|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 22, 2013 11:56 PM |
|
|
Rights are about benefit, but not all benefit, only that which can be gotten through mutually beneficial agreements. I think you'll agree that self-preservation is an important benefit - a vitally important one, because without life, you can't do much.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 23, 2013 12:19 AM |
|
|
Well... let me leave you with you:
Quote:
if elephants weren't useful for humans in any way, and eliminating them wouldn't have negative effects on ecosystems (that is, negative for humans), they shouldn't have protection.
Quote:
But there are reasons to do things that cause harm to animals or public property, such as eating tasty meat, making something cheaper, etc. "We had the right to do so" isn't a justification for an action, but it does mean that no one who recognizes this right can legitimately do anything against us for it.
Quote:
However, if there were a human who was so technologically advanced that the armies of the world meant nothing to him, he would indeed have no reason to make a non-aggression agreement. If it would benefit him to destroy or enslave the rest of humanity, it would be legitimate for him to do it.
Quote:
Yes. I covered something like this in my example of the immortal person who is so technologically advanced that all the armies of the world mean nothing to him. If someone were to us as we are to animals, they would have no reason to restrict themselves in their dealings with us. At the same time, we would be justified in resisting them, but if they're so advanced, we wouldn't succeed. Too bad for us.
These are all examples of dominance, not self-preservation. The debate had been about the limits of our dominance, should there be any limit or not and why. You're just argument-shifting.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2013 12:38 AM |
|
|
I don't know if you don't read, don't understand, or what, but I'll explain again. Let's see if I can condense my explanation to four sentences, so I can hopefully be understood.
1. Rights exist because it is in some beings' interests to make mutually beneficial agreements with each other; humans are such beings.
2. Self-preservation is one reason why such agreements can be made, but not the only one.
3. If a being cannot make agreements, understand them, or doesn't need an agreement to not be a potential threat, we have no reason to restrict ourselves in dealing with it (that is, to give it rights), but there may be other reasons (either relating to virtue or because of situations of the kind Corribus wrote about) why we shouldn't kill, torture, and enslave other beings at our whims.
4. However, none of those "other reasons" involve consideration for other beings as a terminal value, only an instrumental value to one's own happiness.
Hopefully that explained it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 23, 2013 01:14 AM |
|
|
1- Which means they are based on a consensus that has no legitimacy source other than people themselves and people CAN agree that not destroying and polluting the environment or not harming other creatures shall be outlawed.
2- Self-preservation is not the topic here and that has been already stated earlier. You said nothing about it, it wasn't related to your arguments. Until your other arguments fell short.
3- The reason can be also ethical, which you strongly refuse (and as I stated in the very beginning, for shallow reasons). I don't know what you mean by giving rights, if you mean legally protecting that animal, yes, it indeed can be done. Your philosophy of allegedly objective self-interest based rights is too artificial an objection. And you have recently confessed those "objectively" founded principles are based on your personal observations anyway.
4- What exactly does that mean? We are talking about things with massive scale here, extinction of species, future of forests etc etc. Who's happiness? Who will be happy or not when a river is polluted? And how on earth can something as subjective as happiness be your argument on a matter like this? You say people feel happy when they are virtuous (whatever that means), what if they feel virtuous for protecting the earth with no reason at all. If 20000 people's will is to let a forest exist just for the sake of it and another 20000 people's will is producing lumber with it, why is the forest group automatically considered violating rights. We can also say the lumber people are violating the rights of the forest people. You stretched out every concept so subjectively, anything can be considered an instrument to happiness.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2013 01:36 AM |
|
|
Until you acknowledge that there is such a thing as objective self-interest, there is nothing more to talk about. I'm done with this subject for now.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 23, 2013 06:57 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 07:00, 23 Jul 2013.
|
|
There is no logical, psychological, philosophical, social or any (other) scientifically valid reason to acknowledge the existence of such a thing.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 21, 2013 05:22 PM |
|
|
Progress exist as long as one decide there's something to progress towards.
