The Trouble With Kittens

[spamandham]

That's right, won't it be fun?

 

No. But other than getting people to voluntarily quit reproducing, there is no fun solution that I can see. If that's what you are trying to accomplish, then great.

 

This is based on the assumption that the laws of nature do not apply to humans.

 

I wouldn't say that. I would say we are unique in that we are highly intelligent, and capable of forseeing problems and taking action before they become insurmountable, unlike bacteria and dear.

 

  Any species will expand to the extent its food source alows.

 

This is key in our case as well. Since we are almost completely in control of our own food supplies now, we can forsee problems, which raises the costs of food in advance of the actual catastrophy, causing a reaction before the problem is fully manifested. If peak oil turns out to be right, and other resources can not pick up the slack in sufficient time, then we will undergow depopulation by war/famine.

 

It would be possible to reverse the expansion if you could get most people to go along with it and do something like using a lotto to determine which people get to breed and the rest to be sterilized.  I doubt there is much probability of that happening.

 

You would have better luck simply convincing people to have fewer children. I'm encouraged that you are implying a voluntary program.

 

Science and the State go hand in glove.  Religion used to suport the centralization of power in the west, now it is science that does so, and it does a much more effective job of it as well.

 

So why are you attacking science rather than the root problem, the state? If we extend the inference, eliminating science without eliminating the state would simply result in something else filling the void.

[Zach]

Pitchu-

 

How's this? "Any piece of information one knows is automatically applied."

All you're doing is edging the definition of Technology as close as you can to the definition of Science. Science is the process of acquiring knowledge, and Technology is how we apply knowledge once it is known. Your definition rips knowledge out of the realm of Science instantly and transfers it to the realm of Technology. Which, even if I accepted your appraisal that simply knowing something constitutes a moral choice (and I don't), you're still not talking about Science.

 

Like any "principle" floating in the ethers waiting to be known, [the principle of the Inclined Plane is] amoral.

That's exactly what I've been saying. Scientific principles are amoral- it's how we choose to apply them that enters into the realm of morality.

 

Zach, I've always thought of "sweeping statements" as being exclusive of qualifiers -- qualifiers which I've bolded, above.

Yes, I read the qualifiers, but even though you used them to avoid making an absolute statement, the nature of the phrase, "in many ways, many scientists," was sweeping enough for my distaste.

 

Appropos this example, my husband's father... was in charge of robotics for... bomb construction. ... He left the project and later turned his skills in robotics elsewhere. He invented, designed and manufactured crash test dummies.

This is exactly my point!!! The Science of robotics can be applied to Technologies such as building weapons of mass destruction, and also increasing public safety.

 

Science, like any tool, can be used to help or to hurt.

[Zach]

Chefranden-

 

I would be surprized if you did. Scientists are as blind to their culture as anyone.

I'm curious, then: if everyone is so "blind" to this culture, how are you so fortunate?

[RankStranger]

Wow.  The exact attitude that leads to nothing at all being done.

 

Hey, I have an idea, let's just erase all punishments for murderers.  It's inevitable that people will murder now and for the rest of time, so why try to crub that kind of behavior, or put limits on it?  There's nothing anybody can do to eradicate murder from the earth, it's human nature.  So, kill your neighbor today!

 

Sorry for the snarkiness, but this is the type of attitude I've been battling against for years.  And it gets tiring, mostly because it's so tempting to give in and say "what the hell!  Get me more oil, give me more food, let me take up more space, 'cause the world will just go to pot anyway and I might as well contribute!  Give me an excuse to ignore everything and be a lazy sod!  It's the uni student's dream..."

 

As long as people think like this nothing at all will change.  As long as we can sit on our fat arses and say "nothing we can do, it's human nature" we will do exactly that.

 

Who told you humans always lived this way?  Who whispered this lie in your ear?  What story are you re-enacting?  And how can we stop listening to the lure of Mama Culture so intently?

