Why is humanity so unkind to one another

[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?

:rofl:

 

[Nec]

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

:rofl:

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?

:rofl:

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