So What,

[kellyb]

Humans as individuals aren't a virus...humanity as a global community trying to spread and come together in a "one big happy family" is the virus. It's the concept of humanity that's the problem.

Why do you think that?

Humans can be very good to their "tribe". Why can't all of humanity be the tribe?

We have information, technology, and communication tools now that can lift the veil of secrecy and ignorance about the "other" that in the past fueled our hatred and wars.

What do you see as the barrier that will ultimately prevent us from realizing the dream of a global humanity?

[spamandham]

Humans can be very good to their "tribe". Why can't all of humanity be the tribe?

 

There's another thread running around here somewhere about the MonkeySphere (I think chef started that one?). Our brains will not consider more than about 150 people as people. Everyone else is treated as an object from our perspective.

 

That's why we can see news of a tsunami while eating dinner and do nothing more than say "how sad", as we go on eating.

 

We really just don't give much of a damn about people we don't know, except from the perspective of how to get something from them. We will not run into a resource cliff where one day there's plenty for all and the next day we're all starving. Resources will slowly become more and more expensive, and one way people will respond is by putting off having babies - which will result in a reduced birth rate. I just don't see the doom and gloom scenario ever playing out as a result of human action. These dire predictions have been going on for 150 years or more, and so far they haven't even come close to becoming reality, because people change their behavior. I think that's already happening. In my parent's generation, western families would have 3 or 4 kids. In my generation, it dropped to 1 or 2 kids. The generation coming of age today will probably be 0 or 1 kid.

 

In most of the west, the birth rate is lower than the death rate. The US is an exception due to immigration.

 

For those who have concern for our species and think science is going to kill us (which it might), keep in mind that science is our only hope against a hyper-virulent pathogen. Science is the reason we understand what causes disease, and science aids us in knowing how to deal with it.

 

Science is also our only hope against a major impact event, or the eventual death of the sun. This planet will one day be destroyed. The only hope of some aspect of it's history surviving is for people to colonize beyond our solar system. If/when we do that, we will no doubt bring other species with us as well.

[RankStranger]

I still think my idea of assigning some people as "guards"...given that they were the real cream of the crop, the highest IQ types, maybe balanced by an ethics commitee (not sure how they'd be chosen) could get us out of this.

 

You can't be serious... not even hypothetically. I'm gonna quote S&H instead of writing a page worth of objections:

...idealism is something you force on others, not something you seriously engage in yourself.

 

Just for laughs- where would you put the IQ threshhold for these "guards"?

 

I agree with you one one thing, though, Kellyb- I don't have any faith either that mankind as a whole will act "responsibly"- for a variety of reasons including the fact that it's hard enough to get two whitebread suburbanites raised in the U.S. to agree on what "responsible" means. It's IMPOSSIBLE to get all or even most of humanity to agree on this. Without any hope of consensus, this means that Chef's "option #2" could ONLY be enforced by violent means- if at all.

 

Chef- I'm sure you realize that millions of people (probably billions) worldwide will NEVER agree to population reduction by any means, including the most humane attrition/food redistribution scenario anyone can devise. So the best-case scenario that I can imagine for your cause is that a significant fraction of the world's population could somehow work toward your 'option #2'- which would benefit the environment in certain areas greatly until the rest of humanity overran those areas. It would postpone (very slightly) the inevitable at best.

 

Again- I don't neccesarily disagree with your take on the problem. I simply think your proposed solution is impossible to the point of being pure fantasy. We humans are much like any other life form in that we're converting the maxiumum amount of biomass possible into ourselves- we just happen to have become obscenely good at it in the past few thousand years. I don't know that this is either "culture" or even "human nature". I think it's just "nature".

[chefranden]

What if overconfidence in Religion has replaced underconfidence in Science?

 

 

It hasn't.

 

Religionists in the main don't mind science that doesn't challange their ideas of origin, or of particular sin. I doubt that you will see the Southeran Baptists pickiting Dow Chemical's labs, like they would labs investigating stem cells.

