Ethics — What if we just keep asking why?

[GeorgCantor]

@GeorgCantor: That said, I do believe in coincedence, and I don't have faith that a god of all the universe(s?) cares particularly in a manner we'd understand. Plague, Famine, War... and mass extinctions that are dwarfing those in fossile records. I'm not particularly optimistic about a magical new energy source appearing, although if I were to look for a candidate, it would be some kind of super-efficient solar. That, is a dream however, and while it pays to keep hope alive, hedging your bets with god, believer or not (I'm not, clearly) is not a proven way to stay alive.

I wonder what god would think about a woman in Darfur who finally is murdered after her third or fourth sexual assault? Probably watching a nice fat supernova. We are just fleeting after all, of important only to ourselves and each other.

I didn't mean to imply that i agree with Einstein about god being benevolent. I am not even sure emotions would be applicable to the hypothetical entity of God. The only thing i meant to imply was that if existence and the universe were caused by a god, then likely we are a central point in the plans, given that we are able to comprehend the universe(more or less) when there is no reason why we should. Yet, I don't think we understand our own existence to a level where we can be certain about what is what. Given the confusion about what reality is and how the world works, we could be anything from thoughts in the mind of god, on through a non-comprehensible cosmic coincidence, to a miserable, fleeting accident of conditions that we cannot account for(as you seem to imply). So it's really hard to be certain about that woman's suffering in Darfur. When a fundamental knowledge is required that simply isn't there, you either turn to religion or philosophy, or you choose to make the least set of assumptions, which would lead you to solipsism, which is a no-go for me. So usually i try not to think about such issues too deeply, as i see no elegant solution to your question that would not make god look like a murderous villain.

 

[Frame Dragger]

. . . with the price of coal rising as demand exceeds supply.

There is more than enough coal to be burned... we'd be absolutely screwed if we used so much that demand exceeded supply.

. Oil will only continue to get more scarce and expensive. The middle east will become more strategic, only to a shrinking elite.

Yes, but how do elites stay in power? It's quite the balancing act in most of the middle-eastern states, and I really don't see that status quo lasting once the GDPs of those nations plummet. Hell, most of those regimes have enough issues as it is (see how the Saudis manage)

. I suspect water conservation will replace the need for reclamation. Flush-free toilets are already quite popular. Grey-water reclamation from showers and laundry is probably more doable, especially if greywater is recycled among different uses, like laundry water being used for cooling systems, etc

Here... and in some other developed nations. However we manage to poison a fair amount of that water through the agriculture that sustains us, and China... etc. Desalination is always going to be the public preference, and really, good luck in getting enough people to use flushless toilets to make a significant difference

. Invasion of Canada is a nationalist fantasy. Business between national governments is no longer handled by military force.

That REALLY depends on the governments, unless you'd argue that we're peacefully hashing it out (pun) with the Afghanis and Iraqis.

. Decisions are made by administrative conference and a media show is designed to legitimate historical events. This is more conspiracy theory on my part, but I really don't think that administrators of Canadian and US government are going to resort to ground-battle unless they're trying to orchestrate some soldier-extermination - God forbid.

Annexing water-rich parts of Canada is not only feasible, but entirely likely. Canada is enormous, and not massively populated. Siezing and controlling such resources would not present a challenge compared to... say... US citizens losing their minds over water rationing? That said, I don't actually believe we'd go that far unless matters had already collapsed. Of course, nationalist fantasies (Germany had a couple as I recall) do sometimes translate into military action, given the proper motivation and desperation.

. Nuclear weapons are little more than the guarantee that economy remains the battleground of conflict. Ever read George Bataille "The Accursed Share?"

Yes, but I also researched the Cuban Missile Crisis a great deal, and we came very VERY close to ending ourselves. We've come a long way, but it would be silly to assume that circumstances couldn't change. Assymetry in warfare is a strong motivator for some to utilize weapons in desperation. Riddle me this: What to do about North Korea? We are reduced to impotent negotiatoins, or a blistering and truly inhumane first strike to save Seoul. I don't see the latter happening unless something goes terribly wrong.

I don't see MAD as a backdrop for peace however, because in the end losers in ALL conflicts sometimes resort to force. "To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee." (Capt. Ahab) That is very human, and terrifying. Logically, you shouldn't pull a gun and point it at anything you're not prepared to destroy or kill. In practice, robbers, people at home, etc... use guns as a THREAT. Does that lead to LESS gun violence, or more? Hint... more.