 

I'm not actively ignoring anything, nor am I apathetic... I'm basing my views on what I believe is POSSIBLE and what isn't. First of all, this wasn't an arguement for ever-increasing consumption- I'm all for conservation (when it's science-based, not faith-based), but I'm under no illusions that we humans can reduce our impact on the environment. If you haven't noticed, Chef and I largely agree on what will ultimately come of exponential population growth- we mainly disagree on the timescale over which this will happen, and how we should respond to it. My point is that the earth is ALREADY populated beyond its NATURAL limits, and this population WILL increase. Chef suggests that 1.5 billion people is a good number for a sustainable population. That may be true, but you can't keep 5.5 billion people from eating and reproducing. As you can see in some third world countries, people will reduce their own country to a barren wasteland if that's what it takes to feed their families (ie. eat and reproduce). Why is it unreasonable to assume that WE are so different? Again, I'm not arguing against conservation- I think postponing the inevitable result is a GOOD idea. Hell, maybe if we CONSERVE, and advance science and technology at the same time, we can just keep expanding off the planet. The 'population bomb' doesn't have to be inevitable this way.

 

 

No, I'm saying that a gun is a tool used for killing or hurting living things.  Period.

 

You could quite concievably find a situation in which hurting someone might be moral, I'm sure.  But a gun itself has no dual purpose.  It isn't "corrupted" in its use to hurt and kill things.  That is what it is made for, and that's what it does.

 

I notice even you couldn't find the bright side to the Atom Bomb, Zach.

 

Here's you a bright side. I'll agree that the ultimate purpose of nuclear weapons is to kill people, and the ultimate purpose of a gun is to shoot things/people. It's what they're designed for. They're both commonly used as a deterrant though- surely you'd agree that this can be a moral use. I read an article a while back that made the case that nuclear weapons are the greatest instrument of peace ever invented. The arguement was that before WWII, a given percentage of the population died due to war during an average year. Beginning immediately after the first uses of nuclear weapons, this percentage dropped dramatically and has stayed down.

[RankStranger]

Before the wars happens, the cost of having children will exceed the perceived benefit.  So, while population growth may be slightly above replacement levels in Europe, we are already seeing what happens when the cost of children is perceived to be higher than the gain.  People just stop having kids.

 

I think a key word here is PERCIEVED. There are plenty of places right now where people are breeding like rabbits, with little or no economic benefit. Europe may not be a good example for the future unless you assume that most of the world will be developed, and most of the world's population will be somewhat educated. For people to stop having kids willingly, this not only assumes that they'd be willing to make that choice, but that they CAN make that choice. Birth control isn't always freely available.

[pitchu]

I'm dropping away from this thread for awhile. I know that announcing such a choice isn't necessary, but I wanted a chance to say it's not because of anyone's opinion or whatever. My head just isn't into this kind of content right now.

[chefranden]

dear mod I don't know how I managed this double post.

[chefranden]

Chefranden-

I'm curious, then: if everyone is so "blind" to this culture, how are you so fortunate?

 

 

I know I've been neglecting my thread here, because I'm still not quite sure how to re-begin. I'm not sure how to make my questions clearer.

 

Now to answer your danged good question. In a word, Vietnam.

 

That was the formitive curse of my life, that has never let me, for long, put down the question. Why are things so fucked up?

 

You might think that having put down Christianity one could just live in the light of reason alone right? Not so, at least IMAO.

 

I'm hardly the only one awake, or waking up. Daniel Quinn comes to mind. Pitchu I think, and Cerise here. Derrich Jensen is the most awake person I know of. George Carlin I would think. I think that the folks at Dancing Rabbit may be at least rubbing the sleep out of their eyes. I'm going to go see next summer. I hope they are not just some new age thing. I think there are many indiginious peoples that are awake, because they have never been part of this culture in the first place and can see it for what it is, because of that. I'll add George Lakeoff, and Mark Johnson to the pile, even though they are scientists, even scientists can be awake. I'm thinking there are 1000s maybe even millions of awake people.

 

Being awake doesn't mean one has the answers as Quinn makes clear. It only means that you are willing or, un-willingly in my case, looking the dragon lady, or Mother Culture as Quinn names her, in the eye.

 

Perhaps you may be willing to answer the want ad: Teacher seeks pupil. Must have earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person.

 

You might want to read Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

 

I'm going to start a thread here pretty quick, Entitled "Zach is right. Science is not to blame." However, I'm pretty sure you won't altogether like it. But that's ok because i'm not really writing this stuff to persuade anyone. I just want to find out where the holes are in my swiss cheese thinking. I hope you have the time and patience to continue.

