Okay, if you and AutSider and others wish to speculate on the “foundations of objectivism” without exploring the implications of it with respect to that which I construe to be the most important of all philosophical questions – how ought one to live? – just ignore my posts.
But I would suggest that any substantive discussion of objective reality must come around to this. Or become more or less utterly irrelevant to those of us who do not live in an ivory tower.
I am not speculating. I am simply not addressing the question that you want me to address. These are two different questions. They are not one and the same question.
You are NOT interested in whether moral truth is objective or not.
Rather, you are interested in understanding why people disagree.
You are confusing the two subjects.
So, why then can’t I note this and then suggest that we explore the implications of it pertaining to the reality of, say, capital punishment?
Life and death are clearly involved here. Some choose to embrace it and the prisoner dies, others choose to condemn it and the prisoner lives.
Now, having acquired the “foundation of objectivism” what then is the obligation of all reasonable/rational men and women when, for example, they are in the voting booth electing candidates that either support or do not support capital punishment?
This is preposterous. My aim instead is to explore the manner in which different individuals will draw the line between subjective opinion and objective truth once we move beyond the world of either/or. When is what you believe “in your head” is true able to be demonstrated as in fact that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn. In other words, in a world where the way things are is challenged by those who insist they ought to be another way instead.
Again, preposterous. I am merely attempting to nudge those who broach “intellectual contraptions” like yours [and AutSider’s], to connect their words to a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict.
This either interest you or it does not. If not, fine.
I agree. And all I am doing is suggesting that we connect the words to a particular existential reality. A particular context where [ironically] folks on either side of the issue can embrace your assumptions above.
But then that is my point, isn’t it?
True, but then mathematicians don’t often debate whether the laws of nature ought to be something else instead.
My point though is to make a distinction between knowing this “in your head” and demonstrating that others are obligated to know it in turn — if they wish to be thought of as reasonable men and women.
No, I am someone who is curious to explore the extent to which others are not entangled in this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…when their own behaviors come into conflict with others over value judgments.
Interesting, then by your very definition the migrant reproduction rate in Europe is only fittingly a form of natural selection where the erosion of European culture or ethnicity is a natural thing, right?
Natural selection is only about reproduction, right? There is nothing to complain about, right?
All of us share the same goals? What? When did that happen?
Your use of the word pervert only proves my assertion that natural selection in our society is inauthentic of nature.
Complex systems collapse all time, why is humanity any different?
Not all collapsing systems are salvageable either.
You don’t understand what the term “natural selection” refers to.
That was not “my” definition, in the sense that, I didn’t come up with it and it certainly isn’t going against the real definition.
That’s scientific definition.
Answer my previous post to you halfwit.
I just did, you moron.
No you didn’t. You’re a waste of bandwidth.
I am really sorry for hurting your feelings in the past, but can we just return to the topic?
It is also arguing that everybody’s survival potential is the same or uniform when clearly it isn’t that way at all.
Answer my post. Your insincerity has been noted.
You mean, your questions? There is no reason to do so.
Yeah, you won’t do so because it would show what a gross oversimplification of views that you have on the world.
The point is that you don’t understand what “natural selection” is. The statement that “there is no longer natural selection” is ridiculous taken literally.
First of all, the very choice of cutting your legs off suggests a mind detached from reality (insane) and probably not very intelligent. I’m more inclined to think that the next idea of such a mind would be some other self-handicapping insanity than developing technology just to get prosthetic legs, because if they wanted legs, they could have simply not cut off their biological legs.
Second, how do you figure such a tribe would manage to acquire the necessary resources and do the necessary work to construct the industry and infrastructure required for advanced technologies to be developed in the first place? I remind you, they have no fucking legs.
Man’s limitations gave the ideas for technological advancement. Man’s ability made it possible to realize them. Cutting off your own legs gives you the amazing idea that maybe you should create artificial legs. Creating a problem and then proposing a solution for that problem isn’t exactly advancement.
