Why is humanity so unkind to one another

[confutatis]

If humanity has a cosmic relationship, then us moving into space is highly relevant to see that

i would like to see more people realize that the 'american dream' of 2 homes, 2 cars, 2kids, etc etc. is hollow. it has no substance or sustenance.

Well, it's not everyday that you see two people, who apparenty share the same spiritual values, offer two radically different perspectives on the same issue. One believes that 60 million dead in two world wars might have been a just price to pay for the development of spacecraft ; the other believes owning a car is hollow and has no substance.

Let us celebrate the paradoxes of spirituality!

 

[olde drunk]

touche'!

lol!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Moonrat]

Well, it's not everyday that you see two people, who apparenty share the same spiritual values, offer two radically different perspectives on the same issue. One believes that 60 million dead in two world wars might have been a just price to pay for the development of spacecraft ; the other believes owning a car is hollow and has no substance.

Let us celebrate the paradoxes of spirituality!

lol, but I don't believe that 60 million people justifies spaceflight, rather showing another perspective of humanity pushing forward even when we have no idea what it is we are doing...

just like right now, we are creating the very environment we need to achieve world peace, completely under the radar...

 

[Nicomachus]

Well, it's not everyday that you see two people, who apparenty share the same spiritual values, offer two radically different perspectives on the same issue. One believes that 60 million dead in two world wars might have been a just price to pay for the development of spacecraft ; the other believes owning a car is hollow and has no substance.

Let us celebrate the paradoxes of spirituality!

Yes, it is absurd isn't it?
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

Yes, it is absurd isn't it?
*Nico

dont worry, Nico, one day, perhaps after you properly understand OS 012 or an idea that is like OS 012, you will not find paradoxes so alarming. You will find them inspiring to your mind. You will make for better dinner company, and well your posts, geez, they will even become interesting, funny, and insightful!

Until that day comes, well, we are all looking out for you!



Your friend,

Bubblefish

 

[merak]

its simple remove the gene that causes "greed"

 

[BoulderHead]

Merak,
What happens to anger if the greed-gene is eliminated?

 

[Rader]

its simple remove the gene that causes "greed"

Nope not a solution, just need a one charity gene more to keep things in balance, going in the right direction .

 

[selfAdjoint]

What we need is a gene or meme or something to make us see the stranger as one of us, rather than as a thing to be feared and killed.

 

[Moonrat]

What we need is a gene or meme or something to make us see the stranger as one of us, rather than as a thing to be feared and killed.

hey man, that 'meme' is OS 012, (and any meme that is like OS 012)
and the environment for such a thing is the internet..I mean, on the internet, we can discuss with fanaticial Muslims and war mongers, and they can't hurt us..we are naturally protected. The internet creates the safe place for the historical dialectic to quicken at a rapid pace without harm to those the voice the 'dangerous' ideas of world peace...

Hehe, we all know Nico would love to pummel me if our discussion was face to face...

I suggest this is only a natural process and nothing more. It is possible to create an environment for discussion with axiom and proposition where all sides can win in any discussion...

"All sides win" is the next step in human administration. All sides win distribution and all sides win foriegn policy is much easier to implement in the 21 century than the war on terrorism..

"all sides win" is a meme that is spreading...it is the only rational goal that delievers certainty for conflict resolution..

 

[Nicomachus]

its simple remove the gene that causes "greed"

I want my greed; I want my hate; I want my pain; I want everything that many would consider taking out of our "genome." This is not a solution, we may as well castrate ourselves at birth if this were our mindset.
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

I want my greed; I want my hate; I want my pain; I want everything that many would consider taking out of our "genome." This is not a solution, we may as well castrate ourselves at birth if this were our mindset.
*Nico

hehe, reminds me of capt kirk in, what was it, star trek 3?

well, you want it you got it...but don't be surprised when you are not invited out to dinner more often...

 

[Mista T]

Go to Japan. Friendly people. /end

 

[Nicomachus]

hehe, reminds me of capt kirk in, what was it, star trek 3?

well, you want it you got it...but don't be surprised when you are not invited out to dinner more often...

Dinner? Blah blah blah. What the hell are you talking about. That was a rhetorical question, don't answer it. I don't care about Star Trek and I certainly don't care about what you have to say so stop talking about or to me in every thread you enter.
*Nico

 

[Njorl]

What we need is a gene or meme or something to make us see the stranger as one of us, rather than as a thing to be feared and killed.

It has been happening for a long time.

Physical evolution has, for its simplest mechanism, preservation of the self - otherwise known as survival of the fittest. But it does not end there. Preservation of the genes is the real reward. To that end, many other traits have developed - preservation of offspring, of relatives, of relatives offspring etc. They share many similar genes with us. This led to families, packs, villages, and tribes. You see the "us" growing larger. I don't think it will take that long for the "us" to be all of humanity.

Njorl

 

[Moonrat]

Dinner?
*Nico

Would love to! Where shall we dine?

 

[loseyourname]

It has been happening for a long time.

Physical evolution has, for its simplest mechanism, preservation of the self - otherwise known as survival of the fittest. But it does not end there. Preservation of the genes is the real reward. To that end, many other traits have developed - preservation of offspring, of relatives, of relatives offspring etc. They share many similar genes with us. This led to families, packs, villages, and tribes. You see the "us" growing larger. I don't think it will take that long for the "us" to be all of humanity.

Njorl

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well, maybe I could have:

As far I know, the hypothesis being thrown out here is that men have evolved a certain group mentality. There is the in-group (family, tribe, country, race, etc.) and the out-group (everyone else). The idea is that we have developed a sense of fairness in dealing with our in-group while pitting ourselves against anyone who is not part of that group. This is used to explain the galling inconsistencies in, say, biblical morality. On the one hand, the Jews are told "thou shalt not kill." On the other, they are told to commit genocide on the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan. This is thought to be a result of their inborn tendency to behave morally toward members of their own in-group while attempting to destroy all other groups.

This is a very hopeful hypothesis in that there are indications that the idea of an in-group has grown over time to encompass a greater number of people. When men first emerged from the ranks of older primates, the only in-group was one's own tribe. That eventually grew to include larger and larger tribes (eventually ethnicities and ethnic nations). In time again this grew to include ideological groups, such as nations that are not based on ethnicity. While the moral behavior toward one's in-group is innate, the basis of that group is not. The hope is that as cultural barriers break down, men will eventually come to see themselves as primarily part of the entire human race, rather than some smaller group, and this hypothetical genetic imperative to behave morally toward one's in-group will produce a more peaceful and ethical world.

Obviously, the hypothesis needs some work, but if it's true, it could mean great things.

 

[merak]

Merak,
What happens to anger if the greed-gene is eliminated?

I don't know boulder..it just seems greed causes most anger. if we destroy ourselvs\world and only two people were left alive to ask why ,they would most likely agree that in the end it was because of greed.

 

[merak]

I want my greed; I want my hate; I want my pain; I want everything that many would consider taking out of our "genome." This is not a solution, we may as well castrate ourselves at birth if this were our mindset.
*Nico

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 ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

You would be live meat for any predator (human or otherwise) that had not been genetically sheepified.

 

[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 ?