[alancalverd]

We create them, We watch them, We cheer them on..

Who we?

[hamdani yusuf]

People die. Some of them were important before their death, none afterwards.

What makes them important?

[alancalverd]

What they do. Which is why they are not important when they are dead.

[hamdani yusuf]

What they do. Which is why they are not important when they are dead.

What kind of actions make them important?

[Zer0]

We create them, We watch them, We cheer them on..

Who we?

Perhaps I'm capable of seeing the fallacy of my own statement here.
Thanks for pointing it out.
👍

If i Believe or Think or Know, something is not Right or Correct...
Then if i still do not Object to it or go against it or raise my voice or concerns, does that not mean that i support it in a way?

Will not my Silence be taken & understood as my acceptance of it.

[hamdani yusuf]

If i Believe or Think or Know, something is not Right or Correct...
Then if i still do not Object to it or go against it or raise my voice or concerns, does that not mean that i support it in a way?

Yes. Except when we realize that our knowledge isn't complete. Or if we think that it's not important enough, or not worth the efforts to change it. Especially when dealing with fiction.

Will not my Silence be taken & understood as my acceptance of it.

It can also be taken as accepting uncertainty or inadequate information.

[alancalverd]

What they do. Which is why they are not important when they are dead.

What kind of actions make them important?

Importance is determined by the beneficiary of the action. Inventing the steam engine and antibiotics seem to be generally accepted as important actions from whci subsequent genrations have benefitted long after the demise of the inventors.

[hamdani yusuf]

Importance is determined by the beneficiary of the action. Inventing the steam engine and antibiotics seem to be generally accepted as important actions from whci subsequent genrations have benefitted long after the demise of the inventors.

Whose benefit would make it important? Most species get virtually no benefit.
What about the side effects? 

[Zer0]

My flag will bear the simple motto "All disaster movies begin with someone ignoring a scientist".

And it's you ignoring us.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg659019#msg659019

You seem to be mixing up & confusing Science & Politics.

Science is based upon Evidential Facts.

Politics is the one concerned with Majority vs Minority.

Ps - Nobody ever looks smart & good, in the process of making someone else look dumb & bad.
✌️

[alancalverd]

Whose benefit would make it important?

The beneficiary, obviously. If I gave you £1,000,000, you might think that an important action, but it would be of no consequence to any of our other correspondents. You might not consider a £1 donation important, but if you were a starving beggar, it might save your life and be regarded as very important.

[hamdani yusuf]

Whose benefit would make it important?

The beneficiary, obviously. If I gave you £1,000,000, you might think that an important action, but it would be of no consequence to any of our other correspondents. You might not consider a £1 donation important, but if you were a starving beggar, it might save your life and be regarded as very important.

Right. The beneficiaries must be conscious entities. If they stop being conscious, it won't be important anymore. For example if the beggar dies right after receiving the benefit, before doing anything beneficial to anyone.

[alancalverd]

Importance is not a conserved or transferable quantity. It only applies to an individual transaction. Some actions have widespread and repetitive importance, like the invention of the steam train, but it is by no means universal: it has had little impact on the lives of Brazilian fruit bats, for instance.

My dog does not consider the Mona Lisa to be an important artefact. I don't consider next door's cat to be particularly important. Chacun a son gout.

[hamdani yusuf]

Importance is not a conserved or transferable quantity. It only applies to an individual transaction.

May be you think that what your great grand parents did are not that important to you. Probably you never meet them. But they were important to your grand parents. And eventually related through chains of causality to you.

[alancalverd]

As I said, some actions have repetitive importance, but importance is not a conserved quantity..

If my grandparents had left £1,000,000 to my parents, who then blew it all on slow horses, their action would have been important to my parents but not to me. If they had instead backed Tesco's supermarket, the story might have been different.

[hamdani yusuf]

As I said, some actions have repetitive importance, but importance is not a conserved quantity..

Right. If in a billion year the earth is completely destroyed with nothing left behind, and no earthlings including humans have developed multiplanetary society, then whatever we have done up to that point will lose their importance. Whoever conscious entities that will independently emerge somewhere else after that will think that we are useless. Nihilists among humans today would be justified.

Some things had been done by your grand parents that are undeniably important to you. They reproduced, and raised their children. Otherwise, you won't be here to discuss about this now. And if you've done something important to someone else, then what your grand parents did are also important for them.

[hamdani yusuf]

If my grandparents had left £1,000,000 to my parents, who then blew it all on slow horses, their action would have been important to my parents but not to me. If they had instead backed Tesco's supermarket, the story might have been different.