As for energy transfers, entropy, thermodynamics etc. yes, from what little I’ve seen of it I suppose I would agree with that. Good documentary, reminds me of a video I watched which talked about the subject from a more philosophical perspective:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuqm2Jb_bbg[/youtube]
It also talks about order, chaos, how order generates chaos and how more complex forms of order must generate more chaos to sustain themselves etc.
Natural selection is spontaneous and there are no rules where morality or ethics isn’t even a thought in the natural world.
None of that applies to civilization especially within the modern era. If you for one moment think natural selection exists in western socialist or neo liberal societies which you and many KT members publicly admit despising you’re not only a moron but a hypocrite of your own embraced philosophy as well.
Answer this post and the other one or stop wasting my time with your noise.
I am so sorry for hurting your feelings.
By the way, you don’t understand what “natural selection” is. It is not what you think it is. It refers to organisms interacting with their environment – whatever their environment is – and then either surviving to reproduce or not. That’s it.
You are merely speaking of different kinds of environments. I don’t see the relevance of that.
In fact, I don’t even see the relevance od bringing up natural selection when discussing objectivity.
Speaking of BlitheringGenius, another gem of his, highly relevant to this thread and better understanding evolution and natural selection (which is apparently a problem for some here)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqtu8_LmsoQ[/youtube]
The text of the video:
[tab]Many people seem to believe that we have transcended evolution due to modern technology and the welfare state.
This view seems to go along with the moral view that evolution is something bad and primitive that we should transcend for moral reasons. Evolution is not politically correct: it involves competition, it has winners and losers, it is not egalitarian. I think some people want to ignore the implications of evolutionary theory to avoid conflict with their moral views.
The fact is that we have not transcended evolution and will never transcend the evolutionary process. In this essay I explain why that is.
What is evolution? Evolution is a process that operates on a population of ordered forms that copy themselves, such as living beings.
Evolution has three basic components: reproduction, variation and selection. For evolution to exist:
There must be reproduction in excess of replacement.
There must be variation among copies.
Some copies must have more offspring than others.
When you have these three components, you have an evolutionary process.
There is a dynamic balance between these components:
Reproduction adds copies to the population.
Variation adds information to the population.
Selection removes both copies and information from the population. By doing so, it optimizes the size of the population and its fit to the environment.
If you remove any of the three components, the process is no longer balanced.
Without excess reproduction, the population would shrink because variation would make some forms unfit and selection would eliminate them.
Without variation, no new information would be added to the population and it couldn’t improve its fitness or adapt to a changing environment.
Without selection, both population size and disorder would increase without limit. Selection is necessary to remove the excess copies and information added by the other two components.
Each component adds something that is essential for creating and maintaining an ordered population that is adapted to its environment.
Biology is ultimately constrained by Physics. To maintain their order and copy themselves, life forms have to extract potential energy from the environment. Potential energy is what usually just call “energy” – it is energy that can be used to do work. Selection is based on the ability of a form to extract potential energy from the environment and use that energy to survive and reproduce.
Now, why do some people think we have escaped from the constraints of evolution? Their argument goes something like this:
Modern society has eliminated or drastically reduced the major causes of death, such as war, disease and famine. We use technology and altruism to help the weak. Thus, evolution has been eliminated.
Here is why this view is wrong.
Modern society has not eliminated selection; that is a misconception. It has merely changed the selective forces on the population. It is true that people are not dying in large numbers from war, disease and famine, at least in the developed world. Most people live to a ripe old age. So it is true that modern society has eliminated the major selective forces that shaped human nature in the past. But that doesn’t mean we have transcended evolution.
Evolution is not really the survival of the fittest. It is the reproduction of the fittest. Biologically speaking, survival is just a means to reproduction. Fitness is the ability to reproduce. Selection does not operate only through death, but through birth as well. In modern societies, selection operates mainly through birth rates rather than death rates. Some people have more children than others, and their genes are being selected for.
Selection cannot be eliminated, because it is necessary to maintain the size and order of the population. Most people understand the need for population control, but few seem to understand that selection is necessary to maintain the order of the population.
The evolutionary process is not only a way of generating new forms; it is also necessary to maintain existing ones. Evolution is not an elevator that you can get off when you reach a certain level. It’s more like a bird that has to keep flapping its wings to stay in the air.
