The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278885 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1400 on: 31/07/2015 18:01:59 »
My way is MY BUSINESS and everyone else can choose their own. The people that insist everyone else must conform to their standards, whether they are sticking their finger in your face or a gun makes no difference, these are the people that cause all the trouble.

That would be great if it was that simple, but in order to live by the rules of one belief system, it is typically necessary to treat other people in ways which go against the rules of another belief system. An example of this is the way that religious people block other people's right to assisted suicide, thereby forcing them to kill themselves much sooner than they want to instead of waiting until they can't do it without help. I want to find an example of something more extreme now and I don't want to pick on Islam as usual (usual because it's the worst offender), so I'll go to something worse that's extinct: the Aztecs killed a lot of their own people for religious reasons, and it would be completely wrong to allow that kind of thing to go on today, so we would have to act to prevent it. There are places where belief systems drive abusive behaviour and that is not something that should be tolerated. Not all the abuse is as extreme as killing, but bringing up children in such a way that they are forced to spend any of their precious time learning religious claptrap is also deeply abusive and should not be tolerated - it is fair to make it available for those who want it and it is fair to impose moral education on children who don't behave well, but it is not acceptable to impose it on the rest. Even then, there are disagreements about what is moral, so a moral child can be labelled as immoral by the rules of a belief system and that child can be abused as a result, which is again unacceptable. There is only one true morality (which will be spelt out to us by intelligent machines before long), and it is not found in the laws of any religion.
« Last Edit: 31/07/2015 18:03:52 by David Cooper »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1401 on: 01/08/2015 02:10:38 »
My way is MY BUSINESS and everyone else can choose their own. The people that insist everyone else must conform to their standards, whether they are sticking their finger in your face or a gun makes no difference, these are the people that cause all the trouble.

That would be great if it was that simple, but in order to live by the rules of one belief system, it is typically necessary to treat other people in ways which go against the rules of another belief system.
It is that simple David...................I insist on only one rule: "Don't harm me or those I love and you can expect no trouble from me."

If other belief systems would follow this simple rule, we would all have the liberty to believe what ever we choose to believe. And I don't consider it necessary to treat anyone else differently just because they insist on special rules. If they insist on special rules over and above the simple one I stated, it's their problem and not mine.



« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 13:33:18 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1402 on: 01/08/2015 18:46:15 »
It's virtually impossible not to harm other people. It may be that your religious beliefs are unusual in that they are built in such a way as to avoid harming others, but there are religions which require people and animals to be abused in various ways, and it is not acceptable to others to leave them to do that.

Quote
My way is MY BUSINESS and everyone else can choose their own. The people that insist everyone else must conform to their standards, whether they are sticking their finger in your face or a gun makes no difference, these are the people that cause all the trouble.

The above is telling me it's wrong to intervene to try to stop someone abusing another person or an animal on religious grounds, and that's why I objected to it. Most religions contain immoral aspects which need to be stamped on, and that's why they're in conflict with each other. If they were all correct, they would all be in complete agreement and there would be no conflict. Instead of correcting their own errors though, what they always do is decide that all their rules are correct and that everyone else is wrong.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1403 on: 01/08/2015 20:02:29 »
It's virtually impossible not to harm other people.
Remember my rule: "Don't harm me or those I love and you can expect no problems from me."

Quote from: David Cooper

It may be that your religious beliefs are unusual in that they are built in such a way as to avoid harming others,
I didn't mention or claim any religious belief but avoiding harming others should be the goal of every responsible human being whether Atheist or Theist.

Quote from: David Cooper
but there are religions which require people and animals to be abused in various ways, and it is not acceptable to others to leave them to do that.

As I mentioned earlier; People should mind their own business and quit making religious rules for others. When they do, they are in effect, harming those who may have different values than they do. So, I repeat: "Don't harm me or those I love and you can expect no problems from me." And I might add: "Don't expect zero problems from me if you do harm me or those I love."

I think I've made myself perfectly clear and I'm content with my position. You're free to take your own position David, I have no interest in convincing you to change your mind, and I ask that you allow me the same freedom.



 

« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 22:37:47 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1404 on: 01/08/2015 20:30:50 »
Then stop inviting other people to choose their own way.

Quote
My way is MY BUSINESS and everyone else can choose their own. The people that insist everyone else must conform to their standards, whether they are sticking their finger in your face or a gun makes no difference, these are the people that cause all the trouble.