What would we do, or Russia, or China, faced with a sinking ship loaded armed, and aimed? The answer is: "who knows?" and that is not comforting. This of course, exludes accidents, misunderstandings, and weapons of a non-nuclear nature (biological, etc) which could be devestating. As I'm guessing you're well aware, infrastuctures and economies can be destroyed by simply overloading those infrastructures. Get enough people sick, and scared of becoming sick, and you could do terrible things. Back people into a wall, take away their guns, and what happens?... hijaacking with plastic utensils, two towers down, a hole in the pentagon, and two wars we shouldn't have entered. Imagine what similarly motivated people (remembering that M.I.C.E. is a truism for us all, not just pissed-off Arabs) could do with a well engineered virus, or bacteria?

Economics is one proxy... consider the Cold War... we had other proxies, and they didn't fight on an economic field.

What makes you think that sea food and other products won't be conserved through pricing the same as any other resource? Subsistence farming implies that somehow professional farming authorities would be excluded from any agricultural responses to distribution problems. Worst case scenario, I imagine, would be many people migrating to the outskirts of traditional farming areas to gain access to grains and crops without the need for fuel-driven transport.

1.) The rising price, and scarcity of Phosphorus, and while we might mine 'stercore' for it, the rest of the world is going to mine their areas dry.
2.) Damage to the oceans is clear, and present. Algael blooms, dead zones, overfishing and whaling. Believe it or not, it's not easy to farm most fish, and it won't matter if the whole ecosystem keels over. A lifetime of Talapia and Carp might be feasible for a while, and a lot of Textured Vegetable Protein...
3.) Again, many of your ideas are feasible for the SOME of the world, but as China and others have expressed, "**** you! You burned coal and oil to get where you are, and why should we do any differently?"
4.) Time.

If that's not feasible, professional farmers will have to run urban farms using local residents as a labor pool. The trick will be how to manage land and soil resources to ensure sustainable agriculture at the local level.

That's proactive... if matters ever become so dire that such is the only means of support, we won't have an "urban" to farm. We needed to build verticle farms in cities decades ago... now... *shrug* who knows.

In other words, fear of failure is stressful - but the trick is to supplant that fear with resolve to achieve sustainability, and to keep the faith that it's achievable. Well, I'll burst your bubble by assuring you that end-of-the-world propaganda has no other effect than to generate fiscal stimulus as people "live it up" thinking that the world is soon to end anyway. The Prince song, "Party Like It's 1999," is my favorite expression of this. I've noticed a lot of it lately with the "economic crisis." Businesses want people to spend money so they promote media that contains the suggestion that you better enjoy life while you still can. This fills up cash-registers even while it takes culture farther away from sustainability.

Agreed. People who live their lives as though it is about to end, makes sense, but only if you have a keen appreciation of your own mortality, and no desire for longevity. Otherwise, a doom that could be 50, or 500 years in the offing is not exactly something that should make anyone put a flatscreen on layaway.

Aha, so the truth come out!:) You are one of those people looking for an excuse to throw ethics to the wind and take the easy way to (someone else's) resources. Just remember that there is someone else thinking just like you ready to do the same thing to you that you are ready to do to someone else. Ethics are a frustration, but if you're lucky they also frustrate someone on the way to abuse you. Ethical actions are your best hope of being treated ethically by others. If I were you I would embrace that hope and take advantage of the opportunity to be spared as you spare others.

No... I wish I was. I have a sense of morality whether I like it or not. To me, the ultimate ethic is the so-called "Golden Rule" (not Fermi's lol). I have empathy for others, again, whether I want it or not, and I don't want to cause anyone pain, suffering, or misery. I can hardly tolerate how people treat one another, and animals, as it stands. In general, I'm treated well by peers and friends because, as you say, I treat them well. If the world ends tommorrow (lets say Tesla comes back to life and cracks the world ), is it so different from our individual lives ending? I try to treat people the way I want to be treated in return, and I fall short of that (being human, mercurial, and occasionally vicious mit mein tongue!), but not for lack of trying.