[Asimov]

Humans as individuals aren't a virus...humanity as a global community trying to spread and come together in a "one big happy family" is the virus. It's the concept of humanity that's the problem.

Why do you think that?

Humans can be very good to their "tribe". Why can't all of humanity be the tribe?

We have information, technology, and communication tools now that can lift the veil of secrecy and ignorance about the "other" that in the past fueled our hatred and wars.

What do you see as the barrier that will ultimately prevent us from realizing the dream of a global humanity?

 

For the same reason why an infection that spreads too far kills its host, kelly.

 

A global community of people is too saturated, there are too many people, and the needs of these many people are too great for the Earth to sustain. Tribe is an understatement. Humans are a tribe like General Motors is a family car shop.

 

The dream of a global humanity is like the dream of heaven. We don't need to be united.

[chefranden]

If most of us have to die in order to save the planet...then what are we dying for?

 

Each humans individual interests should include their own survival...for that will be the cause of humanity itself to survive.

 

If I die to save the planet...I'm not going to care anymore when I die, so what's the point? If I go someplace that's better than Earth, then again I'm not gonna care. So what's the point?

I'm not going to tell you, Asimov, why you should care. Maybe you shouldn't or couldn't. I don't know why you, Asimov, should care. Only you, Asimov, can know that.

 

However, I think the question is an artifact of Taker culture. It boils down to, "what do I get out of it?" If I can make the bid high enough than you, Asimov, will care in exchange.

 

It is not my intention to persuade you or anyone to care. It is only my intention to challenge underlying assumptions -- especially the assumption that Science is "the right way to think." It is not sufficient to suppose that because we have given up on religion that we have looked deeply into all the myths that guide our lives. You are a good thinker and this core issue of my thinking is what I wish you would challenge if you disagree with it.

 

The problem isn't science. That's like saying that knowledge is a bad thing.

You confuse the application of science with science itself.

 

The problem is this amazingly strange idea that humans have to be "united" together in some kind of conglomerate corporation of humanity in order to be "human".

 

When you focus from individualism to uniformity, you create an entity that destroys not only itself but it's environment. One could liken it to a virus or parasite who kills it's own host.

Yes this is what I think, except Science is the new means by which we continue to foster uniformity. Religion is the old means.

 

Humans as individuals aren't a virus...humanity as a global community trying to spread and come together in a "one big happy family" is the virus. It's the concept of humanity that's the problem.

I don't think that I've ever said that humans are the virus. The culture of uniformity is the virus, as you say. The effect of this virus is to make too many people. Science facilitates the work of the virus. Let's call it a viral catylist. Virus often kills its host as this one looks to be doing.

[Asimov]

However, I think the question is an artifact of Taker culture. It boils down to, "what do I get out of it?" If I can make the bid high enough than you, Asimov, will care in exchange.

 

Meh, to a point.

 

It's a statement that my life is my own, and I shouldn't feel obliged to sacrifice myself for another for the "betterment" of anything.

 

especially the assumption that Science is "the right way to think." It is not sufficient to suppose that because we have given up on religion that we have looked deeply into all the myths that guide our lives. You are a good thinker and this core issue of my thinking is what I wish you would challenge if you disagree with it.

 

I think it's a sensationalist idea to say that people are assuming science is "the right way to think". Science is (or should only be considered) a methodology for accumulating information in a descriptive manner.

 

People who use this as a prescription for how we should do things are misapplying science.

 

Yes this is what I think, except Science is the new means by which we continue to foster uniformity. Religion is the old means.

 

And this is where I disagree. Religion still takes precedence over any ideology.

 

I don't think that I've ever said that humans are the virus. The culture of uniformity is the virus, as you say. The effect of this virus is to make too many people. Science facilitates the work of the virus. Let's call it a viral catylist. Virus often kills its host as this one looks to be doing.