[Cerise]

I'm not impressed.

 

First of all, no Atheist I've ever talked to has ever voiced the desire to "dominate the Universe", nor have I ever read anything to indicate that to be the case in modern Atheism. Secondly, wrongful doctrines are developed to dominate other humans, not the Universe. Thirdly, the same Atheistic principle can be used to build a community, and also to destroy that community.

 

Your beef is with specific doctrines utilized in a specific way, and with that I have no problem.

 

You're asking me to prove the negative of a complex question. Does Atheism intend to conquer and subdue the Universe? As I've said, I've never met a Atheist egotistical enough to claim it. Does Atheism seek to expand the limits of mankind's understanding? Absolutely. Using words like "dominion", you are tapping into the spiritual paradigm of mankind's purpose, which I've already explained is not congruent with materialistic inquiry.

 

.....

 

Individuals who apply Atheistic principles to damage cultures and the environment are responsible for whatever consequences arise, but to hold Atheism responsible is ludicrous.

 

4) I'm sure it has been, and those Atheists who developed doctrines for the sole purpose of killing are responsible for whatever moral consequences exist. But Atheism can also be used to create peace and harmony

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That might work better, Zach, if you had managed to use my words. Using your own, it just makes my point over again. No matter what words you substitute in that speech of yours, the outcome looks like a docterine. Science, Christianity, Atheism, all become docterines in the way you've described them in that particular paragraph. Perhaps you did not intend it and would like to present science to us in another way.

[Cerise]

I'm not actively ignoring anything, nor am I apathetic... I'm basing my views on what I believe is POSSIBLE and what isn't.  First of all, this wasn't an arguement for ever-increasing consumption- I'm all for conservation (when it's science-based, not faith-based), but I'm under no illusions that we humans can reduce our impact on the environment. 

 

Would the act of conservation not have a reduced impact on the environment? And why are we talking about the environment as if it were something out there, seperate, nothing to do with us. Aren't we a part of the environment? The world might not have been made for humans but it certainly includes humans as much as aardvarks or beetles. I think the conditioning that tells us that the environment is other is part of what is making it so hard for us to solve our problems. As long as the environment remains other it's something to be conquered, feared, fought, or enslaved. Even environmentalists sometimes talk about their trade as if it had very little to do with the human sphere. It's a strange but very telling link between language, thought, and action.

 

If you haven't noticed, Chef and I largely agree on what will ultimately come of exponential population growth- we mainly disagree on the timescale over which this will happen, and how we should respond to it.  My point is that the earth is ALREADY populated beyond its NATURAL limits, and this population WILL increase.  Chef suggests that 1.5 billion people is a good number for a sustainable population.  That may be true, but you can't keep 5.5 billion people from eating and reproducing.  As you can see in some third world countries, people will reduce their own country to a barren wasteland if that's what it takes to feed their families (ie. eat and reproduce).  Why is it unreasonable to assume that WE are so different?  Again, I'm not arguing against conservation- I think postponing the inevitable result is a GOOD idea.  Hell, maybe if we CONSERVE, and advance science and technology at the same time, we can just keep expanding off the planet.  The 'population bomb' doesn't have to be inevitable this way.

 

If we never change our planet-consuming behavior, it won't matter hom many new technologies we get, or how advanced science becomes, nor will it matter how many spaceships we can scrounge together to take us all off to populate Mars. If we devour the Earth and do not change, we will devour every single place we rest our heads until there is no more, and then we shall devour ourselves.

 

And that is an inevitability that will not change unless we do.

 

Here's you a bright side.  I'll agree that the ultimate purpose of nuclear weapons is to kill people, and the ultimate purpose of a gun is to shoot things/people.  It's what they're designed for.  They're both commonly used as a deterrant though- surely you'd agree that this can be a moral use.  I read an article a while back that made the case that nuclear weapons are the greatest instrument of peace ever invented.  The arguement was that before WWII, a given percentage of the population died due to war during an average year.  Beginning immediately after the first uses of nuclear weapons, this percentage dropped dramatically and has stayed down.