Ethics are a comfort... I just don't believe they have an objective reality. Who cares about that, when all is said and done? If this is all a dream someone is having, or a simulation, and I KNEW that, my feelings wouldn't change. I feel for others, I feel for animals, I have a very vivid imagination, and being chubby as a kid I know how even casual cruelty hurts. I've also been traveling all over the world since I was a child (and I mean all over). At age 12 I traveled to Guatamala. Interesting, since at the time there was a rumour that white foreigners were stealing children for their organs. Mothers actually drew away from me, at 12.

I still remember dogs with fence-slat ribs, and kids with a cheap come-on to buy kitsch, and an angry "**** you" if you declined. I've seen people dying on the street from an infection that would be cleared with a course of IV antibiotics, and known I could do nothing to help them.

So, do I give up on ethics? No. I find that as silly as people who claim not to believe in a god because of an unjust world. I recognize that I'm a single person, and barring some extraordinary event in my life, I can effect those around me, and hope that effect spreads a little. I'm now a not-chubby 6'2" man, and I don't fight, even when people seem to think a big man must be a challenge. I volunteerd as a camp counseler at a local Audubon Society camp/farm/animal-rescue. I'd rather (true story) have a 6 year old on each arm, and on on each leg pretending I'm a giant to be ridden, than go to a bar and see people waste their minds, and time.

I'd much rather learn in a mileu such as this, respecting one another where appropriate, than be thrown to wolves. I appreciate the ethical acts others perform, and try my best to do the same.

I do all of this, never having believed in a god. I've never being an atheist or theist... I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a god, but I recognize that an absolute faith in a negative and unprovable is only marginally less silly than absolute faith in a positive. Faith is faith, and I'm... faithless. I'm a depressive-realist, skeptic, who hopes and acts as though the world will continue apace. What other way can you live?... hunkered in a blast shelter, hoping to enjoy a wasteland? Nah. I'm not trying to avoid the hard stuff, I'm trying to NOT resolve my cognitive dissonance. I eschew certainty in favour of phenomonology a bit of logical positivism, and a dash of hope. So, I'm not the happiest man alive, but I believe I have a more realistic view of the world, good and bad.

NOTE: To be fair, I haven't listed any good, but we're not exactly on the upbeat!

 

[Frame Dragger]

But this is what I've already said. The systems view is general enough to talk about "ethics" at any level. So a well adapted biology has the same logic as a well adapted sociology.

Brains were indeed shaped to make fine-tuned competition~co-operation judgements in social creatures like hominids and apes.

Of course, there are the old caricatures about nature red in tooth and claw, the savage state of man, the brutality of naked darwinian selection, etc. But biologist know better that life is a balance of competition and co-operation, whether you are talking at the genetic, cellular, social, or whatever level.

Cooperation and success for the SYSTEM, not the individual. Maybe you're willing to sacrifice yourself for ideals, but what about family, or a friend, or a lover?
Oh, and as for nature red in tooth and claw, how about rapes in The Congo? What's happening in Darfur? People sitting by while a girl is raped outside a school in Chicago? Etc... etc... etc... Hitler and Stalin... The Armenian Genocide... Rwanda, Bosnia, The Baltic states, a disturbingly large portion of Africa, What the French did in Algiers, What the British did in India, and pretty much everywhere ele?

It's red, it's toothed, and it's clawed, and if you ever find yourself in the wild with saaaaay.. a starving timber wolf, you'd learn that terribly quickly. Life is evolution, and the history of evolution is eventual extinction and replacement.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I didn't mean to imply that i agree with Einstein about god being benevolent. I am not even sure emotions would be applicable to the hypothetical entity of God. The only thing i meant to imply was that if existence and the universe were caused by a god, then likely we are a central point in the plans, given that we are able to comprehend the universe(more or less) when there is no reason why we should. Yet, I don't think we understand our own existence to a level where we can be certain about what is what. Given the confusion about what reality is and how the world works, we could be anything from thoughts in the mind of god, on through a non-comprehensible cosmic coincidence, to a miserable, fleeting accident of conditions that we cannot account for(as you seem to imply). So it's really hard to be certain about that woman's suffering in Darfur. When a fundamental knowledge is required that simply isn't there, you either turn to religion or philosophy, or you choose to make the least set of assumptions, which would lead you to solipsism, which is a no-go for me. So usually i try not to think about such issues too deeply, as i see no elegant solution to your question that would not make god look like a murderous villain.