So it's subjectively, and that's why I really dislike the excuse that you can't hinder progress. It's like saying you may not stop me, because what I do, is what I like. While I've sympathy in people doing what they like, I dislike getting smacked in the face with info about how I can't do anything about it.
In reality, it just means there are more people for than against, and you're only you, and eventually you'll be able to do less and less about it.
But it does not mean it's impossible! Look at what Luther did. Changing the idea that you've to pay to go to Heaven, something I'm quite confident would have been labelled as progress up until said point.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 08:33 AM |
|
|
I've recently watched this, there's not much new stuff in it if you've already done your basic reading, it's naturally not very rich in detail since it starts from the big bang and ends in our recent age in a single episode. Yet, the narration is good and the theme of energy consumption works really well.
History of The World in Two Hours
For those, who would want better quality and to archive it, here's the link for the torrent.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 04:17 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Do you think civilization is actually "getting somewhere" or do you think, when it comes down to it, we are still as selfish and egocentric as our ancestors? Can the adventure of mankind be described as progress and if so, is it basically linear or do we have our ups and downs? Are we having the same wars over and over again with just better technology, or are we developing an empathy towards "other" nations and cultures as we develop new communication and transportation devices? issues with a shiny package? Did the rules of the game change?
Is history repetition or progress? Or is it something in the middle?
I think our lives are more wishful thinking and it's for one important reason, progress is based on the collective and in essence, a serious delusion/illusion when we compare ourselves to the people of the past.
i.e. We have Cars. Yet no person I know can build a car, or anything else for that matter these days. So, what happens if "Oil" does disappear as predicted? Our societies would crumble much worse and much faster than Rome. However, the people would even be worse off than folks back then because of "Tech's dumbing down effect" over the last couple of centuries.
I was a little different than my mates, I always wanted to do things myself; they would pay to have something done...every time, while I could not do that unless I had no time to do it myself.
Consequently, over the years, I learned to do all I could. Plumbing, electrical work, etc. and carpentry was my favorite. But learning was much wider than just building rooms etc it involved everything else too, from fixing my tractors & road vehicles to growing gardens or wildlife and nature preservation.
So it seems to me any real measure of the OP would be how does the average person fair on the abilities front? Since I'm a grand father that's what is very, very scary to me. My kids showed zero interest in doing work or learning how to do things" by their own hand" My Grandkids? At a glance (that's all grandparents can do) they seem even more resistant to learning how-to anything.
I may be a cranky old cynic but I don't think so, I think as Tech as removed people from the workplace and removed working from the home, its a no-brainer that people are going to opt for something or someone else to do things and not learn it for themselves; sort of a built-in laziness that will keep the individual from doing no more than they must.
So here's the situation to me, If "my sort" was the best of my generation and those that followed are even more resistant to learning and doing?; how the heck could anyone say Mankind is advancing? Why, because we have far more distractions than could have ever been conceived at any point in previous history? No, Our progress is illusion and I know that if I were yanked-up from the ground and compared to the average man in most any age, I doubt I would measure-up when it comes to "life's basics and survival." Those earlier men may not have had my skills on many things but when It comes to survival of themselves and their families; I would barely compete with the drive and determination they displayed every day they lived.
<iow>. <imo> Modernity is more about distraction than learning and getting down to business and therefore more illusion than real progress. Any progress that's based on the collective may seem very real on the surface but when hard times hit? we will find; not only do we not know much about "living," compared to the men & women of the past, but also...we're pampered babies.
Btw, Some folks on this planet totally escape all my rant, they are not privileged in any fashion and are always living in survival-mode and therefore rather immune to illusions.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 04:45 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:47, 30 Sep 2013.
|
Well, we are dependent on the technology now because of our numbers. Without modern food production technics, water circulation, transportation etc etc, there's no way the world will support 7 billion people. So if modern technology collapses, it's famine for most of us.