What you really want is for everyone else to choose your way, so you should say so.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1405 on: 01/08/2015 22:36:56 »
Then stop inviting other people to choose their own way.
Who's way would you suggest David, if not a way others should be free to choose for themselves? Maybe you're suggesting David's way?


Quote from: David Cooper

What you really want is for everyone else to choose your way, so you should say so.
Wrong again, my way only works for me................................

You sound like one of those individuals I was talking about, those folks who have to prove their point and always need the last word. Well, here's your chance, I'm out.................

Turn me over,...................I'm done.




« Last Edit: 02/08/2015 01:29:49 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1406 on: 02/08/2015 19:05:02 »
I'm just trying to help you see that you're no different from the people you're attacking. If you aren't keeping your women under control and making them cover up when they go out in public, there are people who will decide that you are harming everyone who sees them.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1407 on: 03/08/2015 07:42:39 »
Quote from: David Cooper
That would be great if it was that simple, but in order to live by the rules of one belief system, it is typically necessary to treat other people in ways which go against the rules of another belief system. An example of this is the way that religious people block other people's right to assisted suicide, thereby forcing them to kill themselves much sooner than they want to instead of waiting until they can't do it without help.
That's not true though. Religious people don't have that kind of influence. First of all its politicians who make those kinds of decisions, not religious leaders. While religious leaders influence their members its the members who influence the politicians and members of a religion don't always follow what their leaders say. Even so there are many religions which are not against physician assisted suicides. See http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/religion

For example: the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America said:
Quote
when pain is so severe "that life is indistinguishable from torture." Surprisingly, even though Death with Dignity is a hotly debated topic, they do not comment on it.

Quote from: David Cooper
Not all the abuse is as extreme as killing, but bringing up children in such a way that they are forced to spend any of their precious time learning religious claptrap is also deeply abusive and should not be tolerated - ....
I strongly disagree. I think you're exaggerating the problem. Parents are the ones who have the main responsibility to raise their children properly. To do that they have to infuse into them a moral and ethical belief system and that's what religion provides. Parents also want the souls of the children to be safe as well. For these reasons they teach them religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Saying that its abusive is way off.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1408 on: 03/08/2015 07:49:43 »
Quote from: David Cooper
It's virtually impossible not to harm other people.
Why?

Quote from: David Cooper
It may be that your religious beliefs are unusual in that they are built in such a way as to avoid harming others, but there are religions which require people and animals to be abused in various ways, ..
Which religions? Where did this come from? Can you point to a religious source so that I can verify this claim? I find it suspicious.

Quote from: David Cooper
The above is telling me it's wrong to intervene to try to stop someone abusing another person or an animal on religious grounds, and that's why I objected to it.
I disagree. That's neither what Ethos said or implied. By saying that his way is his business doesn't mean that he doesn't believe that he should be immune to laws. It's not as if one can spell ever single thing out regarding what "my business" means. But I think Ethos will agree with me that he doesn't except himself from the law.

Quote from: David Cooper
Most religions contain immoral aspects which need to be stamped on, ..
Such as what?

Quote from: David Cooper
and that's why they're in conflict with each other.
What proof do you have of this? The only conflict that I know of is that regarding their rights to certain land.  I know of nothing else so what are you referring to?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1409 on: 03/08/2015 07:52:41 »
Quote from: David Cooper
Then stop inviting other people to choose their own way. ... What you really want is for everyone else to choose your way, so you should say so.
Come on, David! Everyone thinks that their opinion is the right one. But when it comes to religion I'm sure we can all agree on whether people should have the right to choose what to believe. I know of no religion that tells their members to control other people. To make attempts to influence? Sure. Not to control though.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1410 on: 03/08/2015 07:55:22 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I'm just trying to help you see that you're no different from the people you're attacking.
I'm surprised at you, David. He never attacked anybody.

Quote from: David Cooper
If you aren't keeping your women under control and making them cover up when they go out in public, there are people who will decide that you are harming everyone who sees them.
That's not what Ethos is doing. He doesn't have control over what other nations allow their men to do to control the lives of their wives.

It seems like you're just trying to get the last word in at this point, David.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1411 on: 03/08/2015 19:26:32 »
Quote from: David Cooper
That would be great if it was that simple, but in order to live by the rules of one belief system, it is typically necessary to treat other people in ways which go against the rules of another belief system. An example of this is the way that religious people block other people's right to assisted suicide, thereby forcing them to kill themselves much sooner than they want to instead of waiting until they can't do it without help.
That's not true though. Religious people don't have that kind of influence.

