Why is humanity so unkind to one another

[loseyourname]

Why can't you have a defense instinct without greed?

 

[Nicomachus]

The reason you want to keep those things is because you have all ways had them.what if you had never experienced hate or greed or pain. would you want to ?

I am not an idiot; I would not contend that I would necessarily want something that I knew nothing about or had ever experienced. However, I do not see the point and you are wrong that is not why I want to keep the qualities of humanity. Oh sure you could say that I am making an emotional-plea, but I am not. You seem to suggest that an unfeeling and sterile society is desirable as its own ends. Man suffers, man goes through all these kinds emotionals and feelings and hatred and so forth as that what makes up Man. You could take this away and have something else, but you are implying that something must be better if it avoids conflict. I contend that that is an absurd position. I think you are throwing the baby out with bathwater. If you would like to remove hate, greed, and pain then I suggest you consider destroying love, charity, and satisfactions as well. For what would these things be without the other? Yes, I could see my argument here as a bit flawed but I think if you still persist could present a more rigorous defense and criticism of your assertions.
*Nico

 

[loseyourname]

You're starting to sound like a religious apologist defending God against the problem of evil.

 

[Nicomachus]

You're starting to sound like a religious apologist defending God against the problem of evil.

Who, me? This is hardly the same case. Simply because you don't like what I have to say does not mean I committing the same fallacy as the apologist. I am discussing reality and not the supposed reality an omnipotent "first cause" entity would have the ability and propensity to create. Anyway, you didn't say anything of substance, which seems to be very popular, so I'll just disregard it.
*Nico

 

[loseyourname]

Writing a paragraph about X is your idea of "disregarding" X?

You're arguing that a universe with evil is to be preferred over a universe with no evil because without evil, good things would have no meaning and so would not be as good. Is that not exactly the apologist's argument? Whether or not the argument is fallacious doesn't really matter. The fact is that we evolved to fit the universe we were given. If we had a universe with no evil, I can assure you that we would be perfectly fine with it. What you like because you happen to live in this universe is rather beside the point.

 

[Nicomachus]

That really isn't what I'm aruing, although I would like to see an attempted refutation of that, bear in mind within that positon you cannot say "good things would not be as good" because, if you were to accept the premise, you would be committing the stolen concept fallacy. And no this is not exactly the same thing the apologists argue; I know all their arguments. I am discussing this as a practical matter and not this thought experiment you seem to think I am dicussing. I have yet to see any meritorious argument that a sterile race of humans that does not contain the previously mentioned qualities would be desirable over the current state of humanity. It seems to be a bunch of "wah wah, I don't like conflict."
*Nico

 

[loseyourname]

The point is that you are saying it can't be shown to be favorable from the perspective you have given a world with the particular traits it has. Had you been born into a world with no evil, it should be rather obvious that you would not miss evil.

Now you don't need to tell me that you like conflict. That can easily be inferred from your posts. However, the argument seems to be that the human race would be better off without conflict, not that anybody would like that world more. A world in which all humans cooperated and shared resources would obviously be of benefit to the species. Asthetic appeal is another matter entirely.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bees and ants have a world where every unit (within a hive or nest) cooperates and shares. Meerkats paritally share this characteristic. I find the thought of a human race so dedicated to be pretty repulsive.

Your proposal seems to be based on a totally materialistic view of human needs. Once we get all the matter and energy shared out, all problems will cease, by direction of the genetic engineers. Ugh.

 

[BoulderHead]

Would love to! Where shall we dine?

http://www.dineout.co.nz/restaurant.php?rest=1144
Where else?

 

[Nec]

http://www.dineout.co.nz/restaurant.php?rest=1144
Where else?

I know Boulderhead is somewhere is the US but why New Zealand ?

 

[Nicomachus]

The point is that you are saying it can't be shown to be favorable from the perspective you have given a world with the particular traits it has. Had you been born into a world with no evil, it should be rather obvious that you would not miss evil.