Btw, taking into account how sophisticated our recent devices are, I don't know how it would be possible to "do it yourself." How can you repair an iPad for example, let alone build it? Even if you have the workshop, can one man (or five) build a modern car from scratch without a factory? I mean, to be handy and having craftsmanship is a very good trait of course, not only because you can construct things but also because it affects your character in a positive way. Still, I fail to see how it can be of any drastic relevance if an apocalyptic technological breakdown occurs. In the case of cars and oil, I think since the oil won't run short all of a sudden but rather gradually, when things start to get serious people will start to invest in new technologies and abandon the dependency step by step.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 04:54 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 17:02, 30 Sep 2013.
|
It think you missed my point. I agree with what you've said but <imo> Tech's umbrella-effect is still no way to gage our progress. I don't expect you or anyone else here for that matter to agree with "my gage", but the ability of the common person is what makes sense to me.
It's about being fully prepared for life's basics and I do not think we are, As a matter of fact our Tech-buffer says "don't bother."
Edit= I got to thinking I should add something. Since we do have to navigate Tech, regardless, I think it wise to not forget "the basics" i.e. how to grow food, make simple-structures...stuff like that.
I recommend folks find books like the "Foxfire" series and keep them handy. The purpose of this series was to "save the knowledge of the old ways." I wish they were more comprehensive, but they're better than nothing. Again, it's all about just being better prepared.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 05:06 PM |
|
|
There are many skills that were needed in the past that are no longer relevant for most people. For example, 200 years ago, knowing how to ride a horse was a necessary skill for many people, but it's just a hobby today. Why is the loss of irrelevant skills a bad thing? Skills are good when and because they're useful - if a particular skill ceases to be useful, the loss of knowledge about how to do it (among most people - it's not a total loss of knowledge) isn't bad. Most people in first-world countries don't need to know anything about agriculture, because they will never farm. So why should they learn anything about it (unless they find it fun)? They won't be as good at it as actual farmers, and they have their own jobs. People specialize and trade, which makes the complexity of modern civilization possible.
Unless you can't afford to hire a plumber, it's better to call one than to try to fix the plumbing yourself. He'll do it faster and better - the advantage of specialization.
And if someday we won't need skills at all, because we'll be served entirely by robots, that would be paradise.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 05:07 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:09, 30 Sep 2013.
|
Edit: I see we overlapped with mvass, making a similar point. The post is a reply to markkur.
But where does life's basics start? Think of a pre-industrial farmer for example, if his land goes dry he will starve because he does not have the skills of a hunter-gatherer. Does that put him under your category of dumbed down? Because, agriculture is technology too, and a revolutionary one I might add. Another example, I've read somewhere that during the Ottoman years, a Turkish archer was being raised to be one starting from age five and when he became an adult, he could shoot 3 arrows in 2 seconds with great precision. Now, would you invest so much of your time in such a skill? What are you going to do with it? What we feel we need to learn is usually determined by our surroundings. I'm also a learn-as-much-as-you-can type of person, (I prefer things on paper though, not mechanics), I just don't have a grudge against modernism or technology, I actually love 20th century.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 10:58 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
...And if someday we won't need skills at all, because we'll be served entirely by robots, that would be paradise.
egad man...enjoy your roboticness. Thank God I'll be dead soon and never see your idea of paradise; in mine there would be no plastics, no matter if it could bring me a gin & tonic.
About the jobs, I enjoyed all the work I learned and did it as a professional would have...it just took a little longer. Don't forget there is a such thing as mentoring. And, I saved lots of cash to use for fun instead...like doing my own bartending.
Quote:
I just don't have a grudge against modernism or technology, I actually love 20th century.
It's no grudge to safeguard and not expect the future to be stepping from one bliss to another.
And about the "Hard copy", I did say "books." Notice I did not say study them like your cramming for finals but all I said was "get them." I doubt you're against the preservation of knowledge.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 30, 2013 11:35 PM |
|
|
|
Of course not, I just won't hold it against people who goes "I won't be needing this, so why bother?"