You seem to be stuck with individualistic point of view. Remember that even an individual human is a collection of different cells specializing in different tasks working together in a complex relationships towards some common goals. Some of them share the same genes, some others don't, such as gut bacteria.

[Zer0]

As I said, some actions have repetitive importance, but importance is not a conserved quantity..

If my grandparents had left £1,000,000 to my parents, who then blew it all on slow horses, their action would have been important to my parents but not to me. If they had instead backed Tesco's supermarket, the story might have been different.

They probably had a Golden Chance.
An Opportunity unlike any other.
World Supremacy & Complete Dominance.

Imagine one-third of the Whole Earth under a common Ruler.

Ps - Perhaps A.H. was Alot more Evil than can be accounted for.

[hamdani yusuf]

We still have world problems primarily due to lack of consistency by those in power. With no explicitly stated common terminal goal among them, there would be no way to agree on prioritizing things. It leaves too much flexibility to interpret things to their desired narratives.
The situation shown in the video below is an example.

On Wednesday evening, Republican representative Mike Turner went on Tucker Carlson's Fox news program and the segment quickly evolved into a shouting match between Tucker and Turner. And the reason for that is because Tucker Carlson doesn't quite understand how US foreign policy works. And he was confused as to why the United States would want to be allies with a country like Ukraine when we could be allies with a country like Russia. And representative Turner had to explain to him why that's not exactly what we're doing. Take a look at the clip. Absolutely amazing how Turner destroys Tucker Carlson here. Here it is.

It is, make certain that we give them what they need. Give them intelligence, give them lethal weapons, give them assistance, give them guidance.
But, but, but, why, why would we.
Because it's important.
Why would we take Ukraine, but hold on, why would we take Ukraine's side and not Russia's side? A sincere question? If you're looking from an American perspective? No, but why? I mean, who's got the energy reserves. Who's, who's the major player in world affairs? Who's the potential counterbalance against China, which is the actual threat? Why would we take Ukraine's side? Why wouldn't we have Russia's side? I don't, I'm totally confused.
Well, clearly. Maybe if you get out a map and you looked to see where the black sea is and Bulgaria and Romania, Romania, where we have our missile defense system, Greece and Turkey, the entrance to the black sea. And then from there, you look at what the conflicts have already been in Russia's areas there. Ukraine is a Democracy, uh, Russia's an authoritarian regime that is seeking to impose its will upon a validly elected Democracy in Ukraine. And we're on the side of Democracy. That's why people were chasing those planes in Afghanistan and wouldn't be chasing Russian ones. We're for Democracy. We're for Liberty. We're not for the authoritarian regimes coming in and changing borders by tanks. Russia isn't showing up on the border with ballot boxes. They're showing up on the border with tanks. And that's why we need to make certain we're on the side of Democracy and give the aid that's necessary. So we don't have another Obama sending blankets to a country that's being invaded.
Yeah. I, I mean, I, I'm guessing for Democracy in other countries, I guess. But I'm really for America. And I.

What's really interesting to me about the clip other than the way that Turner shut down Tucker and basically got him to sheepishly admit like, well, I mean, I guess I like Democracies in other countries, ah, I don't know. They both in their own ways really did a good job of explaining what US foreign policy is. And I don't think either of the meant to do it. That's what's so funny to me. Because Tucker Carlson's over here saying, well, why aren't we friends with Russia? Why are they our close allies? Because they have all the energy reserves. They've got that sweet, sweet, crude oil that we want to get our hands on. So they should be our best friends, which really is basically half of US foreign policy. We'll be your friends. We'll support you in any way we can, if you have oil, you know, that explains the United States relationship with Saudi Arabia.

One of the worst human rights abusers on the planet, that regime is, but we're totally selling them all kinds of wonderful weapons of war.

[Zer0]

Scientists are taught to follow critical thinking & logical reasoning & appreciating evidental facts.

So...what are Politicians taught?

I'm not aware of the contents or syllabus of Political Science.

Are they taught how to look someone into the eye, & lie without a blink, straight in their face?

Ps - Politicians & Diapers should be changed on a Regular basis, apparently for similar reasons.

[hamdani yusuf]

So...what are Politicians taught?

Primarily how to gain and retain power. That include persuading other people to follow their biddings.

Politicians were useful traditionally because decision making process related to a society as a whole could only be done by humans. No other things including machines, could do the job. But humans as individual have their own personal desires and preferences, which may be different than interest of their society. This creates conflict of interest. And problems arise for those who are not in power when personal interest of the politicians win against public interests.