Now you don't need to tell me that you like conflict. That can easily be inferred from your posts. However, the argument seems to be that the human race would be better off without conflict, not that anybody would like that world more. A world in which all humans cooperated and shared resources would obviously be of benefit to the species. Asthetic appeal is another matter entirely.

huh? I conceded that I obviously would not miss evil if I did not know what it was or had no way to "feel" it, though I'm really not discussing evil but if that is your choice of terms then it is perfectly fine. Your funny remark about me enjoying conflict does not give your argument more sway. You can continue to misrepresent my position but you don't serve your argument in that way either. What I asked in the previous post was for someone to give a substantive argument for why a sterile race of humans is desirable, simply saying there will be no conflict is not sufficient. I don't know that it is desirable to have no possibility of conflict, or hate, or pain. Now if you had written "Well it is obviously better to have a race of humans which were nothing more than bland worker bees" I would respect your position more, though I find that ridiculous and unjustified. What I have seen, and not just in this thread, is that many of you are simply trying to find the "simplest solution" under the guise of what you all may think to be "scientific reasoning." Another example of this, though you did not write this loseyourname someone in the samd mindset did, asserted that it, paraphrasing, "Obviously it makes no sense for a creature not to welcome death after reproduction." I think the entire line of reasoning is more circular really. You are assuming that X must be better because it fits some kind of pseudo-scientific model of ought. In turn, you think I am being circular because I think you are incorrect because your position is not is, which is a misrepresentation. I simply do not accept the notion that the worker-bee model of society is more desirable as its own ends, I do not accept. You seem to allude that I would accept if I were thinking clearly and not holding on to my "desires," but such is not the case. You are assuming your conclusions. I do not accept this, simple. If I can be provided with some justication or arguments, then maybe, but all I have been presented with is "Well of course the sterile society is better because its sterile."
*Nico

 

[Nicomachus]

Originally Posted by Moonrat
Would love to! Where shall we dine?

http://www.dineout.co.nz/restaurant.php?rest=1144
Where else?

Yep.
*Nico

 

[loseyourname]

Bees and ants have a world where every unit (within a hive or nest) cooperates and shares. Meerkats paritally share this characteristic. I find the thought of a human race so dedicated to be pretty repulsive.

Your proposal seems to be based on a totally materialistic view of human needs. Once we get all the matter and energy shared out, all problems will cease, by direction of the genetic engineers. Ugh.

To be honest, I'm really just arguing with Nico for the sake of argument. I'm not proposing anything. Seriously, though, what's so wrong with the thought of dedicated human beings who cooperate with each other? It's really difficult for me to get a grasp on why you would find such a thing repulsive. Do you think you would somehow be less free?

 

[loseyourname]

I simply do not accept the notion that the worker-bee model of society is more desirable as its own ends, I do not accept. You seem to allude that I would accept if I were thinking clearly and not holding on to my "desires," but such is not the case. You are assuming your conclusions. I do not accept this, simple. If I can be provided with some justication or arguments, then maybe, but all I have been presented with is "Well of course the sterile society is better because its sterile."
*Nico

I think you are arguing with someone else here. I don't recall saying anything about sterilizing workers and forming a strictly heirarchical society, or maybe you mean something other than worker-bee when you say worker-bee. If you think getting rid of greed and malice is somehow going to result in a Brave New World, I really don't know what to say to you.

Look at it this way. What is the purpose of most of our laws? They compel people to be fair and decent to each other, correct? That is all I'm asking. If genetics can help bring about such a state, why not? You might think it's artificial, but the simple fact is, you didn't choose the genome you have any more than you would choose one without greed and malice. Either way, you're constrained by what you're given. At least this way, humanity can have some say in the way they evolve, rather than simply leaving it up to chance.

 

[sciart]

“Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.”　--A.Einstein
　because the second law of thermodynamics. produced high entropy（unkind)

--- I am from China :)
http://sciart.yeah.net/

 

[selfAdjoint]

The second law is like "Every nail that sticks up is pounded down." It says that in isolated systems bland situations max out and special situations go away.