 

I don't think this is necessarily true...In some ways I can agree that science facilitates growth of the human population, but I also think that you can't ignore the other sciences that facilitate the opposite.

[chefranden]

Resources will slowly become more and more expensive, and one way people will respond is by putting off having babies - which will result in a reduced birth rate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't see the doom and gloom scenario ever playing out as a result of human action. These dire predictions have been going on for 150 years or more, and so far they haven't even come close to becoming reality, because people change their behavior. I think that's already happening. In my parent's generation, western families would have 3 or 4 kids. In my generation, it dropped to 1 or 2 kids. The generation coming of age today will probably be 0 or 1 kid.

Just the opposite is true. Resources are already very expensive to most of the world's population. In the West it is relatively certain that few offspring will have the resources to survive to adulthood. Places where resources are already very expensive are exactly the places where the population continues to explode. Why? Because the certainty of a particular child making it to adulthood is much lower.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean you don't see the doom and gloom reaching into our lofty place on the heap. There is plenty of doom and gloom happening outside of our insulated gated community.

 

For those who have concern for our species and think science is going to kill us (which it might), keep in mind that science is our only hope against a hyper-virulent pathogen. Science is the reason we understand what causes disease, and science aids us in knowing how to deal with it.

Or Science has made us disease prone by supplying us with lots of low quality food from just 3 food plants, wheat, rice, and corn. Most of what kills Westerners is diet related. Here I include the unintentional ingestion of compounds that are now unavoidably in the food, water and air. Many of these compounds are deliberately put into the environment upon the advice of Science to support the hopefully ever increasing production of wheat, rice, and corn.

 

In effect Science gives us the hyper-virulent pathogen, and then says, "See how you need me?"

 

Science is also our only hope against a major impact event, or the eventual death of the sun. This planet will one day be destroyed. The only hope of some aspect of it's history surviving is for people to colonize beyond our solar system. If/when we do that, we will no doubt bring other species with us as well.

 

I don't see much difference between pie in the sky by and by, and pie on the ground when it gets around.

[chefranden]

However, I think the question is an artifact of Taker culture. It boils down to, "what do I get out of it?" If I can make the bid high enough than you, Asimov, will care in exchange.

 

Meh, to a point.

 

It's a statement that my life is my own, and I shouldn't feel obliged to sacrifice myself for another for the "betterment" of anything.

Where does this particular shouldn't come from? Do you think that you pulled it out of thin air? I say it comes from Taker Culture that supposes that humans are other, that is other than their environment. This boils down to the supposition that what ever my conscious mind thinks is independent of the systems that support it. Therefore it doesn't matter what happens to stuff and life around me.

 

I'm not saying that you really don't have this mind set. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have this mind set. All I'm saying is test this mind set the way you would test it if you thought it was from religion. "Am I really other?" "And if I am what evidence and assumptions support my conclusion?"

 

I think it's a sensationalist idea to say that people are assuming science is "the right way to think". Science is (or should only be considered) a methodology for accumulating information in a descriptive manner.

 

People who use this as a prescription for how we should do things are misapplying science.

Why do you suppose that this sounds so religious to me? What is the difference between Christianity is good and pure except for the people running it, and Science is good and pure except for the people running it?

 

And pray, just what is the purpose of accumulating information in a descriptive manner, if not to find the best way of living?

 

Yes this is what I think, except Science is the new means by which we continue to foster uniformity. Religion is the old means.

 

And this is where I disagree. Religion still takes precedence over any ideology.

By what evidence do you disagree? Granted there are a few sects that won't go any farther with Science outside of that which existed at the time of their formation (Amish).

But most Religionists fully embrace Science except for any Science that calls into question their ideas of origin and sin.

I don't think that I've ever said that humans are the virus. The culture of uniformity is the virus, as you say. The effect of this virus is to make too many people. Science facilitates the work of the virus. Let's call it a viral catylist. Virus often kills its host as this one looks to be doing.