Of course they do - it's religious people expressing their power who have shaped the laws on this.

Quote
First of all its politicians who make those kinds of decisions, not religious leaders.

What use is that distinction when political leaders in our countries have to be Christians in order to win office and where they have to pander to people of that religion? The reality at the moment is that people who want to be helped to die are being denied that right because of other people imposing their religious values upon them.

Quote
Quote from: David Cooper
Not all the abuse is as extreme as killing, but bringing up children in such a way that they are forced to spend any of their precious time learning religious claptrap is also deeply abusive and should not be tolerated - ....
I strongly disagree. I think you're exaggerating the problem. Parents are the ones who have the main responsibility to raise their children properly.

I grew up in a Christian family and had half of every weekend ruined by church. I had to sit in a building listening to inane drivel, and the position of this in the day wiped out the opportunity to do anything else. It was torture. It was child abuse. Inflicting religious claptrap on children is torture, but these people have weird ideas about their claptrap being the key to morality when quite often they are the very opposite.

Quote
To do that they have to infuse into them a moral and ethical belief system and that's what religion provides. Parents also want the souls of the children to be safe as well. For these reasons they teach them religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Saying that its abusive is way off.

You are defending the bad along with the good, but in my experience, most children don't need a lot of moral education until after they've been indoctrinated with religious laws, and after they've had all that rubbish shoved into them it is often impossible to deprogram it out of them, so they spend the rest of their lives abusing others with it.

Quote from: David Cooper
It's virtually impossible not to harm other people.
Why?

Because some people don't like being looked at, different people have different ideas about how close someone has to be before they perceive them as invading their space, talking to someone can disturb another person, etc. - these are small things, but they all involve harm that is impossible to avoid unless you're a hermit and don't encounter other people. Someone who loves gnomes may fill their garden with them, and people who hate gnomes can't avoid seeing them, and it makes them feel sick. Some people love cats and would be deeply depressed without them, while others resent having these moggies come into their gardens to defecate everywhere and kill birds. I could write a list of examples longer than this thread if I had the time.

Quote
Quote from: David Cooper
It may be that your religious beliefs are unusual in that they are built in such a way as to avoid harming others, but there are religions which require people and animals to be abused in various ways, ..
Which religions? Where did this come from? Can you point to a religious source so that I can verify this claim? I find it suspicious.

There are religions which require animals to be slaughtered in inhumane ways (which may have been the most humane at the time but which aren't now). There are also religions (e.g. Jainism) which require sick animals to be kept alive in pain until they die of natural causes instead of putting them out of their agony - they have a blind, programmed approach to animal welfare which ends up preventing the reduction of some extreme suffering.

Quote
Quote from: David Cooper
The above is telling me it's wrong to intervene to try to stop someone abusing another person or an animal on religious grounds, and that's why I objected to it.
I disagree. That's neither what Ethos said or implied. By saying that his way is his business doesn't mean that he doesn't believe that he should be immune to laws. It's not as if one can spell ever single thing out regarding what "my business" means. But I think Ethos will agree with me that he doesn't except himself from the law.

Laws come out of a competing mixture of different beliefs, many shaped largely by religion and many shaped largely by attempts at independent reasoning. There is nothing special about law of a country to make it different from the laws of a religion - the imposition of it on people is can be just the same as someone imposing their religious beliefs on someone else, particularly in countries where law is imposed by a religious authority.

Quote
Quote from: David Cooper
Most religions contain immoral aspects which need to be stamped on, ..
Such as what?

Read a Holy book and you're soon find something. There are some which call for you to be killed for not believing in them.

Quote
Quote from: David Cooper
and that's why they're in conflict with each other.
What proof do you have of this? The only conflict that I know of is that regarding their rights to certain land.  I know of nothing else so what are you referring to?

Have you read the Qur'aan yet? There are literally armies of people out there trying to do the right thing by blindly acting on its instructions exactly as they are stated.

Quote from: David Cooper
Then stop inviting other people to choose their own way. ... What you really want is for everyone else to choose your way, so you should say so.
Come on, David! Everyone thinks that their opinion is the right one. But when it comes to religion I'm sure we can all agree on whether people should have the right to choose what to believe. I know of no religion that tells their members to control other people. To make attempts to influence? Sure. Not to control though.