 

Would a gun need to be a detterant if other guns did not exist? What exactly does a nuclear weapon detter against, if not other nuclear weapons? And why is the deal of "If you destroy the world we'll make sure we'll contribute to the destruction" a great threat against pressing the button anyway? The threat would only work on someone who would not be prepared to push the button in the first place. Kind of like the ultimatum given by police to a suicidal man holding a child hostage...let the kid go or we'll shoot you...it only works if the guy wasn't really suicidal to begin with.

 

The very idea of making a weapon so that it would not be used only depends upon the assumption by everyone that it will not be used. The assumption that no rational, moral human being would use this weapon. But assuming that all human beings, especially the ones who gain power over such weapons, are always going to be moral and rational seems a pricey gamble to make.

 

Where a World War causing the mass destruction of the population of the earth needed a rather large group of irrational, immoral men to make it work, this particular system we have with nuclear weapons will only take one.

 

That doesn't make me feel very secure.

[trashy]

I am glad I perused this thread if for no other reason than to discover chefranden's guiding philosophy regarding science and nature, namely that of eco-anarchism. I realize that he doesn't necessarily subscribe to it in it's totality, but many aspects of it seem to appeal to him. It helps me understand his posts.

[woodsmoke]

I can't believe this.

 

I've been gone for a while after deciding I needed a break from the forums, and I come back to find science under fire.

 

It's a strange sensation to be both amazed and disappointed at once.

[Cerise]

I can't believe this.

 

I've been gone for a while after deciding I needed a break from the forums, and I come back to find science under fire.

 

It's a strange sensation to be both amazed and disappointed at once.

 

I'm glad your so far above any of these concerns that you can afford to shake your head and sigh disapprovingly at us poor wayward chill'un. Please mistah woodsmoke, we've been lost without you! Show us the way, the truth, and the light.

[spamandham]

Cerise, I would pose two questions to you.

 

The first is one I posed to chef, isn't the very nature of questioning science in fact using the scientific method?

 

The second is, given where we are right now and assuming all your concerns are true, what can be done?

[Cerise]

1. Given that we, as a culture, have a rather limited way or posing questions and/or arguing points, can you think of another way to begin an inquiry into science then using its own language/thought base?

 

I often question the English Language and its spread using the English language, as it is how I best express myself. Are you suggesting this is somehow invalid?

 

2. Nothing can be done until more people start asking themselves why a way that has been killing us must invariably be the one true way to do things. I think chef is correct in his summation that until more "wake up", in his words, nothing can be done. First you change minds. Then you change world.

[spamandham]

I often question the English Language and its spread using the English language, as it is how I best express myself.  Are you suggesting this is somehow invalid?

 

No, I'm questioning the consistency of attacking science using the scientific method. Are you not proving that the scientific method is axiomatic and unavoidable by doing this?

 

2.  Nothing can be done until more people start asking themselves why a way that has been killing us must invariably be the one true way to do things.  I think chef is correct in his summation that until more "wake up", in his words, nothing can be done.  First you change minds.  Then you change world.

 

I'm ok with this. Changing minds is the first step, but you can not come off as hypoctritical in the process or you will fail before you start.

[Cerise]

The "method" I am ultimately using (or more accurately, the question I'm trying to ask myself and others) is 'what works?' or conversely, 'what does not work?'. In my experience, using the Scientific Method is usually a way to determine the "whys" and "hows".

 

I can't pretend I'm not interested in the whys and hows of the 'what works' question, because that's something my culture (the culture of the Western World, and yes, of Science) has perpetuated and made neccessary, or at least seeming neccessary. But I know that the whys and hows aren't really what I'm after, nor do I think whys and hows are going to be what saves us in the end.

 

It should be enough to look at things that are working and say 'yeah, let's do that' or look at things that aren't working and say 'well we better stop that shit right now' without dithering around trying to analyze the whys and hows.

 

I'm not exactly attacking science. I just don't think it's doing the trick right now for this vital question. And in some ways it might be hindering the answer.