 

I don't think this is necessarily true...In some ways I can agree that science facilitates growth of the human population, but I also think that you can't ignore the other sciences that facilitate the opposite.

I don't ignore it. But I do look at results ( oh my, how scientific of me*). The Science that facilitates population growth is assendent. It is the Science best funded by Governments and Corporations by far.

 

At one time there was no need of the additions of new chemical componds or concentrations of existing chemical componds to accomplish population control either to increase it or to reduce it. Science makes Science necessary, or at least seem so.

 

*I freely admit that I don't know how to think outside of the Taker box.

[jjacksonRIAB]

What if overconfidence in Religion has replaced underconfidence in Science?

 

 

It hasn't.

 

Religionists in the main don't mind science that doesn't challange their ideas of origin, or of particular sin. I doubt that you will see the Southeran Baptists pickiting Dow Chemical's labs, like they would labs investigating stem cells.

 

Well, you have to admit that science is still in its infancy. Organized religion has had thousands of years to take hold. Do you think the world would be better or worse off now had we begun with science instead of religion?

 

The question in my mind is whether technology will outpace a brush with the tragedy of the commons. I think it will unless politics manage to wreck our every last opportunity. Who knows? One day it may be possible that we will no longer have to grow food, but have mastered the essentials of creating it out of pure atomic stock. It's probably not too appealing, but if we want to see our Universe before we part from it, we need a compact fuel of our own; then our planet can begin to reclaim herself.

[chefranden]

Well, you have to admit that science is still in its infancy. Organized religion has had thousands of years to take hold. Do you think the world would be better or worse off now had we begun with science instead of religion?

 

Better, but not for the reason you think. The earth would have already suffered the collapse that we are headed for, and would be recovering. Both Science and Religion have the same goal -- more. Science is just better at producing it.

 

The question in my mind is whether technology will outpace a brush with the tragedy of the commons.

How can it? The underlying premise of the culture is more. There is already enough for everyone even for our present hyper extended population. But that redistribution cannot happen. Not only must our culture have more quantitatively, it must have more relatively. Differentiation between the very rich and the very poor must be maintained for the culture to work.

 

I think it will unless politics manage to wreck our every last opportunity. Who knows? One day it may be possible that we will no longer have to grow food, but have mastered the essentials of creating it out of pure atomic stock. It's probably not too appealing, but if we want to see our Universe before we part from it, we need a compact fuel of our own; then our planet can begin to reclaim herself.

In a taker society those in power will not be interested in preserving the commons. They will be interested in excluding the majority from the commons. Preserving power automatically means curbing the availability resources for the majority. It doesn't matter if the resource pool is infinite. Neither the State, nor the Corporation can exist if you don’t need them to.

 

This is the dirty little secret behind "illegal immigration". These people come here because they have to, not because they want to. Their presence is wanted by the powerful because they have less than you do. Because they have less they are easier to control and therefore better slaves employees. In addition they provide the powerful with a way to redirect your anger, as they work out how to reserve more of the commons for themselves.

 

The odd thing here is that nobody notices is that at one time we did not have to grow food. It grew by itself. That means that we are going though all this pain and suffering to re-invent the wheel. The essentials of creating food out of pure atomic stock was worked out ages ago.

[spamandham]

Just for laughs- where would you put the IQ threshhold for these "guards"?

 

For the sake of argument, let's say they are all Einstein or Russell level. They will still look after their own interests first. Such a guard would become the equivalent of a priesthood. It's actually already happened to some degree. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad.

 

I agree with Chef in that there is a potential problem, and it would be prudent to reduce birthrates, but I would insist that must be voluntary. It sounds like chef is also interested in voluntary measures, so we share that.

[Guest Agent Ytnok]

All our attempts to "save the planet" should be voluntary. Otherwise what we are saving is facism and i have no interest in saving that.

[Asimov]

Where does this particular shouldn't come from? Do you think that you pulled it out of thin air? I say it comes from Taker Culture that supposes that humans are other, that is other than their environment.