You are inviting members of Islamic State to live by the rules of their religion in the way they interpret those rules (which is to act on its instructions literally without filtering it through what they regard as misguided commentaries with no authority) and who find full religious justification (and indeed obligation) to do things to other people which we regard as abuse (and murder).

Quote from: David Cooper
I'm just trying to help you see that you're no different from the people you're attacking.
I'm surprised at you, David. He never attacked anybody.

Argument is a kind of combat in which people attack each other's positions. I was using the word in that sense and I can't see why you feel the need to try to turn it into something else.

Quote
Quote from: David Cooper
If you aren't keeping your women under control and making them cover up when they go out in public, there are people who will decide that you are harming everyone who sees them.
That's not what Ethos is doing. He doesn't have control over what other nations allow their men to do to control the lives of their wives.

If someone's religion tells him he can abuse "his women" and you don't consider that to be your business because these people are not of your kin, you are not as moral as you imagine. Nations have nothing to do with it.

Quote
It seems like you're just trying to get the last word in at this point, David.

I left your forum (just like the person who left before me) precisely because you have a problem with needing to have the last word - you introduced a rule that effectively gave you the unique right to have the last word and to ban them from replying, and you did exactly that despite saying you wouldn't exploit the rule in that way.

I simply wanted to point out that the philosopy of "Don't harm me or those I love and you can expect no problems from me" is simplistic - it works if you don't love other people who are being abused, but that doesn't make you an attractive person, and if you do love them and feel the need to criticise or intervene, you then find yourself in conflict with your own rule as it's applied by the person on the other side who considers that his abuse of other people under his control is in their best interests. The rule doesn't work, and I have a right to point that out without you or anyone else trying to shout me down. Look at your list of alarmingly ignorant objections and ask yourself why you needed to make them when you surely must have known most of the answers already (unless you don't follow the news, in which case I apologise for assuming knowledge on your part that you genuinely don't have).

Edit (a further thought): Your way of thinking reveals something else here, because you're trying to apply a rule (this thing about it being wrong to have the last word, even though you've shown repeatedly on your own forum how keen you are to have it by bad-mouthing all the people you've fallen out with) which only makes sense in a private conversation where one person declares that they're out and doesn't want it to continue, but this is a public forum where ideas are supposed to do battle and the people behind them are far less relevant. An answer from me which refers to "you" is not aimed solely at you and indeed it is written with no expectation that you will read it - it is there for the benefit of anyone reading the thread now and in the future. A dangerous idea has been proposed which helps to shackle thinking and prevent understanding, and that idea needs to be looked at in the interests of humanity. The idea that "my way is MY BUSINESS and everyone else can choose their own" and that "the people that insist everyone else must conform to their standards, whether they are sticking their finger in your face or a gun makes no difference, these are the people that cause all the trouble" superficially sounds great and it may be taken on by many people who don't stop to think it through, but the very people it is criticising will agree with those same words and think that it's other people who are causing all the trouble. This philosophy leads to people getting stuck in thinking that they are right and everyone else is wrong. In reality, some of them may be right and most of them are wrong, but which are which? Those who merely take their ideas of morality from an ancient philosopher or from the culture of their country or family are almost all wrong (and they may all be wrong). My position on this is that everyone needs to keep re-evaluating their position honestly and as impartially as they can, repeatedly trying to refine the rules in the direction of perfection by finding the points where they go wrong and reworking them to improve them. There should be no point at which you declare yourself right and stop working at this. There must be correct moral answers to all questions (though in some cases there may be more than one equally good way of doing something which is radically different by generating precisely the same amount and distribution of harm), but they are hard to calculate. We will need intelligent machines to work out the best answers because people cannot think deep enough and make too many mistakes. It is a job for machines and they will, some day, spell out what is most probably moral and what is not, ever refining their position over time as they crunch the data better. What we can do in the meantime though is look at the places we get our moral ideas and question them, trying to work out what justification lies behind them and to see if they really stack up. There may be some moral ideas in the very worst of religions which go against our cultural values and yet are correct, even if most of their other moral ideas are depraved. All proposed moral rules need to be looked at with complete independence from systems of learned beliefs, and we should try to test them by working everything out from first principles and looking for cases which disprove them by showing up any places where they fail to produce moral results (and where other rules provide better results overall). That's my point in joining this discussion - I want people to open up their minds and to think rather than just taking in some rule which sounds great and assuming it works when in reality the problem comes from people believing that they are harmless people who follow that rule and that other people are the problem. People in general have conflicting moral values and consider themselves to be doing no harm while others consider them to be doing great harm. The way to resolve this is to look at those points of conflicting moral rules and to get people to abandon the ones that reveal themselves to be inferior by generating more harm (or which distribute that harm in a worse way). In calculating that, they also need to go by actual harm rather than imagined harm to gods, because gods can look after themselves and don't need people to kill other people on their behalf when they (the gods) are insulted through blasphemy.