 

As long as we can spend the next 50 years trying to find all sorts of facts about how gluttenous behavior can effect your lifestyle verses the fact that eating makes you feel good we can just keep hoping somewhere, some Scientist will come up with a reason why being 300 pounds is actually good for you, or some new surgery or diet pill will take care of that problem for us, or laxatives can be added to all chocolate because we just can't help ourselves anyway.

 

A whole lot of fuss goes into answering a question that has already been simply and beautifully answered by your own body: is being a gelatinous blob working for you? No? Well then you should try to change that.

 

The same way I believe that this question of nuclear weapons as "deterrants" have answered (in a scary way) a question that had already been simply answered in the form of: can we expect people to build weapons and then not use them, ever? Does that seem reasonable? No? well then, better not do that.

 

I think that Science takes the first question of 'what works?' and then moves on from there without really considering that most of the world hasn't quite gotten a hold of the answer yet, let alone grapsed it enough to make the leap to step two.

[woodsmoke]

I'm glad your so far above any of these concerns that you can afford to shake your head and sigh disapprovingly at us poor wayward chill'un.  Please mistah woodsmoke, we've been lost without you!  Show us the way, the truth, and the light.

 

Show me where I said (or even implied) I'm above such concerns, as well as where the condescension you refer to was expressed and I'll get to work on doing just that.

 

I never stated anything to the effect that any of the topics or concerns addressed in this discussion are without merit. Quite the contrary, I think you, Chef, Pitchu and Hillbilly have all raised some damn good points. I simply agree with Zach that the blame is being misplaced. You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face and it won't change the fact that science is not a static doctrine, nor does it have any kind of conscious agenda or inherent moral implications. (With all due respect, Mom, I feel that knowledge itself not only can be but is totally amoral, and that I've learned any number of things which have been filed away in my memory with no moral implication or assignment accompanying them. Then again, my usual emotionless persona may make such a thing easier for me than for others.)

 

I suppose it could be said there is one "sacred tenant," if you will, of science. Put simply: "Question everything."

 

I do not consider even the most well-founded laws of science to be above reproach, as doing so would undermine my own argument. The simple truth is thus far science has proven itself to be the most accurate and reliable means of learning about the universe we live in. If you can provide something better, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

[dr_funkenstein]

wouldn't the torture of innocent kittens (or any animal) for scientific purposes cast doubt on the righteousness and goodness of science?

 

Schrodinger's cat huh?

 

I don't think you can mix the scientific method and morality. The scientific method says nothing about morality, and nor should it. It is merely a way of establishing truth based on hypothesis, experimentation, observation, measurement and analysis.

 

Moral judgements must be made using a completely different set of criteria. Furthermore, morality varies greatly from person to person. So for any given experiment, while one might consider it immoral another might consider that in the balance of things, it would be less moral not to perform the experiment. Those are never easy questions to answer.

 

But on the whole, I have a problem with the postulation of this thread at a base level, as it mixes the idea of science and morality, and ultimately they are two different tools for two very different purposes.

[woodsmoke]

Well said.

 

So who's turn is it to feed the damn thing? Every time I think it looks hungry I come back with food and it's dead.

[dr_funkenstein]

Well said.

 

So who's turn is it to feed the damn thing? Every time I think it looks hungry I come back with food and it's dead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Every time I come to feed the damn thing I find it in a superposition of states and I don't know whether to feed it or not!

[woodsmoke]

Every time I come to feed the damn thing I find it in a superposition of states and I don't know whether to feed it or not!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Strap toast to its back and drop it. That'll teach the little bastard!

[dr_funkenstein]

Strap toast to its back and drop it. That'll teach the little bastard!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah but it has to be buttered toast...

[Cerise]

Yeah but it has to be buttered toast...

 

I think MythBusters proved that buttered toast has the same ratio of landing butter-side up as butter-side down. So how's that for science?

[Zach]

That might work better, Zach, if you had managed to use my words.  Using your own, it just makes my point over again.  No matter what words you substitute in that speech of yours, the outcome looks like a docterine.  Science, Christianity, Atheism, all become docterines in the way you've described them in that particular paragraph.  Perhaps you did not intend it and would like to present science to us in another way.

That was, actually, my point. ANYTHING can be portrayed as dogmatic if you use the right description. It takes a more careful analysis, not just inflammatory language, to give credence to your accusation.