Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:Great posts folks. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with striving for the unattainable. Striving is what life is for. There's no meaning other than what we decide to confer, so whether you attain your goal or not is pretty unimportant I think. *shrug*

I think my biggest problem with EL's argument is the use of the word "perfection," so maybe it's all semantics on my end. I think people should endeavor to achieve all that they can, but I don't think perfection is a standard by which we should measure ourselves. We should try to be the best people we possibly can ("Be all that you can be!" ), but we shouldn't compare our end results to perfection. Neither should we set specific limits on ourselves, because if we did, we might take no further action to improve upon ourselves once we'd reached those predetermined limits/goals. However, if someone is striving toward perfection and then falls short of his/her goal (even if s/he is already prepared for it to happen), I would think that it would lead to frustration and disappointment (and life is already sufficiently disillusioning, as it is). Comparing your achievements to impossible standards casts a somewhat negative (for lack of a better word) light on all of your accomplishments: they pale and appear insignificant next to your failures. But I suppose as long as one has realistic expectations (of him/herself and others) and doesn't feel diminished or depressed by the fact that s/he will never achieve perfection, s/he should just go for it... It's true that an attempt to reach the classical ideal of perfection would theoretically produce a number of results which would be very desirable -- on the road toward perfection, one would hope that other goals, which are valuable in their own right, would be reached. It just seems unnecessarily harsh and pointless to couch it in those terms. I just try to do as much as I can, while keeping in mind that I can probably do even more if I work harder -- simply a matter of trying to surpass myself each day. If I could do that, then hypothetically I'd always be moving toward the ideal state, which probably comes to the same thing as seeking perfection.

As a side note, I guess another reason I have a problem with the use of that word is that my views regarding perfection are contrary to those of most people. In a way, it's an abstract concept to me, and I'm not sure how to explain it. I think the dictionary would disagree with me, but my interpretation of perfection is "flawless balance." It would be stupid of me to attempt "perfection" by my definition because on an individual level, it is probably undesirable, especially in regard to interpersonal relationships.

I don't know whether any of that made sense. Haven't slept in a while.

As you suggest, perfection is a pretty damn subjective measure anyway.

--A

Hey there's no need for a button to kill all of humanity. The universe has a built-in genocide button: mortality. We're all going to die. Every single human alive today. Forget 95%, Av. Nature prefers 100%.

Don't like human society? Wait a few centuries and we'll make a new one.

We're constantly changing. The challenges we face now will be met--or we'll blow ourselves up. If we make it through the current global crisis (global warming, terrorism, nuclear annihilation), it will be because we've passed this evolutionary hurdle and we will have earned the right to keep on going. Nature will decide. Existence will decide. It's much too early to pass judgment on humans.

If that's still not enough, consider this. Through natural laws, creatures have come into being that can understand this universe from its earliest micro-seconds to its 100 billion year future. We can understand the matter of this place from quarks to galactic clusters. We can map out our own genetic blueprint. In every sense of the word, we are the universe coming to life. We are matter awakening to itself as matter. Not just the fact that it is matter, but the structure of that matter which allows it to come alive and know itself. This is amazing. This is "miraculous." Humans are the greatest things--as far as we know--in the entire universe.

*Finishes reading Malik's post...*

Bene Gesserit trained, are we?

Emotional Leper wrote:*Finishes reading Malik's post...*

Bene Gesserit trained, are we?

what's so great about humanity? my cat raymond says its those awesome opposable thumbs.

Lucimay wrote:

Emotional Leper wrote:*Finishes reading Malik's post...*

Bene Gesserit trained, are we?

what's so great about humanity? my cat raymond says its those awesome opposable thumbs.

Well, I'm quite partial to those thumbs, too. It's two other fingers I want to lose.

The problem is, is so many of those behaviours that I, and others, decry as being at the root of society's many problems, are genetically ingrained, because, guess what? They're the behaviours that increase your likelihood of making more humans.

Malik23 wrote:We're constantly changing. The challenges we face now will be met--or we'll blow ourselves up. If we make it through the current global crisis (global warming, terrorism, nuclear annihilation), it will be because we've passed this evolutionary hurdle and we will have earned the right to keep on going. Nature will decide. Existence will decide. It's much too early to pass judgment on humans.

Great post Malik. I totally share that weird sorta optimism...we'll sort it out, or we'll die a horrible death.

--A

Avatar wrote:Great post Malik.

Agreed.

Emotional Leper wrote:The problem is, is so many of those behaviours that I, and others, decry as being at the root of society's many problems, are genetically ingrained, because, guess what? They're the behaviours that increase your likelihood of making more humans.