What happens if a society attempts to eliminate all the selective forces on its population?
For example, suppose a society enables all of its members to survive and reproduce, even if they make no contribution to society. This describes the current reality of the welfare state. Everyone is allowed to have children, and the state takes care of all children, even if their parents cannot support them. This seems like a nice thing to do. But what are the consequences of this kind of altruism?
In the modern welfare state, the most effective reproductive strategy is to go on welfare and have lots of children. Genes that lead to this behavior will be selected for. People we consider to be unproductive and irresponsible will have the most children. Over time, the population will become adapted to extracting potential energy from the welfare state, rather than extracting potential energy from nature using social cooperation. Such people are a drain on society. They consume or destroy more potential energy than they produce. The welfare state has a dysgenic effect on the population: it promotes traits that are destructive to society.
Society is a tool like a hammer: it allows us to use energy more efficiently, but it also requires an input of energy to create and maintain. The members of society have to produce a surplus of potential energy to maintain society. Those who simply consume potential energy from society make society weaker.
There is no free lunch. Socializing selective forces does not make them disappear. It just transfers the selective forces from the individual to the society. That leaves society with less power to compete with other societies and to maintain its internal order. Eventually, it will collapse or be destroyed by outside forces.
And after that happens, the large population of unproductive people who were sheltering under its protection will once again be exposed to the elements. Without the welfare state, individuals will have to be productive and responsible in order to survive and reproduce.
Another way some people think we can transcend evolution is through genetic engineering. Instead of relying on natural selection to eliminate the disorder created by variation, we can use engineering to “fix” deviations. This is a more sophisticated view, because at least it does not take for granted the order of the population. However, this view is also wrong: genetic engineering cannot transcend evolution. It cannot eliminate variation or selection.
First, genetic engineering does not eliminate selection. It merely replaces (to some degree) natural with “artificial” selection. And artificial selection is always constrained by natural selection. Life forms have to extract potential energy from the environment to maintain their order. To maintain the fitness of life forms, artificial selection would have to mimic natural selection. It would have to select those forms that are best at extracting and using potential energy. The mechanism of selection differs, but what is being optimized does not change.
Second, it is impractical to identify and fix all variation that occurs in a population. Do we create all offspring in test-tubes from approved genetic stock? Who would approve it? How would we know what variations might be adaptive without testing them?
When we genetically engineer plants and animals, we do so in a very limited way. Usually we splice a single gene into the organism. We test it extensively in various environmental conditions. Then we grow it as a monoculture in a controlled environment. This process is far removed from the ability to identify and fix specific deviations in a diverse population.
People often appeal to hypothetical technological solutions when faced with social problems, especially problems they can’t solve within their existing moral framework. But technology is not a deus ex machina that can solve all of our problems. There are limits to our ability to design and manage complex systems. It is naive to think that we can simply design anything we want, no matter how complex it is. Beyond a certain level of complexity, order cannot be designed, it has to emerge by an evolutionary process.
There is another way in which some people want to transcend evolution. They want to eliminate the first component of the evolutionary process: reproduction in excess of replacement. Because we are all in competition for resources on a finite planet, many people view reproduction as immoral. They think we should choose to have fewer children for moral reasons.
Is it possible to limit the population by individuals freely choosing not to reproduce?
Not in the long run, because whatever traits make someone choose not to reproduce will be selected out of the population. The genes and culture of people who choose not to have children will simply be replaced by the genes and culture of those who do have children.
Overpopulation is a problem, but voluntary genocide is not the solution.
What’s the alternative?
Selection is necessary to maintain the size and order of a population, but as I said earlier, it need not work through death rates. It can work through birth rates as well. The best way to control population is to tie the right to reproduce to the obligation to be a productive and responsible member of society. Basically, this means not allowing criminals or people on welfare to have children. Potential parents should have to demonstrate their social responsibility and ability to provide for their children.
Tying reproduction to production does the two critical jobs of selection.