 

Uh, no. It comes from my own realisation that I'm an individual and am not obliged to help others if I don't want to.

 

It's called a "give-and-take" culture, chef. I don't take things from people that don't belong to me, and I don't take services from people without offering my services in kind. I don't expect people to help me out because they are able and I may not be at the time.

 

This boils down to the supposition that what ever my conscious mind thinks is independent of the systems that support it. Therefore it doesn't matter what happens to stuff and life around me.

 

No, it has nothing to do with that.

 

I'm not saying that you really don't have this mind set. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have this mind set. All I'm saying is test this mind set the way you would test it if you thought it was from religion. "Am I really other?" "And if I am what evidence and assumptions support my conclusion?"

 

Since your representation of my mindset appears to be a false one, I would say that your criticism is unfounded.

 

Why do you suppose that this sounds so religious to me? What is the difference between Christianity is good and pure except for the people running it, and Science is good and pure except for the people running it?

 

Where did I say that?

 

The people who apply it in an abusive way are the ones at fault, not science itself and not the scientists themselves.

 

You are setting up science into this monolithic demon.

 

And pray, just what is the purpose of accumulating information in a descriptive manner, if not to find the best way of living?

 

To accrue knowledge. Finding a better/best way of living is incidental to the accumulation of knowledge.

 

By what evidence do you disagree? Granted there are a few sects that won't go any farther with Science outside of that which existed at the time of their formation (Amish).

But most Religionists fully embrace Science except for any Science that calls into question their ideas of origin and sin.

 

Based on the indications that a full 84% of all humans in the world are religious.'

 

I don't ignore it. But I do look at results ( oh my, how scientific of me*). The Science that facilitates population growth is assendent. It is the Science best funded by Governments and Corporations by far.

 

Yes, because more people is in the governments best interests, as well as corporations.

 

At one time there was no need of the additions of new chemical componds or concentrations of existing chemical componds to accomplish population control either to increase it or to reduce it. Science makes Science necessary, or at least seem so.

 

Again, your own problem with grouping something into one monolithic demon.

[chefranden]

Chef: Why do you suppose that this sounds so religious to me? What is the difference between Christianity is good and pure except for the people running it, and Science is good and pure except for the people running it?

 

Where did I say that? ("People who use this as a prescription for how we should do things are misapplying science. & again The people who apply it in an abusive way are the ones at fault, not science itself and not the scientists themselves..")

 

Let me rephrase: The people who apply it in an abusive way are the ones at fault, not Christianity itself, and not the priests themselves.

 

I hope that makes it clear as to why it sounds religious.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chef:Where does this particular shouldn't come from? Do you think that you pulled it out of thin air? I say it comes from Taker Culture that supposes that humans are other, that is other than their environment.

 

Uh, no. It comes from my own realisation that I'm an individual and am not obliged to help others if I don't want to.

 

Please explain how it is that your "own realisation" is apart from your physical environment and the culture in which you have your life. That is explain how your mind does not arise from being produced by your physical brain which has its life support in its physical environment including its culture which is your social brain's connection with other simular social brains. Your mind must of necessity be separate from all that in order to have it's "own realisation".

 

Are you willing to say that religion can pull the wool over the minds eye, but no other part of culture can? Having given up religion, you are now left with no delusions, perhaps like, "I am other?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since your representation of my mindset appears to be a false one, I would say that your criticism is unfounded.

 

You have not yet explained how my representation of your mindset is false. My hypothesis of your mind set is grounded in the fact that you, like any other human, are a physical animial grounded in your environment and that your thinking (and mine) must necessarily come from that environment. As a materialist you have nowhere else to ground yourself. Yet you seem to insist on your otherness, which is a tenent of faith if not of religion.

 

Now I may well be wrong, but I want to know why I am wrong, please.

[Asimov]

Let me rephrase: The people who apply it in an abusive way are the ones at fault, not Christianity itself, and not the priests themselves.