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 01, 2013 02:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
if a particular skill ceases to be useful, the loss of knowledge about how to do it (among most people - it's not a total loss of knowledge) isn't bad
We are, I assume, neglecting aesthetic value here, are we not? I mean, playing the piano is not useful, per se. But I would regard losing the knowledge of how to play the piano a bad thing... allowing for some elastic meaning of the word "bad", of course.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2013 02:49 AM |
|
|
I would argue that knowing how to play the piano is useful for someone who enjoys it, because they can use that skill to do something they enjoy. But that's largely a definitional issue.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 01, 2013 03:16 AM |
|
|
Well, there are also plenty of people who enjoy farming. In fact, many (most? all?) skills that were once considered essential are now largely the basis of hobbies.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 01, 2013 11:02 AM |
|
|
mvass said:
And if someday we won't need skills at all, because we'll be served entirely by robots, that would be paradise.
I tried to find who he was but couldn't, there was this aristocrat who famously said "our servants live our lives instead of us." Of course, he didn't renounce his title and continued his life as a stable boy, but as long as there is boredom, you won't have your paradise.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 01, 2013 04:18 PM |
|
|
@artu
Quote:
Of course not, I just won't hold it against people who goes "I won't be needing this, so why bother?"
C.mon, you know I do not hold that against people, shoot I'd be doing that with nearly every member of my family if I did but that fact does not negate my point; I cannot claim exception for myself or my loved ones. Anyone can believe as they wish but I'll just use a few examples to explain why I see the avoidance of that "tired old & outdated knowledge" a very bad idea.
France 1919, Germany 1945, Japan 1946 and on to most anywhere in the Middle-East like Syria today with refugees fleeing homes. These folks needed/need to grow things to eat, know how to make a fire FAST or make build a shelter. These things are not optional in crisis. We have to eat, need to keep warm and preferably...dry. 
My grandparents lived during the "Dustbowl and the Great Depression", they knew how to do all that and more, i.e. make clothes out of feedbags etc. Surely you don't think the I-Pod generation should live like basic abilities would never have a use? I think every freaking kid on this planet should be taught this stuff in school! Maybe that way many younger generations today would not living as if knowledge about survival in the natural world is unimportant or beneath them.
@Corribus
Quote:
In fact, many (most? all?) skills that were once considered essential are now largely the basis of hobbies.
Very good point. I think what can easily be missed in this discussion is I'm talking also talking about something that's important for human beings and that is "working with the hands." and I believe that natural "built-in" can still be discovered by most folks. <imo> There is something medicinal about knowing how to warm oneself, take-game by necessity or mastering the keys, brush or pen. I'm not making some radical indictment of our age, I'm part of it too; I'm just stating the obvious, all our gadgets might disappear and as the old Boy Scout motto stated...be prepared. my take is as simple as that. If nothing bad happens in a lifetime...great but if something does, folks should at least have a chance. Waiting for Gov. Aid in difficult times, seems to me the real waste of time.
@Artu
Quote:
I tried to find who he was but couldn't, there was this aristocrat who famously said "our servants live our lives instead of us." Of course, he didn't renounce his title and continued his life as a stable boy, but as long as there is boredom, you won't have your paradise.
Let me know if you find this guy. The thing is... he never had a "need" to take up that manual labor himself and that's ok. I'm talking about when we have no choice in the matter and go to the supermarket and the shelves are empty.
<imo> I believe I stated why he said that earlier; I think we have a built-in need to interact with nature. I could get that "vacation-buzz" also at times when say I cut wood on a brisk fall afternoon, or planted rows of sweet corn on the early spring. The point, is to be out there. I think my paradigm on this thread is furthered verified by the many posts I've read about the need to get away from the PC. The computer is an awesome creation but its not camaraderie around a campfire or the touch of a hand on the shoulder.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