(NEW PARAGRAPH ADDED - don't like bumping threads.)
« Last Edit: 05/08/2015 18:26:24 by David Cooper »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1412 on: 05/08/2015 17:54:24 »
It's difficult Ethos. How far can one isolate oneself? Lately I've been feeling like I'm crying in the wind? I agree in that we all should be allowed to make our own choices, but I want education. And I want it now, for us all. Education and a Internet that is allowed to mirror the reality outside my door. Because that is democracy. Without it we're going to a caste society, in where the 'market knows best' and where you're perfectly allowed to live your own life, just don't rock the boat.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1413 on: 05/08/2015 17:58:50 »
Let me put it this way. Someone said that we all get 15 minutes of fame :)

the question is, will it matter?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1414 on: 05/08/2015 19:13:20 »
It's difficult Ethos. How far can one isolate oneself?
Isolation is not necessary for people to "live and let live". I enjoy the social interaction I have with friends and also enjoy making new acquaintances. My comments about those in this world that have something to prove relates to individuals like notorious dictators and people like them.

An example of "people like them" would be those we occasionally run into that won't rest until they have beaten you down with their own particular view of things. They fit into that category as well. Whether a despot or an obnoxious neighbor, these people are responsible for the trouble created in this world.

The individuals that respect others enough to allow them their own point of view are the good citizens of this world, those that won't allow that freedom should isolate themselves and do the rest of us a great big favor.



Quote from: yor_on

 and where you're perfectly allowed to live your own life, just don't rock the boat.
Like I said; "Don't harm me or those I love and you can expect no trouble from me."

I won't rock your boat if you don't rock mine.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2015 19:26:48 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1415 on: 06/08/2015 00:00:33 »
The individuals that respect others enough to allow them their own point of view are the good citizens of this world, those that won't allow that freedom should isolate themselves and do the rest of us a great big favor.

Extreme counterexample:-

I think torturing live cats to death slowly is great fun. That's my point of view and anyone who leaves me alone to get on with it is a good citizen of the world. Those who won't allow me that freedom should do everyone a favour and shut up. I don't want to be educated about cats and to understand that they have feelings and that their suffering is a bad thing.

Less extreme counterexample:-

I think beating my children to make them learn a holy text is essential for their morals. That's my point of view and anyone who leaves me alone to get on with it is a good citizen of the world. Those who won't allow me that freedom should do everyone a favour and keep their thoughts to themselves. I do not want to be educated about any ideas that children can learn to be just as moral (and maybe more so) by using some approach that is more fun (for them).

So here I am, jumping on you again where I'm not wanted, just like some bastard trying to stop someone torturing cats or beating his children, except that you aren't doing anything so outrageous. What you are doing though is handing out a rule which unpleasant people can use to defend their disgusting behaviour, and that's why I feel the need to step in and point that out.