First, it regulates population size. During periods of scarcity, fewer people would have the means to support children, so fewer children would be permitted. During periods of abundance, more people would be allowed to have children.
Second, it maintains or improves (optimizes) the order of the population. In other words, it has a eugenic effect. It would select for productivity and responsibility. It would thus help maintain the order of society, because those individuals who make the largest contribution to society would have the greatest number of children.
Eugenics has a bad name, but it shouldn’t. It is necessary and inevitable. The form of eugenics that I’m proposing here is not based on the idea of a master race. It allows for genetic diversity. It is bottom-up and emergent, not top-down and authoritarian. It appeals to a basic principle of social organization: that rights and responsibilities should be balanced. Because selection would take place mostly through reproductive rates, rather than survival rates, it allows for some degree of charity and welfare.
We can, if we choose, have a sustainable civilization in which everyone has a reasonably comfortable and dignified life. On the other hand, if we do not build this regulatory feedback loop into our societies, our societies will eventually collapse or be destroyed.
In the long run, population control and eugenics are necessary for maintaining civilization. If we are going to eliminate war, disease and famine (and I think that we should) then we have to replace those selective forces with other forms of selection. If we do not, then our civilization will eventually collapse and we will go back to war, disease and famine. One way or another, nature will carry out the program of population control and eugenics as it always has.
If we choose to fight nature we will lose.
We cannot transcend evolution because we can never escape from the evolutionary process that creates and maintains the human form. We can change the environment in which this process operates – in fact, we have always done this – but we cannot escape from the process itself.
Evolution didn’t end when we discovered stone tools, it didn’t end when we started using fire, it didn’t end when we developed agriculture and it won’t end because of the industrial revolution.
No matter what we do, we will never transcend evolution.[/tab]
HaHaHa, once society has accumulated enough resources and insulated itself from nature, it can temporarily afford to be less discriminating and “cruel” than natural selection, basically, it can afford inferior specimens to survive and reproduce. But the key word here is, TEMPORARILY. This strategy is not going to work out in the long run. That there are already resources accumulated and a system in place means the population can become weak and degenerate without IMMEDIATELY suffering the consequences of the weakness and degeneracy. But permitting inferior members of a species to reproduce is not a sustainable strategy in the long run. It will be stopped, either by society itself if it implements counter-measures to prevent collapse, or it will be stopped by nature once the society collapses because inferiors consume more than they produce. It cannot continue indefinitely.
In fact, natural selection predicts that in current circumstances of abundance of resources and sheltering, there will be an increase in quantity and a decrease in quality of a population until the natural equilibrium is restored, which is exactly what is happening. Social selection happens within natural selection, it is like a stage in a cycle, just like social environments exist within natural ones.
Sometimes, it becomes a matter of necessity contributed by changing circumstances. It wasn’t blind people that invented microscopes, the limitation was already present in normal human eyesight. From ancient times, people were subject to various diseases and infections. Would letting the nature take its course and simply dying out be the sane option in your opinion? And would those people who explored the condition (instigated by default human limitation) and developed sciences like microbiology, medicine, and developed antibiotics, vaccines, etc. be the mentally ill ones? It is another matter that eventually humans became dependent on and handicapped by the same technology that helped them overcome their natural limitations. But technological progress builds on itself and makes the process of survival easier and more efficient, to the point where survival is not even the main goal anymore and creativity/ingenuity is now channeled elsewhere.
Yes, I know it is quite amazing that a simple man has built megastructures, ten to a hundred times bigger than himself, has split the atoms and harnessed atomic energy, built spacecraft and went into outer space. Baby steps, all coming from a limitation, and a need to have a survival edge.
Again, a man is already born with what he sees as limitations. Whether they were really limitations or not is not really the topic here because you’d have to argue against self-awareness which sees these limitations in the first place. Survival is the name of the game, nobody wants to die, whether it’s from an infection or loss of blood, and technology provides a survival advantage. Addiction to technology is a consequences of technological progress, and technological progress builds on itself naturally. So what alternative do you propose? Luddism? Hunter-gatherer lifestyle, like the joker’s utopia? What is your ideal lifestyle?