I think a good solution to the problem of God being a murderous villain is:

1.) Don't believe in God.
2.) God isn't omniscient or omnipotent
3.) God doesn't percieve human or other lives as we do.
4.) There is an afterlife, this is all some kind of test or such.
5.) We are central to NOTHING, there is a god, and The Kwizleks of the Fleemong nebula are chatting with it right now.

Really, anthrocentrism can only get you so far before you start munching on your own tail. unless options 1-5 appeal to you. Genenrally speaking, I find that #4 is most common, #3 next, followed by #5, then #1, then #2

 

[apeiron]

Cooperation and success for the SYSTEM, not the individual. Maybe you're willing to sacrifice yourself for ideals, but what about family, or a friend, or a lover?
Oh, and as for nature red in tooth and claw, how about rapes in The Congo? What's happening in Darfur? People sitting by while a girl is raped outside a school in Chicago? Etc... etc... etc... Hitler and Stalin... The Armenian Genocide... Rwanda, Bosnia, The Baltic states, a disturbingly large portion of Africa, What the French did in Algiers, What the British did in India, and pretty much everywhere ele?

It's red, it's toothed, and it's clawed, and if you ever find yourself in the wild with saaaaay.. a starving timber wolf, you'd learn that terribly quickly. Life is evolution, and the history of evolution is eventual extinction and replacement.

I was talking about the principles of systems in social equilbrium and you cite a bunch of examples of systems where equilbrium has broken down and is not in equilbrium.

If you study theoretical biology, you will see that your view of evolution is the popular caricature.

The ecological view involves both evolution and development (top-down constraint in the form of environmental selection, bottom-up construction in the form of developmental self-organisation).

Yes, there is a lifecycle in the dissipative structure view of ecology. You have the stages of immaturity (freely expressed development), maturity (equilibrium balance) and scenescence (over-constraint that leads to rigidity, fragility and so eventual break up and replacement).

Sorry if my approach to philosophical questions is too structured, too much based on concrete models, for your tastes.

 

[apeiron]

There is more than enough coal to be burned... we'd be absolutely screwed if we used so much that demand exceeded supply.

This is off-topic, but given your interest in coal, are you so sure that there is more than enough? Some argue peak coal is just a decade or so away.

http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/Coalarticle.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...13/2569143.htm

The production profiles of a small number of countries will dominate the global coal production since most of the coal is distributed within the Big Six. China, the world’s largest coal producer, will determine the timing of the peak in global coal production.
China will peak in coal production around 2020 unless their reserves are bigger than reported or a significant amount of coal resources can be transformed into producing reserves in the near future.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I was talking about the principles of systems in social equilbrium and you cite a bunch of examples of systems where equilbrium has broken down and is not in equilbrium.

If you study theoretical biology, you will see that your view of evolution is the popular caricature.

The ecological view involves both evolution and development (top-down constraint in the form of environmental selection, bottom-up construction in the form of developmental self-organisation).

Yes, there is a lifecycle in the dissipative structure view of ecology. You have the stages of immaturity (freely expressed development), maturity (equilibrium balance) and scenescence (over-constraint that leads to rigidity, fragility and so eventual break up and replacement).

Sorry if my approach to philosophical questions is too structured, too much based on concrete models, for your tastes.

There is no need to get pissy apeiron... You cited examples of theoretical social equilibrium, and I pointed out that a majority of the world has never conformed to that view. We are, as humans, apparently unable to reach an equilibrium in terms of a sustainable population, and as that is ultimately the most basic issue...

Yes, my view is not popular, but then again, that doesn't make it wrong. My view is also depressing, and doesn't include god, which means that ALREADY most people would reject it. I am as yet, unfazed.

Perhaps you would care to give me examples on par with those I could give you, of this equilibrium that exists only in theory, and in chimps? History is filled with atrocity on a grand scale, over and over and over. Whole cultures, and the world as a result, set back socially and technologically (think of Alexandria...). The lesson you should take from evolutionary biology is that people seem unable to reach a balance (equilibrium) with our environment. We really are quite viral, and we're apex predators, and we change our environment radically. Historically, this usually means we'll be fossiles soon.

It's not my fault that life doesn't conform to your model apeiron, although the model does work very well pre-industrial revolution if you think only of the system as a whole. Alas, that is no longer the case, and not likely to be anytime soon. If you're talking about ants or cells working together, and even symbiotes, and parasites... then sure. The problem is that ethics only enter the equation when you can THINK about them, and the only species doing that at the moment that I know of, is us. We seem to be very much at odds with the system you describe, with population growth being a fine example. Explosive growth, not curbed by any disease yet, or war, or famine. The number of extinctions we've caused, and saaaay wiping out whole civilations with disease and warfare, already beats such natural disasters such as mass-extinction events.