I have no doubt that you're a fine person who does no intentional damage to anyone, but you are pushing faulty rules which provide support to some really disgusting people, and that demands comment. It's not an attack on you, but on a dangerously faulty rule. No one is entitled to their views if their views are immoral and there is a moral imperative to intervene to clamp down on immorality wherever it occurs.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1416 on: 06/08/2015 20:38:10 »
And now a PM from Ethos informs me that he's put me on his ignore list. Well, he was already ignoring what I was telling him, so this is doubtless a good thing as he'll actually be ignoring what I say less! 99% of people never like being told they've got anything wrong, so they dig in instead and close their ears. That human trait is the reason why the world is such an unholy mess, and most of us work exactly the same way - we turn away from people who point out things that we've got wrong and make a point of just going on being wrong instead. So, the real way to change the world is not to tell people how it is, but to trick them into working things out for themselves. You have to play lengthy games where you take up the opposite position from the one you actually want to steer people towards and use that to show up the faults in that wrong position so that you can drive people away from there and get them to make all the mental leaps of understanding for themselves over many days, weeks, months or years (instead of just telling them straight in a few minutes). That way, they don't feel as if they are being instructed by someone who knows better than they do, and they feel good about themselves because they think they are the one who is behind the great advances of understanding they are making as they shift ground. Showing someone an error directly rarely leads to them learning, but leads instead to them denying that they have made an error at all, so the error simply becomes a firmly-fixed part of who they are and they willfully shackle their thinking with it. A more effective way to try to improve the world then is to set out to deceive people and play games, to take a proposed faulty rule and pretend to embrace it, then reveal how it allows you to do wrong through it, but crucially without letting on that you know full well that the things you're justifying through it are wrong. You must pose as the person who tortures cats or who beats holy texts into his children and then thank the rule provider for helping you to justify your behaviour. This approach was tested recently by a scientific study which showed that the best way to steer right-wing nutters towards the political centre is to pose as someone more extreme than them and to disgust them so much that they shift position to get away from you. That is just how humans are: when it comes to morality, effective education requires you to pose as an idiot and to repel them if you are to have any impact. If you try to be honest with them instead to enlighten them directly, you will repel them the wrong way.

It's important to note something here: Ethos is a really nice person who did absolutely nothing wrong other than propose and defend a faulty rule. Having the fault in his rule pointed out to him was too difficult to handle, even though the cost of agreeing that it was wrong would have been tiny (or even a negative cost, because agreeing that you had something wrong where you were in error actually displays high intelligence). How much harder is it for people to accept that they've got something wrong when they're actually doing immoral things too? They almost never can - they just respond by doing more and more wrong while taking great delight in doing the very opposite of what you've told them. This human trait is a large part of what causes conflict and war, and that's why it's so important to discuss this stuff and to try to understand what drives it.

There are two approaches you can follow then if you want to drive change: one is to trick and deceive people into changing position in the right direction (by appearing to be more extreme than them and showing that position to be ridiculous), and the other is to train people to override their natural response to being told they've got something wrong and to learn to love finding out they're wrong - when you find that you're wrong, your understanding of the world leaps forward and it's actually rewarding. Once they have learned to take that approach, they have taken the brakes off their thinking and they can fly. People need to remove the shackles from their minds and focus all their efforts into detecting errors in their own position, checking and rechecking everything they believe and never taking the rightness of any of it for granted. But sadly, almost everyone (regardless of their intelligece) cannot learn to do this and will always dig in instead, rejecting whatever they're told and focusing the rest of their life more strongly on collecting evidence to back their existing beliefs while rejecting anything that might show them to be wrong, so your standard approach must always need to be to use desception and mind games as your primary teaching tool.

If you want to end war and bring peace to the world then, start by working on yourself to make sure that you aren't part of the problem. I clearly am part of the problem, because I've always just told people straight what I think, having sufficient respect for them that I assume they can take it. But respecting people turns out to be a mistake because most of them can't take it. They need to be tricked every step of the way, and that will apply to most of the people who are reading this too. I'm not aiming this at them though as they will not learn - this is for the few who can and who might be able to make a difference. If you want to change the world for the better, remember what I've told you here and apply it. You may be dealing with rational people who can think, but in reality they tend not to allow themselves to be rational and they do not like thinking. They resent being told they're wrong and you will not make any progress with them until you stop being honest and start playing games. If you try to change the world or educate directly and honestly (in a way that shows them respect as you believe they are intelligent enough to be able to take ideas on), people will hate you because they think it lessens them (and that they are being disrespected because someone thinks they have something to learn). They have to be made to feel that they did it (and that requires the removal of respect as you have to trick them into understanding things). Of course, women have known this for millennia as they've needed this skill to control their husbands.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 22:41:53 by David Cooper »
 

Offline Mordeth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1417 on: 09/08/2015 00:24:59 »
I'm new here and don't quite understand this thread.  Seems I could spend days just reading the insightful musings of yor_on.   I say that in a positive way.

That said, I want to comment on the recent posts by David Cooper:  What he has written in the last 3-4 posts might be the most articulate, accurate and revealing observations of the behavior of human beings that I have ever read. It is also honest and self-consistent. I have read his words three times and each time I gain a better understanding.  Your words are not lost on me, David, and I appreciate a great deal the time you spent to write them. 