 

I hope that makes it clear as to why it sounds religious.

 

1. I never said science was good and pure.

2. Yes, the concept of Christianity itself is not dangerous, nor are the people who follow it in kind. The followers who abuse it are at fault.

 

 

Please explain how it is that your "own realisation" is apart from your physical environment and the culture in which you have your life. That is explain how your mind does not arise from being produced by your physical brain which has its life support in its physical environment including its culture which is your social brain's connection with other simular social brains. Your mind must of necessity be separate from all that in order to have it's "own realisation".

 

Are you willing to say that religion can pull the wool over the minds eye, but no other part of culture can? Having given up religion, you are now left with no delusions, perhaps like, "I am other?"

 

Please explain where I said it was apart from my physical environment OR my culture in which I have my life?

 

Did I once deny that I'm influenced by my environment or external factors? Did I once state that the mind is independant on the body....in fact, I'm pretty sure you'll see that I started a thread on that exact concept stating that our consciousness is a result of our bodies.

 

I can't give up on something I never took up, chef. You assume too much.

 

Yet you seem to insist on your otherness, which is a tenent of faith if not of religion.

 

Now I may well be wrong, but I want to know why I am wrong, please.

 

 

You are wrong.

[chefranden]

Please explain where I said it was apart from my physical environment OR my culture in which I have my life?

I have explained it.

 

"Uh, no. It comes from my own realisation that I'm an individual and am not obliged to help others if I don't want to. Was your answer to:

 

Where does this particular shouldn't come from? Do you think that you pulled it out of thin air? I say it comes from Taker Culture that supposes that humans are other, that is other than their environment. This boils down to the supposition that what ever my conscious mind thinks is independent of the systems that support it. Therefore it doesn't matter what happens to stuff and life around me.

 

I have said that this notion of being an individual who has his "own realizations" is an artifact of our culture that assumes people as individuals and groups are other than the ground from which he or they come. Even to claim that I am an individual is to claim that I am a thing apart from the rest, or I am other.

 

Now I have said what I think it means to say, I am an individual with my own realisations. Now you tell me what it means to say that in light of the fact that you admit in this post and elsewhere that you do have your life in your physical/cultural environment.

 

Did I once deny that I'm influenced by my environment or external factors? Did I once state that the mind is independant on the body....in fact, I'm pretty sure you'll see that I started a thread on that exact concept stating that our consciousness is a result of our bodies.

 

Yes I been reading that. Yet you still make statements that don't seem to incorporate that knowledge into your philosophy. Which is more what this tread is about. Once you understand that your mind is directly connected to your environment, what do you then do/think/act. Shall it be business as usual? Or will you ask, "knowing this, what is the world really like?"

 

I can't give up on something I never took up, chef. You assume too much.

 

In all likelyhood I do assume to much. I hope that people will come into my thread and say you assume too much because you missed X, or you forgot y.

 

I'm not asking you to give it up. I'm asking, Now knowing that you are not other, what does that mean? or How shall you then live?

 

Perhaps my confusion lies in my assumption that you do not think that our culture teaches us that we are other?

[pitchu]

I, too, am not obliged to help others if I don't want to. They're not obliged to help me. If I'm starving, nobody is obliged to give me food. I'm not even obliged to pull the nearby dandelions from the ground to keep from starving. I'm not obliged to try to stay alive. I'm not bound, pledged or restricted to one course of action or another.

 

I've tried to explain this glorious concept of independence to fruit trees, rain, bees, salmon, glaciers, Canada geese, Capistrano swallows, volcanoes, sunshine, fault lines, polar bears, ants and hurricanes. They don't seem to grasp it. They insist on living by the inferior and out-dated notion of inter-dependence.

 

My religion, if adhered to by all earthly living things and phenomena, would be one terrific whiz-bang flurry of whoops, wows, uh-ohs and jeepers. It'd be fun. So I can't understand the reluctance.