If you feel that there is a basis in evolutionary biology which covers the massive exception to the rule called "humans", feel free to share. I'm not seeing that model line up to reality very well at all.

Besides, what good is an ethical structure that people are unwilling or unable to enact?

EDIT: Re: post 126: Yes... coal could peak in 2020, but I really don't see that as likely. Not to mention that it doesn't change the outcome at the end of rthe day, which is that if we burned all of the coal we could mine, it would be a disaster. Keep in mind estimates of resources are based on speculation, and best geological guesses... which frankly don't impress me. That said, I'm unsure for the same reason... expected coal veins could be smaller, or there could be disasters such as fires (think Centralia) which render it useless, but still quite hazardous.

I will say this; anyone speaking about China's potential coal reserves is either flailing (not uncommon) for lack of info, or they assume the Chinese et al have accurately mapped existing coal deposits. Even given that, should China burn through every last gram of coal, it would release a truly unfortunate amount of such delights as mercury, and sulphur dioxide.

Then again, if coal DOES become scarce I hope I'm dead and gone by then, because I expect that matters would become fairly ugly.

I mentioned Phosphorus before... something we already tarriff the HELL out of for scarcity's sake. We need it to feed ourselves, and others, but it's a disaster to mine, the runoff is an absolute menace, and radioactive gypsum pillars are not exactly "desireable". We can reclaim some from feces, but it all comes back to overpopulation... the one indisputible way that humanity is utterly out of equilibrium. If you believe in the model you present, then I expect plague, war, or some other factor to "trim" the population. Is it ethical to allow this to happen? Is it efficient? Is it in line with the continuation of our genes, or is it more likely that we've simply gone viral? I believe the latter.

 

[baywax]

I can't quite tell from your language whether you think that ethics can be collective as well as individual. You talk as if war is a collective breach of ethics and observance of territorialized ethnicity in the form of national boundaries is a virtue. In fact, individuals can actually fail ethically by becoming accomplices to the sovereignty of ethno-national governmental elites. After all, nationalism itself is just one more form of power exercised in denial of its own ethical abuses.

Although I've heard the argument that the war on terror was about securing oil rights, I actually think that those oil rights were already secured in the 1990s by the "oil for food" program in which the pain of embargo was exploited by offering access to basic medicine and food. It was framed as a human-rights program, but in effect amounted to leveraging oil in exchange for the most basic human rights assistance (not that I'm an expert).

I actually tend to look at the media aspect of war in the middle-east as having a positive effect on oil-consumption, in that it drives up prices as investors speculate on rising scarcity. By driving up the price at the pump, consumers and businesses are motivated to conserve petrolium usage. A gas-tax would have the same effect, but would never be politically supported - whereas a war on terror can. Although it's a far-sought logic, cheap oil IS actually a cause of terror and anti-democracy globally, so driving up the price to stimulate greater oil-independence is not as much of a lie as it may seem to be.

The worse lie, I think, is allowing the economy to build up dependency on oil in that it is a non-renewable resource doomed to increasing in scarcity, price, and therefore allows for some people to continue gaining in wealth while increasingly less people can have access to the fuel.

Electric cars are a step in the direction of less dependency, but they also support the belief that technological development can indefinitely postpone the need for greater energy-conservation and the development of less energy-dependent lifestyles. Electric scooters anyone?

Without much time to say this I'll just hint at my definition of ethics:

The word "ethics" describes (for me) a mechanism of balance within a system. That balance is only reached when a maximum of efficiency is realized within the system. Therefore my definition of "ethics" could be construed to be the equivalency of efficiency.

The odd part of this definition is that you need inefficiency in order to see the efficiency of an ethical state. This sort of contrast allows for re-adjustment and re-engineering which inevitably leads to a more efficient ethic... and thus a more productive and balanced system.

The word ethics is generally used to describe human relationships and more recently to describe the human relationship with the environment. This is because when we screw with the environment the results are a poorer quality of life for humans. Thus, treating the environment "ethically" means treating humans "ethically".

 

[Frame Dragger]

Without much time to say this I'll just hint at my definition of ethics:

The word "ethics" describes (for me) a mechanism of balance within a system. That balance is only reached when a maximum of efficiency is realized within the system. Therefore my definition of "ethics" could be construed to be the equivalency of efficiency.

The odd part of this definition is that you need inefficiency in order to see the efficiency of an ethical state. This sort of contrast allows for re-adjustment and re-engineering which inevitably leads to a more efficient ethic... and thus a more productive and balanced system.

The word ethics is generally used to describe human relationships and more recently to describe the human relationship with the environment. This is because when we screw with the environment the results are a poorer quality of life for humans. Thus, treating the environment "ethically" means treating humans "ethically".

Efficiency as an ethic. Interesting.

Would life on this planet be better off if we had never arrived on the scene? In your view, do the only meaningful ethics relate to the human condition, or is there also a sense of responsibility and care for life in general?

 

[Vanadium 50]

But what about ethics? It´s not based on axioms or experience.

Not based on axioms? Spinoza did this in 1677.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Not based on axioms? Spinoza did this in 1677.

Well, a dictum.

Now THAT was petty of me.

 

[apeiron]

Yes, my view is not popular, but then again, that doesn't make it wrong.

Well my complaint was that your views lack structure. They are opinions lacking theoretical bones or precise measurements. So they come across as windy rants rather than precise thoughts.

For instance, you failed to understand my point that the equilbriums I am talking about here are open systems equilibriums (as modeled in dissipative structure theory - the maximum entropy production). The difference is the same as that between gaussian distributions and powerlaw ones - radical.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Well my complaint was that your views lack structure. They are opinions lacking theoretical bones or precise measurements. So they come across as windy rants rather than precise thoughts.

For instance, you failed to understand my point that the equilbriums I am talking about here are open systems equilibriums (as modeled in dissipative structure theory - the maximum entropy production). The difference is the same as that between gaussian distributions and powerlaw ones - radical.

I think you missed the part where I'm in the philosophy forum to NOT talk about physics, or related metaphors. You call it "open system equilibrium", biologists call it homeostasis if they're considering a single organism. A system being a system, the concepts are fairly similar, and not terribly useful when consciousness and motives contrary to even one's own well-being and survival come into play.

Consider this: I could just as easily have posted in response to you: "why the hell are you bringing this up?" in regards to: "I was talking about the principles of systems in social equilbrium..." when you've still failed to give historical examples that actually back your point... because we're not talking about theory, but application. In the absence of people, there are no Ethics... no moral philosophy. To ignore the brunt of human history and it's fairly clear future arc (again, only in relation to population) is to miss the point of the discussion that was taking place prior to your entrance.

Frankly, you took some steps back by apparently assuming my (and perhaps others') ignorance. I'm not interested in talking about a 70's theory which equates all open systems, including human, and then uses basic thermodynamics to make predictions. People defy these predictions, because they do not always (or often) act rationally or in absolute accordance with biological imperatives. How is that you felt a discussion about the morality and efficiency of slavery, with historical context, would be enriched by reducing it to *EDIT* Whoops... "diS -> deS". mixed my i's and e's. *End Edit*

You're welcome to your viewpoint, but don't make assumptions in the damned lounge alright? It's just tiring. If we actually agreed to have the same discussion then it might be interesting, but we're not... we are in a consciuous manner, talking across purposes. No thanks, that's really not what I'm looking for in anything that starts with "PF Lounge > General Discussion..."

 

[baywax]

Efficiency as an ethic. Interesting.

Would life on this planet be better off if we had never arrived on the scene? In your view, do the only meaningful ethics relate to the human condition, or is there also a sense of responsibility and care for life in general?

Hi Frame Dragger... I tend to visualize (erroneously and anthropomorphically) the laws of nature as ethical laws. We as humans try to imitate them as best we can... or should do... because they are tried and true... the laws of nature and physics have allowed this universe to survive 13.7 billion years. Pretty efficient!

 

[Frame Dragger]

Hi Frame Dragger... I tend to visualize (erroneously and anthropomorphically) the laws of nature as ethical laws. We as humans try to imitate them as best we can... or should do... because they are tried and true... the laws of nature and physics have allowed this universe to survive 13.7 billion years. Pretty efficient!

Well hell man, why didn't you just say that to begin with?! We would have had little disagreement at all in that setting. Ah well, the ride has been a lot of fun.