 

[olde drunk]

Quick thought. Why would a world with conflict, but without violence (intended harm to any other creation) be bland or undesireable??

On quick examination I believe that we are always in some form of conflict with oursleves. Embracing a new idea that requires the redirection of our ego (the status quo from prior ideas). I suspect that conflict helps the conceptualization of new ideas.

if we have ambiguous feelings of an event or condition it is often the conflict of two or more ideas. this conflict motivates the creation of a new idea to reconcile the disharmony.

being mean and/or violent towards another does not improve the human condition. short term it may have materialistic value, however,it perpetuates itself to the point that you must constantly guard against being the next victim of violence. it seems that allowing or accepting violence at any level escalates to more and greater violence.

our short term gains in the recent wars have yet to yield a long term benefit. WWII may have been a necessity at the time, unfortunately, it also created the myth that we can solve most of the worlds problems by defeating the bad guy. Funny, but we never went to war with Russia and they seem to have changed the most in the evolution of government and social issues.

sorry, but i do not see a peaceful, energetic human race as being sterile. Hey, why fear something we haven't tried before? these ^$*#!ing wars haven't really brought about a major change in society. Embrace peace, it's time for change.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[confutatis]

What I have seen, and not just in this thread, is that many of you are simply trying to find the "simplest solution" under the guise of what you all may think to be "scientific reasoning." Another example of this, [...] someone in the same mindset did, asserted that it, paraphrasing, "Obviously it makes no sense for a creature not to welcome death after reproduction." I think the entire line of reasoning is more circular really.

Nico,

That someone would be me, but I didn't mean what you think I meant. I was simply criticizing the notion that evolution necessarily implies the existence of evil and suffering. When I said "it doesn't make sense", I meant it in the context of the theory.

As to your argument on this thread, I couldn't agree more with you: evil is the price we pay for goodness; pain is the price we pay for pleasure; hate is the price we pay for love. We may sometimes feel as if we're paying too high a price, but what we get in return is priceless.

Regards --

 

[Nicomachus]

I think you are arguing with someone else here. I don't recall saying anything about sterilizing workers and forming a strictly heirarchical society, or maybe you mean something other than worker-bee when you say worker-bee. If you think getting rid of greed and malice is somehow going to result in a Brave New World, I really don't know what to say to you.

Look at it this way. What is the purpose of most of our laws? They compel people to be fair and decent to each other, correct? That is all I'm asking. If genetics can help bring about such a state, why not? You might think it's artificial, but the simple fact is, you didn't choose the genome you have any more than you would choose one without greed and malice. Either way, you're constrained by what you're given. At least this way, humanity can have some say in the way they evolve, rather than simply leaving it up to chance.

Well, I must admit the "worker bee" example was slightly archaic, it made sense to me but I did not really explain. What I am essentially arguing at this point is that there rammifications to changing humanity in that way, I do not think from a value stand point it would be worth. Changing humanity in that way, I think, would result in a Pyrrhic victory over "conflict" or whatever it is we are trying to abolish. I apologize if I have come off a bit harsh, however.
*Nico

 

[Nicomachus]

Nico,

That someone would be me, but I didn't mean what you think I meant. I was simply criticizing the notion that evolution necessarily implies the existence of evil and suffering. When I said "it doesn't make sense", I meant it in the context of the theory.

As to your argument on this thread, I couldn't agree more with you: evil is the price we pay for goodness; pain is the price we pay for pleasure; hate is the price we pay for love. We may sometimes feel as if we're paying too high a price, but what we get in return is priceless.

Regards --

Well, yes, I was trying to think of a quick example but I see I misrepresented your position. Ah, but I would, in turn, agree with your second paragraph, that is exactly my point.
*Nico

 

[sciart]

The second law is like "Every nail that sticks up is pounded down." It says that in isolated systems bland situations max out and special situations go away.

Our Universe just is a isolated System. Right?