Well the only answer for your/our problem is for there to be no life at all. Because, no matter what happens to humans, on Earth, or on another world, there will be other intelligent species. Life is inherently selfish, so I don't think wiping humans off the planet will solve your problem at all.

Emotional Leper wrote:
Well, I'm quite partial to those thumbs, too. It's two other fingers I want to lose.

Loremaster wrote:

Emotional Leper wrote:The problem is, is so many of those behaviours that I, and others, decry as being at the root of society's many problems, are genetically ingrained, because, guess what? They're the behaviours that increase your likelihood of making more humans.

Well the only answer for your/our problem is for there to be no life at all. Because, no matter what happens to humans, on Earth, or on another world, there will be other intelligent species. Life is inherently selfish, so I don't think wiping humans off the planet will solve your problem at all.

Yes, even Altruism is a selfish behaviour on the genetic level.

*sigh*

Where's my button?

Emotional Leper wrote:Where's my button?

Ah, you can't use it, anyway -- didn't you see the "Out of Order" sign?

Altruism

--A

Emotional Leper wrote:*sigh*

Where's my button?

Your point being that no life is better than life?

*shrug* Since I doubt the universe cares, life is usually only better from the point of view of the alive.

--A

Avatar wrote:*shrug* Since I doubt the universe cares, life is usually only better from the point of view of the alive.

--A

Indeed. The universe does not care. Nor is it fair. If it was either of those two things, things would be far different.

I never could buy the Christian God. (Or most other dieties, for that matter.) Then I latched onto the Roman/Greek Pantheon (or they latched onto me, depending on how sane you think I am,) and I've never looked back, save for the occasional side-long glance at the Norse Gods that the German genes inspire.

I am not disputing that the universe doesn't care (and it doesn't). What I am arguing is that no matter what problem you have with humanity, wiping us out will not change a thing. The next intelligent life will no doubt be as selfish. Given that, it is not logical or rational to punish us in that way, especially so if science can somehow fix that problem of ours. Why not let humanity grow and understand the universe and ourselves? Surely that's better than pointless annihilation?

Loremaster wrote:I am not disputing that the universe doesn't care (and it doesn't). What I am arguing is that no matter what problem you have with humanity, wiping us out will not change a thing. The next intelligent life will no doubt be as selfish. Given that, it is not logical or rational to punish us in that way, especially so if science can somehow fix that problem of ours. Why not let humanity grow and understand the universe and ourselves? Surely that's better than pointless annihilation?

I see the two choices as almost equal, with the favour more so towards wiping out humanity.

Imagine two people. One you know, one you don't. One has a huge track record for being horribly selfish, cruel, and otherwise not nice. Sure, he/she has their occasional good moments, but on the whole seems to be a rather nasty person, incapable of change. Then you have the other person, whom you don't know. Which are you more likely to trust, or to give a chance to? Which would you hire?

Emotional Leper wrote:I see the two choices as almost equal, with the favour more so towards wiping out humanity.

Imagine two people. One you know, one you don't. One has a huge track record for being horribly selfish, cruel, and otherwise not nice. Sure, he/she has their occasional good moments, but on the whole seems to be a rather nasty person, incapable of change. Then you have the other person, whom you don't know. Which are you more likely to trust, or to give a chance to? Which would you hire?

It's one thing to ask to trust someone, another thing entirely to 'kill' someone. Anyway, I am not sure your analogy works. (You've constructed a strawman argument, because you've stated that the first person is incapable of change, so therefore you are right.) What if there is a chance, however small, a person could redeem him or herself? What if in time that person learns to get better? You seem to think humanity is a hopeless cause, and maybe it is, but since we're here and we've got much to learn, humanity's extinction seems a 'bit' too much; who are you to say that we won't get better?

Second, your analogy also fails to capture fundamental aspects of evolution. That all organism's are inherently selfish; it's due to the nature of evolution, that organisms have to compete to survive and to breed. So in your analogy it would have been more appropriate to state that the other person would probably just be as selfish or flawed in some way.

The fact of the matter is that humanity is not some cancer of evolution and nature. All that we are comes from a heritage of our past - the process of evolution. Technology is the product of our incredible brains which are the products of nature and evolution. Our instinct for aggression is something that we share with all life, like our urge to breed and to survive. All that we are is natural. It is not our fault for the way we are - it's due to the factors (environment, competing species, etc) that 'made us' like that (well, evolution allowed us to survive with those factors). Let humanity be punished, but please don't be so naive as to assume that the next intelligent species will be like saints; it will no doubt repeat our failings again.

Good post Loremaster.

Just don't tempt anyone to make it a defeatist blanket. Humanity must strive to survive. In a way that makes every Homo sapiens as happy as possible.