 

But I'm hopeful. Currently I'm knocking on squirrel knotholes every Saturday. I tell them, "Good morning, I'm a member of the Human Church of Humans, looking for converts outside my species."

[Fweethawt]

But I'm hopeful. Currently I'm knocking on squirrel knotholes every Saturday. I tell them, "Good morning, I'm a member of the Human Church of Humans, looking for converts outside my species."

Why even bother smokin' crack when you can come to ExC, read stuff like this and get the same effect?

 

 

[pitchu]

But I'm hopeful. Currently I'm knocking on squirrel knotholes every Saturday. I tell them, "Good morning, I'm a member of the Human Church of Humans, looking for converts outside my species."

Why even bother smokin' crack when you can come to ExC, read stuff like this and get the same effect?

 

 

Wanna come along with me?

 

Read up on your Doctor Doolittle of animal languages so you can help me help them learn how to choose not to gather acorns next fall.

 

But I'm worried that even if we convince them, some other species (mice, maybe?) would come along and help them out because of sheer interdependent cussedness.

[Asimov]

<snip>

 

Sorry, chef, you're gonna have to reiterate your points for me on this one, cuz I can't figure out exactly what you're saying.

 

Please define what you think "individual" means as it pertains to a single entity (like you or me).

Please reiterate exactly how my statements connotate the idea that my mind is independant from the body.

 

I'd also like you to state how exactly you know what culture I grew up in, and my specific personal influences, since you seem to be so immersed in my life.

 

Please also reiterate what you mean by "physical" influences and how they differ from other external influences (you did imply that cultural influence is different than physical influence).

[chefranden]

<snip>

 

Sorry, chef, you're gonna have to reiterate your points for me on this one, cuz I can't figure out exactly what you're saying.

 

Please define what you think "individual" means as it pertains to a single entity (like you or me).

Please reiterate exactly how my statements connotate the idea that my mind is independant from the body.

 

I'd also like you to state how exactly you know what culture I grew up in, and my specific personal influences, since you seem to be so immersed in my life.

 

Please also reiterate what you mean by "physical" influences and how they differ from other external influences (you did imply that cultural influence is different than physical influence).

 

I will attempt to do so one more time, though I strongly suspect you are more into a "you're wrong, no I'm not you are, you're wrong, no I'm not you are, you're wrong, no I'm not you are..." sort of discussion. I could be wrong about that too.

[chefranden]

I'd also like you to state how exactly you know what culture I grew up in, and my specific personal influences, since you seem to be so immersed in my life.[b/]

 

I will start here. I don’t know your “specific personal influences” nor have I claimed to know such. I do assume to know the broad outlines of your culture, because in the main it is mine. You do not appear to have been raised in an indigenes culture as you have made no references that I’ve read that would lead me to believe so. You are from Canada and so I suppose that you were raised in a western style civilization. I recall you to have libertarian leanings, with perhaps some anarchism thrown in, both are western philosophies. Here is what I know about your culture for sure:

 

A. Your culture depends upon totalitarian agriculture for it’s sustenance. 99% of people in the world live are now attached to this way of living, so it is unlikely that you are not involved as well, even if you should prove to be a Canadian immigrant from Asia for example. This means you live in the Taker Culture, as do I and probably everyone on the board.

 

B. Assumptions of Taker Culture (our myth): (Distilled from Daniel Quinn)

1. The world was made/evolved for man to conquer and rule (Take), and under human rule it was meant to become a paradise, but, tragically, man is flawed. This is the reason for troubles such as famine, oppression, nuclear proliferation and pollution and crime, drug use, greed, cruelty, and mental illness etc. The flaw is displeasing the gods, or not paying enough attention to reason/logic/science, or various combinations of the above.

2. The pinnacle of creation/evolution was reached in man. Man is the climax of the whole cosmic drama of creation/evolution.

3. The world is a human life-support system, a sort of machine designed to produce and sustain human life.

4. The world has been made/evolved for man, but he was unable to take possession of it until he learned to manipulate his environment so that food-exhaustion didn't occur. He had to manipulate it so that it produced more human food. He had to conquer Nature. Science has made him a more efficient conqueror.

5. The flaw can be overcome when we find “the right way to live.”

6. Man is not an animal, not a part of nature even though he evolved from it or was made from it. The proof is that man “thinks”. Thinking is the superior ability. The proof being that we have conquered (mostly destroyed, sometimes tamed) much most of nature.

 

This is what I assume to know about your cultural influence.

 

More to come.

[Asimov]

I will attempt to do so one more time, though I strongly suspect you are more into a "you're wrong, no I'm not you are, you're wrong, no I'm not you are, you're wrong, no I'm not you are..." sort of discussion. I could be wrong about that too.

 

No, I just feel that this discussion has become a little tangled and I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.

 

I'll reiterate what I'm thinking regarding this:

 

Being an individual does not mean that one is (nor ones thoughts are) separate, or independant of external stimuli. My thoughts are influenced by external stimuli, that I cannot deny, for without empiricism I could not have a rational foundation of thought.

 

The contention that my thoughts are only a direct product of my external environment or the contention that my thoughts are absolutely independant of external forces are both wrong. I think that we are influenced by our external environment, but that our thoughts are not the direct product of it.

 

The reason I think this is that if you put two people (twins, even) under the same situations, they will react slightly differently and come out of it with something different even slightly. This is what it means to be an individual.

 

A. Your culture depends upon totalitarian agriculture for it’s sustenance. 99% of people in the world live are now attached to this way of living, so it is unlikely that you are not involved as well, even if you should prove to be a Canadian immigrant from Asia for example. This means you live in the Taker Culture, as do I and probably everyone on the board.

 

Could you define "taker culture" for me?

 

1. The world was made/evolved for man to conquer and rule (Take), and under human rule it was meant to become a paradise, but, tragically, man is flawed. This is the reason for troubles such as famine, oppression, nuclear proliferation and pollution and crime, drug use, greed, cruelty, and mental illness etc. The flaw is displeasing the gods, or not paying enough attention to reason/logic/science, or various combinations of the above.

 

I reject that contention.

 

2. The pinnacle of creation/evolution was reached in man. Man is the climax of the whole cosmic drama of creation/evolution.

 

That's an irrational and unscientific idea, I reject that contention as well.

 

3. The world is a human life-support system, a sort of machine designed to produce and sustain human life.

 

I reject that contention. The world was not built to support human life, human life was built to be supported by it. If we cannot adapt, then we die...currently we are not adapting.

 

4. The world has been made/evolved for man, but he was unable to take possession of it until he learned to manipulate his environment so that food-exhaustion didn't occur. He had to manipulate it so that it produced more human food. He had to conquer Nature. Science has made him a more efficient conqueror.

 

I reject that contention.

 

5. The flaw can be overcome when we find “the right way to live.”

 

There is no 'right way to live', I reject that contention.

 

6. Man is not an animal, not a part of nature even though he evolved from it or was made from it. The proof is that man “thinks”. Thinking is the superior ability. The proof being that we have conquered (mostly destroyed, sometimes tamed) much most of nature.

 

I reject that contention. Thinking != Better.

 

This is what I assume to know about your cultural influence.

 

More to come.

 

Ah, can't wait.

[chefranden]

Please also reiterate what you mean by "physical" influences and how they differ from other external influences (you did imply that cultural influence is different than physical influence).

 

The physical influences that I had in mind as opposed to culture are those that you intake into your body either intentionally or unintentionally. Since your mind has it’s source in the body/brain it is influenced by what it is built of. The material that you are built of and that your maintain yourself with can in no way be considered superficial to your mind.

 

There is no sharp division between physical and cultural influences. For example you may not ingest the optimum nutrients available for your body/brain health because certain possible foods are taboo. Since you live in a Taker culture your main nutrient sources are not very diverse -- wheat, corn, and rice.