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1418 on: 09/08/2015 01:07:52 »
Here here Mordeth, I also dip into this thread randomly to read yoron's posts, great stuff, thanks yoron...!  But I'm actually posting to agree with you wholeheartedly about David's ability to express himself so awe-inspiringly!  I'm always struck by this factor in all his posts.  He also takes an extremely logical approach to human behaviour in his philosophy that I find very appealing.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2015 01:13:28 by timey »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1419 on: 21/08/2015 12:23:03 »
David makes a very nice point. The one about trial and error. Because that is how I read it. When we stop using trial and error in our lives, learning and adapting, we're lost. But Ethos have a point too, that somehow gets lost. The one about being allowed to do your own thing, not getting looked down on just because you choose a different way. It just presumes, that as I, and us know him, that we all understand his value system. I don't think he disagrees too much with your thoughts David, the argumentation makes it sound worse than it is.  Better to look at what you have in common :)
=

I might state it as while you David are building a ethical platform to explain your thoughts from, Ethos expect us to already seen his ethics from former discussions. Then again, you're both good guys :)
« Last Edit: 21/08/2015 12:39:12 by yor_on »
 


Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1421 on: 30/08/2015 12:01:29 »
Some of the problems created through global warming is.

acidity of the oceans, that combined with increased ocean heat force organisms (as our food fish, and other marine creatures, shrimps plankton etc) to migrate, they can't do it as fast as we're pulling up fossils for our energy needs, so they're slowly losing the race. And then you have shells dissolving through the increased acidity too, making it hard for shell using organisms to survive their growth.

Increased floods and droughts, combined with changing weather patterns that can stabilize them for longer periods, making them stay. You can also assume that a chaotic system, as in 'non linear', seeking a tipping, will turn from one extreme to another, before finding a balance. And I would call Earth a non linear system. And the balance is when it found a new way to give us our local weather.

Then there is more water, in the air (humidity), and in the oceans. The ideas there goes from meters (Hansen et al) to centimeters, inside this century.

Take a look at those three.

" BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, June 2015, http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

[ii] Guardian, G7 leaders agree to phase out fossil fuel use by end of the century, June 8, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century

[iii] Guardian, Five G7 nations increased their coal use over a 5-year period, research shows, June 8, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/08/five-g7-nations-increased-their-coal-use-over-a-five-year-period-research-shows "

From http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/global-consumption-of-fossil-fuels-continues-to-increase/

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1422 on: 07/09/2015 07:48:36 »
So, what can we do? Well, that depend on what you think about life, doesn't it? Is your glass half full, half empty? Do we only compete about resources? Is life a struggle for 'excellence' and 'domination'? Or can we cooperate too? The first one is what leads to the market knows best, and to us running inside that wheel, never coming anywhere. It's also the one that leads to wars, and geo engineerings, as the answer to what to do about global warming. It's the one in where one may fool poor people to sterilize themselves in exchange for food, exempting oneself as 'I'm not them', they are the problem, not me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1423 on: 07/09/2015 07:54:45 »
Another interesting thing to me is ethics. I think that is the real invention we've contributed to the universe, physics secondary to it. Physics is unraveling the 'forces' and 'laws' that create us, and our universe. Ethics, on the other tentacle, is our own answer to what it should be about, for us.

Do you think all intelligent life get to ethics? If you do, would you call that a 'law' too?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1424 on: 07/09/2015 08:24:04 »
EU is planning to decrease fossil use about with 40% around 2030.

China, which still counts as a developing Nation, will go for reaching its 'top' at 2030, and from there decreasing. Until that time China may have increased its fossil releases about 300% (1990-2030), from 11 billions ton yearly to 15 billions ton. Although it's 'educated guessing' all of it, naturally. At that stage the Chinese should be at the same level as USA releases, and double the EU releases. (All of it described from 'release per person')

India is expected to release about 5 billion tons fossil yearly 2030. (All of it in metric tons, 1000 kg-grams per ton. exchangeable to 2,204.6 pounds, 1.10 tons 'US' or 0.984 tons 'imperial' ) That is a increase around 400 % since 1990.

Climate scientists argue that our fossil use, and releases of CO2 needs to decrease from 50 billion tons worldwide yearly today, to around 44 billion tons yearly at 2030, if we want to stay inside 2 centigrades Celsius world wide. With the increasing releases expected from developing Countries the estimates instead seems to land around 3 C.

And this is from those finding the glass half full.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2015 09:34:18 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1424 on: 07/09/2015 08:24:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums