are shoving the whole suffering thing down our throats.. spending billions of money on ad campaigns, telephone workers, ceo's and budgeters for their campaign, all so we can give them our 60cents a week.. Really, wtf? Just take that billion dollars and oh, I don't know, maybe work on irrigation?? Farming? Plans to relocate them to a better place? Anyhow, I don't believe the people on tv are suffering as these charities would have us believe.. That is just the life they know, are when you only know one life you tend to be happy in that setting because you are accostomed to it.. Perception/cultural ect.
But we are becoming globally more and more aware of the discrepancy between the haves and have nots, right?

In a short post, the full meaning of what one is trying to convey is easily lost. I have the impression that you believe that I believe certain things that I do not. It would be great if you went to HomoRationalis.com and downloaded the whole book, and reading it in the order written, looked for what you did not agree with. That way you would have the maximum understanding of what I am really saying.


Btw: thanks for inviting me to the message board. :D

Good to have you.
A former member
Post #: 7
Hi again. Quick reply: What about relationship breakdown? Crime? Religious conflict? Inappropriate expectations? Bullying? Ridicule? Substance-induced mental disorder? - Yes (I agree) those would be controllable instances
The vast, vast amount of disability is contributed to or caused by unhealthy lifestyle, in addition to war and crime. - also controllable; therefore preventable


Early is indeed undefined, but certainly not meaningless. A mother dying of alcoholism, breast cancer, auto accident, etc., would generally be regarded as "early," don't you think? - Depends on how old the mother is.. a mother could be 13 years old or 100+ years old.. Not to be a smart@ss.. but yes, I agree the term early is not meaningless

Right, so population control (birth control) will prevent much PSDED, right? FUTURE/ projected PSDED. Yes. And yes - I'm a strong advocate for birth control pills, condoms, ect.. There are too many parents and religious people whothink otherwise.. who think that any form of birth control (pills, condoms, ect) is unnatural and "evil"; in other words they are against the use of contraceptives which not only prevent birth but are also helpful (condoms) in preventing the spread of diseases

China tried to get their population under control for the greater good But in such a way as to cause PSDED, right? - Exactly.

Sure, I think it sucks that a child dies in childbirth.. but in a way it is also population control, But surely not the best?? -- No, it's not the best. In MY ideal world (at least) no one would die before they reached the age of 30, and of course I would live to be a couple hundred years old. :D
and survival of the fittest.. You get my point that survival of the fittest (natural selection) has nothing to do with quality of life, right? - It does have to do with "quality of life" - only to the point where it helps reduce Overpopulation issues, which could (in the future) lead to lesser quality of life, due to mass starvation, ect. "Survival of the fittest" is not the same game for humans in this century though.. now it seems the rich have more chances of living longer, due to having enough money to pay for preventive check-ups, medical work, ect; in general the richer classes have more oppurtonity to live healthier and longer lives; hence the term "survival of the fittest" is not exactly the best for (at least America, this age).. more era- appropiate might be the term "survival of the healthiest or richest.. Hopefully Obama will help reform the welfare and medical system to give everyone an equal oppurtonity for health benifits, ect; but nowadays families are declaring bankruptcy after coping with massive hospital billls.


- Gotta go, wil repspond more later.. look forward to hearing from everyone.. This is very fun for me :D
A former member
Post #: 8
So you advocate for war and disease as a way of reducing PSDED?? - No, I don't "advocate" war and disease but I do accept them as natural..

I am soothed the more I see us working toward the good life for all of us, now and in the future.
(Continued in next post)
Yes, that is a good thought, but it doesn't do much for me. Perhaps it is because I am selfishly thinking only of our upcoming demise.. instead of thinking only of the good life we live.. But with your physocological background you could probably see that I do not think like the "normal/sane" person.. I am often filled with worries about dying..
A former member
Post #: 9
(Continued from previous post)
Yes, it would be nice if life was good for everyone, all the time. And I hope you don't think I think that is possible. -- Hmm, that what was I was kindof getting out of it.. that you thought of a way to make life good for everyone for the most part. Perhaps not all the time, but for the most part. And it would be nice.. if life were life the Brady Bunch. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" .. Many of the principles have been laid out before, the settings by which everyone could be happy.. You even mentioned in the first few pages of your book, "None of the ideas in this book first arose in me. All of the ideas in this book have been expressed by respected others." most of the stuff they teach you in a good religion or elementary school is "treat others how you like to be treated" " Judge not, lest you be judged" "God give me wisdom to change the things I can, and accept the things I cannot change." "Honor thy elders" It's bad to kill, steal, cheat, ect.. But too many people don't think things throughly and act without logic, without thinking first. Or they simply don't care, or they think it's cool to be bad.. Ethically and morally I perceive America to be on a downward spiral - thanks especially to rap and base music which tell kids how cool it is to pop someone, and desicrate others.. there's too much degrading music (degrading to women and manind in general).. Don't get me wrong, i'm not into censorship, but I think music can be a positive or negative influence on people.. as well as everything else, upbringing, friends, school, ect. In the end though, someoner can listen to degrading music about "poppin" people all their life and choose to still be a morally and ethically good person.

But we are becoming globally more and more aware of the discrepancy between the haves and have nots, right?
In a short post, the full meaning of what one is trying to convey is easily lost. I have the impression that you believe that I believe certain things that I do not. It would be great if you went to HomoRationalis.com and downloaded the whole book, and reading it in the order written, looked for what you did not agree with. That way you would have the maximum understanding of what I am really saying.

Good to have you.

-- We have more opportunity to become globally aware of the haves and haves not, yes. But there are many people who don't watch CNN or global news.. many people who live in their world with no concern of others.

-- As per your book, yes, i am trying to get through it.. The intro put me off a bit (to be honest).. I think it's highly Faux Pas to call your own work "The Most Important Book" - and the intro is a bit lengthy for me. Like others on here, I agree you are spending too much time explaining definitions, which though they can be useful can put off the common reader.. The hardest thing to do when writing a novel is to capture the readers' attention and to keep their attention, be it through humor, ect.. Anyhow, I will try to read it thouroughly. :) And I do think it's amazing that you wrote a 165 page book!


Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 307
Gosh, Michelle! I am very pleased you are reading the book. Please don't read any further than the first sentence that seems incorrect or unclear in the context in which it is written (well, maybe the next few paragraphs for clarification), and please let me know of the sentence. You will be helping me tremendously.

I know that "The Most Important Book" sounds bad, but when I wrote the book, I committed myself to being honest. The first thing I do (in the Introduction) is tell the reader seven things that I believe about the book, and then I state that if I am correct, then I can't imagine a more important book. And I can't. And I can't imagine that someone else could. And I wrote the book to specifically be the most important book. But of course it may turn out that the book is no good. I can't be the judge of it because of obvious potential for bias.

But now I never said that I thought the book would be the most inspiring, the most read, etc. I think that currently only very unusual people will read it. In fact, I have humorously referred to it as "the magical, unreadable book." There are two people that I know have actually read the whole book. One is a pastor, who took notes and discussed it with me in almost weekly meetings. Both he and the other person said that they found nothing that they disagreed with.

But it is not written to sell. I committed myself to being completely accurate in what I believed, and to making it a book that anyone reading it conscientiously would agree with, this being consistent with my belief that we as a species are faced with a growing critical need to give up our endless miscommunication and postmodern solution of devaluing agreement (there's my truth, your truth, many truths, etc.), because we are going to have to work cooperatively to handle species-threatening developments, human- and nonhuman-made. To do so, we have to become more than talking, hi-tech, angry chimps, and this will require much more agreement than we currently are capable of. (And this agreement will have to be with regard to accurate beliefs, so accuracy of belief, and agreement regarding those accurate beliefs, will have to be a much, much higher value than it is today or ever has been.)

So what you are reading is a textbook, and textbooks are only acquired and read by people required to do so, unless they are very unusual people. I specifically did nothing to inspire by the use of metaphor, emotional narrative, attack, inuendo, appeal to social approval, etc. If the book is accepted by the reader, it will be for only one reason, that it makes sense.

But in order for it to make sense, the words will have to mean the same to the reader as they do to me (hence the meticulous effort at definition). Otherwise, the reader will think I am saying something different than what I am saying, and therefore something that indeed I, too, would disagree with.

People often really don't want to be precise. They tend to want to make use of what they read for emotional purposes, and are somewhat prone to change the meaning such that either it evokes desired emotional responses, or it seems to say something that is obviously not correct. People want to be able to say, "Great! This is saying what I have believed all along!" or "Well that's obviously not so, so I can just disregard what is being said." What I am saying is indeed substantially different from what most people believe. This is a major reason why, currently, almost no one will read it (except for some unusual people, as I keep saying).

So this is my big project toward the end of my life, my grateful effort to give back to my species what I have learned throughout my life, with regard to the things that cause our species so much pain, suffering, disability, and early death, and with regard to what I believe we need to accomplish and can accomplish to make our lives so much better.

If my book turns out to be a wash, then at least I have tried. But there is at least a chance that I have been able to contribute something valuable. And if so, it would be impossible for me not to care.

And you can see how I would be very grateful to anyone who was willing to critique the book and help me with any mistakes that are in it.

So you are giving me a real nice X-mas present!

BTW, I don't know whether you are surprised that I wrote a book as long as 165 pages or as short as 165 pages!

I hope your holiday is going well. And I hope to meet you at one of our meetings.

Bill
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 319
BTW, Michelle,

You write: I think it's highly Faux Pas to call your own work "The Most Important Book"

Ask Rick whether, if I do indeed believe (erroneously or not) that my book is "the most important book," I should be self-effacing and cover up that fact. You say I am not supposed to say such a thing. The people in Anthem Land were not supposed to use the word "I". I wonder if Rick thinks the same thing is happening to me as happened to Prometheus (Equality 7-2521).

Bill
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 357
Michelle,

Are you still struggling with that book?

You may think Humanianity.com, born 3/27/09, is highly Faux Pas also.

Would like to know what you think of it.

Bill
vincent
user 8236565
Kannapolis, NC
Post #: 15
I must say that the REUEP principal you suggest is one which makes me more then a little uncomfortable. I am an individualist in the extreme. The idea of espousing a concept where our actions center around the good life for everyone and the survival of the species. My question would be why? What would attemting to get everyone to espouse a philosophical position which centers around the good life for everyone look like? I feel that it would place the individual and his personal aspirations in a subservient position in relation to the position held by "society". To hold the opinion that everyone should aspire to the good life for everyone places the individual in a postion where he holds some kind of moral obligation to "everyone" or "society". Arent obligations things which we take on ourselves? If I borrow money, am I not obligated to pay it back? If I have a child, am I not obligated to raise it? How in the world did I get myself or did anyone else get themselves into a position where the greater good of others or society became an obligation which they should be concerned with? I havent got the remotest clue of what it is that would make others happy and I most certainly cant see how it would be good to further along the idea that anyone should do good for the greater good. That seems very broad to me. Most of the time I think that when people try and do good for the greater good, someone ends up using words which dont mirror actions. One group always ends up getting screwed out of something by another group in the name of compassion. I understand doing good for individuals, and I understand doing good for certain specified groups with specific problems which can be recognized, but I dont understand a concept like being concerned with the greater good for everyone. I feel that to do that the individual is placed second to the greater good, and the self is the most important thing when you really think about it because the self is all that there really is. Is there a better definition for existence then the word self? All of existence and everything you know or understand takes place within you, within your cranium. The whole world is neurologically created by your brain, everything is you and your mind. The self and its egotistical aspirations should come first because its all that you have. Provided that you seek to fulfill its wants through rational means. Doing drugs is selfish and wrong because its not projecting survival behavior into the future. Going to school to get a degree in something you enjoy to earn money and obtain stability in life is rational selfish behavior which is good.
As pertains to the other views espoused in this post, I think that humanity is already in a place in its evolutionary history where there is no way to no where were going accurately because we are so radically different then every other animal that there is nothing with which to compare ourselves to. We commit suicide. That is a human trait. I think that society has created sort of a buffer where we have become hedonists. Survival has taken a backseat to pleasure, and so the lymbic system in the brain has replaced the reptillian brains drive to survive. I suspect that that is part of the reason for suicidal behavior in our species. Its an example of overemotional emphasis in behavior. We have become more altruistic which is bad, for we sacrifice our own survival to the groups survival. The less intelligent are reproducing faster then the more intelligent, which means that overall I.Q. is dropping as we become less survival oriented.
I am a libertarian transhumanist. I want mankind to use techonology to better his condition and health. I want man to turn away from God in the process of becoming more Godlike, however, it scares me to think that with all the advancement which technology grants us the mass of humanity always seem to lag behind the ones who advance us by many years. The mindset of the innovaters of culture are always leaps and bounds ahead of the masses, and the masses lag behind recognizing the advancements in science by clinging to outmoded ideas for comfort and safety's sake. I have hope because of the internet and sites like this where people can reach out and learn new things that perhaps the more availability of information will help the braoder species catch up, however, the terrorists who flew the planes into the world trade center had access to information as well, and the terrorists and religious purists have access to online information all over the world but it doesnt seem to be stopping them from being terrorists. Still, I remain optimistic and hold high hopes for humanity.
I am also critical of the idea of a rational ethics. Who then will decide what stands for rational. If one group says that it alone is "rational" and monopolizes the word, that to me leaves the situation ripe for intollerance. Who decides that someone else is being rational? Wouldnt it become very easy to develop a mindset where you could say, "Does this person agree with me? No? Well thats because there being irrational." Many people may sound irrational until their thoughts and postions are given greater weight in your mind.
However, I do agree with you about keeping an opened mind. All these statements I'm asserting could be totally wrong. I appreciate your views and opinions, even though I dont agree with all of them and it is this kind of a disagreement over issues and the ability to discuss such things which leads to growth. I own up to the idea that my views could be very wrong. I ask that you give them weight and punch holes in any sloppy thinking which I present. The results of this could only lead to me changing my wrong headed thinking and moving forward into taking stances of more as you put it "rational" growth.
:)
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy