The good of society [Archive]

tendomentis

04-08-2008, 09:27 PM

Okay, so this issue has come up countless times in human history. The instances that people tend to remember first are the instances that involve someone with an ulterior motive using "the good of society" to justify a personal agenda.

But does that make the notion wrong in and of itself? Sure, certain people in human history (and you know who you are) have abused it, as others have abused other noble ideals, but is it wrong?

Infertile couples "cheating" natural selection to breed using artificial insemination and surrogate mothers (especially considering how many orphaned children go unwanted). The multi-billion dollar birth control industry (and all the nasty side-effects that accompany it, like increased risks of breast cancer, mood swings, etc). Even immunology.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for human progress, but I think that progress for the individual's sake MIGHT be incorrect. Ideally, progress would be made to further the efficiency and evolution of humanity as a species, not allow certain individuals to sate their individual desires at the long-term expense of the species.

All of this is IMHO obviously, but what do you think? Can you think of other examples of cheating our own evolution? Do you think progress for the individual should outweigh progress for the species? Can you think of instances where progress for the individual might also provide immediate or long term progress for the species (and vice versa)?

Sound off :)

Boozy

04-08-2008, 10:56 PM

The multi-billion dollar birth control industry (and all the nasty side-effects that accompany it, like increased risks of breast cancer, mood swings, etc).

:confused:

Are you saying birth control is bad for society or good for society?

Also, the birth control pill actually regulates mood swings for many women.

tendomentis

04-08-2008, 11:50 PM

Sylvia727

04-09-2008, 12:00 AM

Except that humans are overpopulated. If we have too many humans in an area, then they will use up all the resources and die out. Birth control, counter intuitively, prevents extinction and helps humanity as a species.

Boozy

04-09-2008, 12:01 AM

My personal viewpoint is that any circumvention of our species' natural evolution will inevitably have a negative impact on our species as a whole in the long term.

Why does birth control affect evolution?

Actually, let me rephrase: Human evolution is a process that takes place gradually over generations and generations, involving billions of people. How is it possible to determine what, if any, effects something like birth control may have?

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 12:12 AM

Giggle Goose

04-09-2008, 03:53 AM

Yeah; I also thought heard that some forms of birth control can actually reduce the risk of ovarian and other types of cancer. Not sure of the details; but that's what I've heard from my doctor.

I also think it's necessary since us humans are one of the only (or possibly THE only) species that has sex for pleasure and recreation. So if every single person ended up having a kid with all the sex we're obsessed with these days.....yikes.

Sylvia727

04-09-2008, 03:59 AM

Well, no. That myth was perpetuated by scientists' reluctance to investigate or analyze sexual relations. Many or most animals have sex for pleasure. Look up bonobos, for example. They have sex so often they get bored of it.

Amethyst Hunter

04-09-2008, 04:04 AM

The multi-billion dollar birth control industry (and all the nasty side-effects that accompany it, like increased risks of breast cancer

*takes deep breath*

BIRTH CONTROL DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!!!!!!!!!

To date, there is NO conclusive evidence proving that.

Sorry, but it drives me absolutely batshit insane to hear that boldfaced lie being repeated - especially since it's a favorite tactic of anti-choice groups using it to try and bar access to birth control (nevermind that some of us actually NEED it to control fucked-up menstrual cycles!).

Contraceptions and their effectiveness/side effects differ for everyone; that's why you're encouraged to meet with your doctor and talk through your options.

blas87

04-09-2008, 08:08 AM

Birth control has saved my life, and I will never look down upon it, nor will I ever look down upon any other woman (and maybe if we ever get to it, men) who uses it.

I wil cheat and continue to cheat, if that's how we're going to refer to it. And I don't care. I don't want kids. This works for me.

AFPheonix

04-09-2008, 08:14 AM

Seshat

04-09-2008, 11:15 AM

Yes, and that's how natural selection works. Those humans that lack the ability to self-regulate their own procreative activity (which, due to the negative long-term effects it brings about, namely overpopulation, could be identified as an undesirable trait) simply remove themselves from the gene pool and the humans that remain do not posess that same trait.

And self-regulating their own procreation doesn't count? Because that's all birth control is.

Humans have been regulating their own procreation for as long as archeologists have been able to find communities. Masturbation and homosexuality have been used to permit sexual activity without procreation, abortificant herbs and other techniques have been used, and excess infants that make it past those hurdles have been exposed and left to die.

Modern birth control, surgically-safe abortions, and abortificant pills are simply technological advances on things humans have been doing for millenia. As for masturbation, homosexuality, and infanticide - all have examples in more 'natural' animals. Especially infanticide: in hard times, mothers of many, many species will eat their just-born children.

blas87

04-09-2008, 12:14 PM

Anyone who thinks masturbation is a bad thing obviously wasn't single for very long periods of time.

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 01:05 PM

Somehow this became a birth control thread, and that's not what I had intended.

You who advocate for it primarily use yourselves as examples of why it's a good thing, and that was the point of the thread. Does the good it does for YOU outweigh the long-term negative effects on the species at large?

To say that archaeologists have found evidence of some form of birth control in human history (of which I am aware, lamb intestines for example) isn't saying much as the length of recorded human history is merely a fraction of our species development.

Also, while some forms of birth control may reduce the risk of some types of ovarian cancer, they also increase the risk of breast cancer (and, in the interest of setting a good example, my backup).

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Study_Birth_Control_Pills_Increase_Breast _Cancer_Risk.asp

I'm not against progress in and of itself (see my first post again for clarification). I'm at odds with progress that benefits the individual at the expense of the species.

An example: our species developed natural immune responses to a plethora of diseases over the course of our species' evolution without the need for a multi-billion dollar pharmeceutical industry. We would encounter a new disease, and while many might die off, the humans left were only alive because their physiologies had handled the disease better. They go on to reproduce, and their offspring inherit that immune response, yadda yadda yadda, thousands of generations later we don't even feel the effects of that disease OR its effects are severely diminished. Is it harsh that so many had to die that could have been saved through "modern medicine"? From the individual's standpoint, absolutely. From the species' standpoint, clearly not.

If you think my position is cold, just bear in mind that I have lost loved ones to cancer/illness, but this is still my position.

And yes, I did just "yadda yadda" evolution :)

Boozy

04-09-2008, 01:28 PM

Is it harsh that so many had to die that could have been saved through "modern medicine"? From the individual's standpoint, absolutely. From the species' standpoint, clearly not.

Define "human progress". You would like us to evolve to what end, exactly?

Does letting people die even though we have the technology to save them sound like progress? To me, it sounds like regression.

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 01:48 PM

No, saving people today and preventing the species from developing natural resistances to diseases (for example) dooms so many more people at a later date.

That I would define as regression.

Take a moment to consider just how many people would die in the next year ALONE if a massive solar flare destroyed the technology that our species uses as a crutch. Our technological prowess has not made us evolve, it has in fact subverted our need to evolve.

Evolve to what end?? I couldn't answer that, as I doubt anyone really could with any degree of certainty. Is there a "finish line"? I doubt it. At one time, we just floated around in shallow pools of muck, and that was our universe. Over millenia we eventually climbed out of the pools and found another "universe" in the island that the shallow pools were on. Then, we evolved a little more and found out that there was a whole planet that the island sat on.

Then we looked up and wondered how we ever missed that whole universe outside of our own planet, a concept that we are truly just coming to grips with. What's outside of that I wonder?

By slowing or halting our own evolution, we are delaying greater discoveries and newer understandings. That's why I asked which is better, the good of the individual, or the good of society?

AFPheonix

04-09-2008, 04:27 PM

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 04:36 PM

Answer my question.

Wow, polite much? Answer my question, PLEASE???

I didn't respond directly to that ONE point because I agree (and because the answer to your question would be a reiteration of pretty much every one of my posts thus far). The use of an animal hide to thwart the species natural evolution to being capabale of enduring colder climates would be as fundamentally flawed as using technological means to allow infertile couples the ability to reproduce.

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 04:47 PM

Wait. What? Are you advocating against any technological advance? Because I can guarantee the first proto-human that used another animal's hide to keep warm instead of dying out in favor of another extremely hairy specimen thwarted natural selection.

The first farmer thwarted natural selection not only of the plants he started selecting as breeding stock (artificial selection) but that of generations after him who developed into agrarian societies from nomad hunter/gatherers.

As for birth control, would you prefer the inevitable die-off that would occur if we all exceeded our planet's ability to feed all of us? In case you missed it, there's food shortages already in several parts of the world. I don't know about you, but that would be one hell of a mess.

Again, thinking from the viewpoint of an individual and not the species as a whole. That's what this thread is about. Yes, the die-off would be "one hell of a mess", but then again the mass extinction of the dinosaurs was also rather ghastly, but if that hadn't happened our species probably wouldn't even be here today. Life and death is a cycle. Cheating that cycle can only go on for so long, and there are always long-term repercussions to cheating.

The rabbit population grows large, and the wolves move in to take advantage of the increased food source, and so the wolf population grows until there aren't enough rabbits to sustain the increased wolf population, so the wolves begin to die off and with the new lack of predators the rabbit population increases again....this is the cycle that doesn't end, some rabbits started living it not knowing what it was.

Norton

04-09-2008, 05:11 PM

By slowing or halting our own evolution, we are delaying greater discoveries and newer understandings.

The majority of human evolution in the past several thousand years has been the evolution of the brain, rather than the body. The mind is what's leading us to these discoveries.

Stephen Hawking posesses one of the most brilliant scientific minds on Earth. His body is no longer functional, but his mind has more than made up for it. He didn't even really start to apply himself mentally until after his health started failing. If he had never gotten Motor Neurone Disease, he simply would have continued coasting through life effortlessly using his intelligence, not realizing his full mental potential.

I agree that by using medicine and technology, we are making our species as a whole physically weaker from birth. However, if our minds continue to evolve at the rate they are, I don't think it will matter eventually.

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 05:23 PM

The majority of human evolution in the past several thousand years has been the evolution of the brain, rather than the body. The mind is what's leading us to these discoveries.

Stephen Hawking posesses one of the most brilliant scientific minds on Earth. His body is no longer functional, but his mind has more than made up for it. He didn't even really start to apply himself mentally until after his health started failing. If he had never gotten Motor Neurone Disease, he simply would have continued coasting through life effortlessly using his intelligence, not realizing his full mental potential.

I agree that by using medicine and technology, we are making our species as a whole physically weaker from birth. However, if our minds continue to evolve at the rate they are, I don't think it will matter eventually.

We haven't really evolved much mentally with the advent of technology. Take the USA for example, which (next to Japan) being one of the most technologically advanced nations/societies in human history, and yet we rate SO far from the top in scholastic performance. Our dependance on technology is subverting even our need to evolve mentally.

Technology isn't just hurting us physically by allowing those humans that should not survive to reproduce to do just that, but is also hurting our "mental" evolution (if you want to separate the two) by giving us an easier means to accomplish tasks that once had to be done mentally.

DesignFox

04-09-2008, 05:48 PM

...this is the cycle that doesn't end, some rabbits started living it not knowing what it was.

*sings* And they'll continue living it forever just because...

:D

Sorry, I had to do it.

Boozy

04-09-2008, 06:56 PM

Stephen Hawking posesses one of the most brilliant scientific minds on Earth. His body is no longer functional, but his mind has more than made up for it.

And yet under tendomentis' plan for evolution, we should have allowed him to die. Who wants great insight into the fabric of our cosmos when we could be breeding a society of callous and robotic super-humans?

Life and death is a cycle. Cheating that cycle can only go on for so long, and there are always long-term repercussions to cheating.

The only difference I see between natural overpopulation control (starvation and disease) and unnatural (birth control) is that one is unspeakably cruel and the other is not. I fail to see how one is better for evolution than the other.

rahmota

04-09-2008, 07:42 PM

I will still say that the individual must always outweight the society as a whole as society is nothign more than the collection of individuals.

Remember the analogy I spoke of in an earlier thread: A brick wall. The entire wall is society. Strengthen the individual bricks and you strengthen the wall. the same happens with society. But a balance must be maintained as if you allow the bricks to go flying off and each and everyone do their own thing you dont have a wall you have a pile of bricks. A nice healthy balance allows for some bricks(individuals) to be decorative or do thier own thign but the majority works together to produce society. But society must not be allowed to become so rigid and overwhleming that it dominates the individual. Dont loose the trees for the forest as it where.

I asked which is better, the good of the individual, or the good of society? So to directly answer your question the good of the individual IS the good of society. Society must not be protected at the expense of the individual. Because to destroy the individual is to destroy society. It is a very tightly woven and circular logic but thats the way the world works. A balance.

The spice is the worm the worm is the spice.

Norton

04-09-2008, 07:50 PM

DesignFox

04-09-2008, 08:58 PM

I think the big question is how we decide what is good for society. Maybe those so-called "broken" individuals have something going for them that the rest of us "normal" people don't.

Taking an individual who can survive with a little bit of help might be doing the human species some good- maybe they have some trait that makes them "broken" in normal society, but it gives them some unseen advantage if say, the world exploded.

We just don't know. Maybe those people would die on their own. Maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they would die without the aid of drugs or therapy...but maybe their children wouldn't- maybe their children will inherit the "good trait" and suppress the trait that makes them "abnormal."

How do we decide who could survive and who couldn't? I mean, do we toss someone in the woods and see what happens?

Just curious.

I tend to think if you have a truly dibilitating genetic disorder, you should not breed. But, its not my place to make that choice for another person. If they want to inflict their crap on their kids, that's their choice. Society will deal with the consequences...it always has.

Amethyst Hunter

04-09-2008, 09:22 PM

You who advocate for it primarily use yourselves as examples of why it's a good thing, and that was the point of the thread. Does the good it does for YOU outweigh the long-term negative effects on the species at large?

You betcha. I won't be around in 100 years or so to care, frankly.

Also, while some forms of birth control may reduce the risk of some types of ovarian cancer, they also increase the risk of breast cancer (and, in the interest of setting a good example, my backup).

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Study_Birth_Control_Pills_Increase_Breast _Cancer_Risk.asp

I still call bullshit on that one. It looks more like it's intended to scare people (kind of like how the media likes to harp on every single Scary Thing that crops up in everyday life). Let's look at the pertinent information:

Article date: 2002/12/04: An old study. Information may have changed since then, since the study was done in the 1990s. Hormonal contraceptives have improved since then.

The annual rate of breast cancer is increasing, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS). It will be diagnosed in 205,000 women in the US in 2002. This number is expected to increase.: Does this take into account all the other factors that can influence cancer? Diet's a big one right there, for instance. Blaming birth control is an easy way out.

Recent studies have found birth control pills also increase breast cancer risk, but the evidence hasn’t been as strong as that for hormone replacement therapy.: HRT carries a lot more risks than does BC.

The researcher compared the records of those women with women who didn’t develop cancer to see if birth control pills played a role. The most pronounced effect was in women who were still using or had been recently using the pill. Their breast cancer risk was increased by 60%. : I'd say the cancer risk was already there in the women who got it, and it was made worse by the pills; I doubt that the pills themselves were the sole cause of the cancer. This is why they tell you not to take the pill if you're diagnosed.

Most breast cancer occurs in older women. Over half the women who develop breast cancer are over 62 years old. : It also mentioned that for this study, only one in 100 women got cancer.

Hmm. Low risk odds versus Niagara Falls coming out of my vagina every goddamned month and necessitating 6 packages of the heaviest-duty pad (24 pads to a package; that ought to tell you how many I was going through pre-BC - I now use up only 1 1/2 - 2 packages). I think I'll take my chances.

An example: our species developed natural immune responses to a plethora of diseases over the course of our species' evolution without the need for a multi-billion dollar pharmeceutical industry.

IMO the problem is that people misuse the drugs - like the overzealous application of antibiotics and antibacterial hand-sterilizers (creams, lotions, etc.). They're necessary in certain situations, but then somewhere along the line everybody and their mother decided they had to Foam The World in sterilization; now we have kids developing allergies and illnesses a whole lot earlier because their parents have to sanitize every little thing that comes down the pike. It's not the drugs/etc. themselves that are the problem - it's the improper application that creates the dilemmas.

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 10:32 PM

You betcha. I won't be around in 100 years or so to care, frankly.

Outstanding. You've just demonstrated the individualist mindset I was talking about. It's that kind of mindset that doesn't care if the poles melt for our abuse of fossil fuels too or what other harm one might bring to the human species as a whole through their actions now.

I still call bullshit on that one. It looks more like it's intended to scare people (kind of like how the media likes to harp on every single Scary Thing that crops up in everyday life).

Wow. You're calling bullshit on an article at cancer.org. The one "no bullshit" site on the internet to get up-to-date information on everything cancer. Run by the American Cancer Society, an organization that has funded 42 Nobel Prize winners in their research and contributed over $3 billion dollars towards cancer research since 1946. Yes, I know them well, and NO I'm not going to take your "expert" word over their research.

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 10:41 PM

Would society really improve if we were to let sick - yet treatable - people wither away and die? If a person has the will to live, and the medical technology to keep them alive exists, it would be cruel to deny them of that. I want no part of such a heartless society.

This subject touches me on a personal level. I would not be alive today if I had not been given large doses of antibiotics as a small child. Then again, I've resolved not to reproduce, so I guess it balances out.

Norton, I'm actually more or less in agreement with you on this one. From my standpoint, it would seem cruel to just kill them cold-heartedly. I am also one of those people who wouldn't be alive today if not for modern medicine, but in realization of my own non-desirable physical faults (poor eyesight, learning disorder, etc) I made the decision about 6 years ago to not reproduce.

I'm one of the few that makes that decision voluntarily, while others go to extremes to reproduce when it's clear they have nothing but bad news to pass on to their children.

To me, that seems so much crueler.

To knowingly bring a child into the world that you know is going to have to endure the same physical faults that you struggle with just because you wanted a child (using the clinical you here, not speaking about anyone specifically, except maybe myself)...how can anyone do this and still claim to love their child?

Some people don't care about the long term consequences of their actions now, and as a great many of these posts demonstrate, many don't even care that they don't care.

tendomentis

04-09-2008, 10:53 PM

The only difference I see between natural overpopulation control (starvation and disease) and unnatural (birth control) is that one is unspeakably cruel and the other is not. I fail to see how one is better for evolution than the other.

Because evolution doesn't CARE which way is cruel and which way isn't. You do. You think it's cruel to let them die now and let the human species evolve like every other species on the planet (if not the rest of the universe) does...and when I think about it from my standpoint I agree.

When I think about it from a species standpoint, artificially aiding the "back of the pack" (as it were) to help them along hurts our species' evolution in the long run and may allow for a natural disaster to kill even MORE people because of our halting our own evolution.

It all goes back to the Red Queen Principle. When a species stops evolving, it is killed off by the other systems that it WAS co-evolving with due to the other species gaining the evolutionary advantage (also known as the evolutionary arms race).

My backup: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/REDQUEEN.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen (follow the references at the bottom of the wiki article for more sources).

Amethyst Hunter

04-10-2008, 04:49 AM

Outstanding. You've just demonstrated the individualist mindset I was talking about. It's that kind of mindset that doesn't care if the poles melt for our abuse of fossil fuels too or what other harm one might bring to the human species as a whole through their actions now.

Self-righteous and condescending much?

I do what I can in regards to helping out the environment. Beyond that, I'm not going to worry about things I have little to no control over. Where is it a sin to live one's life, so long as you're not bothering anybody? How does my taking birth control pills to regulate a fucked-up cycle (that can do a whole helluva lot worse if allowed to proceed 'naturally') harm the entire world at large, as opposed to something like leaving electric lights on or driving a fuel-sucking behemoth when there's no need to do so?

Hell will freeze over solid before I EVER give up something that's made a huge difference in my life for the better. If that makes me a rampaging selfish Evil Bitch, so be it. Unnecessary martyrdom is not something I personally aspire to. :rolleyes:

Yes, I know them well, and NO I'm not going to take your "expert" word over their research.

Yes, I AM calling bullshit on it. It's the same kind of intent that you see on the news where someone basically screams "OMG we're all going to get cancer from *gasp* drinking bottled water! [or some other minute thing]" Every other week it seems you can get cancer from this or that. Get cancer from drinking milk. Get cancer from drinking coffee. Get cancer just from walking out your front door. The scare just gets old after a while. We may as well all just stop living because of this risk or that, and if we're talking carbon footprints, hey, let's just kill ourselves now and spare the planet the accumulated waste we'll inevitably build up over our lifetimes. If something bothers you, fine, don't take this or that. But where is it written that *everybody* has to live by one person's rules just because that one person may not like something?

Hell, there's a risk of blood clots associated with birth control pills. I'd be way more worried about that than cancer. And even the clot factor itself is low for those who don't have inherent risk factors (like smoking) - that's why it's prescribed for certain people and not others.

Of all the things in the world to worry about concerning the human species at large, any supposed cancer/birth control link is the LEAST of people's problems. If BC was that dangerous, it wouldn't have been around for as long as it has been.

AFPheonix

04-10-2008, 05:29 AM

Wow, polite much? Answer my question, PLEASE???

I didn't respond directly to that ONE point because I agree (and because the answer to your question would be a reiteration of pretty much every one of my posts thus far). The use of an animal hide to thwart the species natural evolution to being capable of enduring colder climates would be as fundamentally flawed as using technological means to allow infertile couples the ability to reproduce.

Then we would have no society to protect. Societies only came about after farming tech was invented.

I do agree that we need to be mindful of how our actions affect future generations, but to say that we should avoid "thwarting evolution" at all costs by avoiding all tech is preposterous, as many technologies have enabled our species to survive and become stronger (vaccinations that wiped out small pox and polio, anyone?).
Without our species' ability to use tools, we'd still be hanging out on the African savanna.

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 10:46 AM

Then we would have no society to protect. Societies only came about after farming tech was invented.

I do agree that we need to be mindful of how our actions affect future generations, but to say that we should avoid "thwarting evolution" at all costs by avoiding all tech is preposterous, as many technologies have enabled our species to survive and become stronger (vaccinations that wiped out small pox and polio, anyone?).
Without our species' ability to use tools, we'd still be hanging out on the African savanna.

Small pox and polio still exist though. IF we lost all our technology tomorrow, the children born after tomorrow would be at risk of those diseases because we never evolved natural immunities to them as we have with so many other diseases. Our technology gives us an immediate sense of security, but it's all false.

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 12:59 PM

but who's to say we would have developed immunities to begin with?

Also, there are some parents out their doing there best to reintroduce all these diseases to us, anyway. The latest media scare is that vaccines cause Autism. Now there's a rash of people fumbling through legal loophools so they don't have to vaccinate their kids. :rolleyes: Like letting your kid get polio is a better option- especially when there's no scientific evidence linking Autism to vaccines... we'll see who lives to evolve in that case...

Anyway, if our brains evolved enough that we can learn to protect ourselves from disease, isn't that in and of itself an advantage? Why deny what evolution gave us? Animals don't have opposable thumbs...look how far we've come using tools just because of that little trait!

blas87

04-10-2008, 02:31 PM

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 03:45 PM

This thread is really silly. I mean, I may be missing the point, but all it has done has made me (and a few other members) a little upset at the suggestion at what we are doing (taking birth control, the biggest example here) is wrong and what we are doing is not for the best of society.

I will not budge. I will keep getting my shot. If I have to stop taking that, I'll find another form of BC. I am not having children, and that is that. Suggesting that birth control is not doing society any good is rubbish. What doesn't do society good is too many unwanted children who may be at risk for abuse or a poverty striken life, or even worse, a rise in the rate of abortions.

Another member already brought up a very valid point. What does it matter, as long as we are minding our own business and not harming anyone? Certainly I'm not harming ANYONE by taking birth control and refusing to have children and if I ever need some kind of technology to heal me, so help me GOD, I will take it.

Then yes, you did miss the point of this thread.

As I said in other posts, this was not a birth control debate thread (at least, not specifically). Certain posters have taken an almost Freudian defensive stance to the mere suggestion that birth control (amongst other concepts) could be harmful to the species in the long run. No one likes to think that something they do on a regular basis to make their own lives easier/more bearable could be destructive to others. Look at the sheer resistance in the last twenty years to Global Warming if you need an example, or even to smokers for another example.

In the end, this thread was to get people to think outside another invisible box.

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 03:46 PM

I think the real point tendomentis is trying to make is that a lot of the meddling we do might adversely affect humanity as a whole.

I don't think the birth control point is the best example. I think a better example is the argument about medical technology- people who weren't supposed to procreate finding ways to do so. People who have dibilitating diseases reproducing and spreading their disease onto future generations. What about people with mental disabilities that can be inherited?

I think the argument is that people with these traits never would survive if not for the medical technology we currently have. Some of these people would never have children. Are we cheating our evolution by allowing the "weaker" of the species to survive and reproduce- as per their or our own choices?

I say that it's impossible to really tell what impact this would have if say the apocolypse were to happen. Perhaps someone with disease X also has a gene that prevents them from suffering from disease Y. We just don't really know.

I think that human society has evolved in such a way that we can prevent and protect ourselves from certain aspects of our environment. And why not? Maybe our big brains will backfire on us and we are cheating ourselves...but then, like other species, if that's the case- we'll just die out or evolve to something different. Nature will take care of itself one way or the other.

I don't see why we should let people die when we have the technology to help them live- sometimes people want to die- but we don't let them- society deems that unnacceptable.

In the case of some people who have minor problems like say, allergies...or short sightedness...who cares? We can correct these problems. Neither of these problems are life threatening. Sure, technology makes us more comfortable but somehow I think I'd be able to survive without it. Should people like that choose not to have children because their children will probably be near sighted and allergy stricken?

If the day came that we had no technology...well. We'd just start over. Some people would die. Some people would be better suited and would just live.

I say live and let live. As long as you aren't directly harming other individuals through your actions, I don't care what you do!

Boozy

04-10-2008, 04:54 PM

I say that it's impossible to really tell what impact this would have if say the apocolypse were to happen. Perhaps someone with disease X also has a gene that prevents them from suffering from disease Y. We just don't really know.

Actually, the Human Genome Project found dozens of examples like that. For example, the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, common in people of African ancestry, protects against malaria, a common disease on the savannah. It is arrogant to think that we can have any idea what our actions today will do over the course of millennia.

The vast course of evolution shouldn't be a major concern for us when we have bigger problems. Global warming is happening now, as is disease, drought, starvation, overpopulation. If we have the technology to fix those problems, we must do so. Evolution has given us larger brains, morality,a desire to cooperate, and emotions such as empathy, love, and caring. The invisible hand of evolution thinks that these traits are useful for the survival of the human race. Who are we to ignore these traits? I refuse to let someone die just because they have "bad genes".

I understand what you're saying tendomentis, I just don't agree with you.

Earlier, when I asked you about "evolution to what end", you thought I meant I was asking for a finish line. I am not. I was asking you what sort of world you want to live in and what kind of traits you value in your fellow man. Personally, I want more Stephen Hawkings. Thankfully, we can have them. Because we have the technology to save the lives of those who have a great deal more to offer than child-bearing hips, immunity to disease, and the ability to wield a spear.

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 04:56 PM

Well put Boozy. As usual, someone puts it better than I! :)

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 05:05 PM

Actually, the Human Genome Project found dozens of examples like that. For example, the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, common in people of African ancestry, protects against malaria, a common disease on the savannah. It is arrogant to think that we can have any idea what our actions today will do over the course of millennia.

The vast course of evolution shouldn't be a major concern for us when we have bigger problems. Global warming is happening now, as is disease, drought, starvation, overpopulation. If we have the technology to fix those problems, we must do so. Evolution has given us larger brains, morality,a desire to cooperate, and emotions such as empathy, love, and caring. The invisible hand of evolution thinks that these traits are useful for the survival of the human race. Who are we to ignore these traits? I refuse to let someone die just because they have "bad genes".

I understand what you're saying tendomentis, I just don't agree with you.

Earlier, when I asked you about "evolution to what end", you thought I meant I was asking for a finish line. I am not. I was asking you what sort of world you want to live in and what kind of traits you value in your fellow man. Personally, I want more Stephen Hawkings. Thankfully, we can have them. Because we have the technology to save the lives of those who have a great deal more to offer than child-bearing hips, immunity to disease, and the ability to wield a spear.

The difference is that evolution is not moral. Evolution does not have a sense of morality or empathy. Those are traits that we've cultivated in our own species. By using morality and empathy to guide decisions about our species evolution, one is essentially fighting with the natural process of evolution by using variables that the natural process of evolution does not use to determine a course of action. As such, whatever course of action you came to about our species' evolution using morality and empathy to guide you would almost always be an incorrect course when taking into account the Red Queen principle (as co-evolving systems may not and generally WILL not factor the human concepts of morality and empathy into their decision making, thereby leaving the human race at a disadvantage in the evolutionary arms race).

Obviously, empathy and morality have a place (otherwise we wouldn't have evolved those traits), but they do more harm than good when used to determine our evolutionary direction, which is what you are advocating. In essence you are anthropomorphising the natural (and clearly NOT human) process of evolution, which is only natural. While very human of you, it does (for obvious reasons) yield inaccurate results when viewing evolution in that way.

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 05:32 PM

<snip>
Obviously, empathy and morality have a place (otherwise we wouldn't have evolved those traits), but they do more harm than good when used to determine our evolutionary direction....

But how do we know this? You said yourself that evolution is a natural process. We don't even know which way this process will go. How can we even begin to control it?

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 05:49 PM

But how do we know this? You said yourself that evolution is a natural process. We don't even know which way this process will go. How can we even begin to control it?

Exactly. If it's a fully natural process that doesn't have a moral compass or empathy for the species it kills off en masse, then we could NEVER control it from a morally or empathically derived method. All we could hope to do is disturb the natural process, which causes long term consequences. This is, incidentally, what we are already doing in as much as trying to direct our development from a moral standpoint. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable. We have no control over it except to abide by it and allow the process to happen as it should, or constantly attempt to cheat the process (which can only ever be a short term solution....the house always wins).

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 06:00 PM

We have no control over it except to abide by it and allow the process to happen as it should, or constantly attempt to cheat the process (which can only ever be a short term solution....the house always wins).

But how "should" the process happen? If we were given the intellect to prevent disease or protect ourselves shouldn't we use it? How are we messing with evolution when we don't even know which direction nature will take us?

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 06:08 PM

But how "should" the process happen? If we were given the intellect to prevent disease or protect ourselves shouldn't we use it? How are we messing with evolution when we don't even know which direction nature will take us?

Why assume that we evolved the intellect so we could cheat evolution? That's the easy path, so it's obvious why we would default to it, but perhaps we have the intellect so we do exactly what we are doing RIGHT NOW.

Questioning it.

We are the only species (that we are aware of anyway) that is aware of our own evolution, thanks largely to our intellect. PERHAPS we developed that trait so we would be capable of self-regulating our evolution-cheating traits (which I would define as undesirable).

Boozy

04-10-2008, 06:10 PM

The use of an animal hide to thwart the species natural evolution to being capabale of enduring colder climates would be as fundamentally flawed as using technological means to allow infertile couples the ability to reproduce.

I missed this one.

I don't think you're recognizing intelligence (and by extension, inventiveness) as a valuable heritable trait in its own right. The guy that first covered himself with an animal hide was smarter than the guy who didn't. Smart-Warm Guy then doesn't freeze to death, and lives on to produce children.

The best part is, smarts are more versatile. Smart-Warm Guy's kids inherit his intelligence, and use it to find uses for other things lying about the cave, like sharp rocks and long sticks to make spears for hunting.

Dumb-Cold Guy may have been more resilient to cold, and therefore lived to reproduce. Dumb-Cold Guys kids won't freeze to death, but they aren't very successful with hunting in comparison to Smart-Warm Guy's progeny. They starve.

Of course, that's just one scenario. Almost anything could have happened.

I guess I fail to see how technology is unnatural. In actuality, its very natural for use to create inventions to aid in our survival. We actually evolved by doing so. To not create is unnatural for us.

Seshat

04-10-2008, 06:13 PM

By slowing or halting our own evolution, we are delaying greater discoveries and newer understandings. That's why I asked which is better, the good of the individual, or the good of society?

I do not see technology as slowing or halting our evolution as a species. I see our species as now contributing to its own evolution.

However, I've come to the point that I think I can understand what you're trying to assert: at least as the fundamental premises on which you base your arguments. Please permit me to lay it out in a fashion clear to me, so you can confirm or deny my understanding.

I believe you're asserting that:
- our species evolution is primarily genetic and physical
- all the worthwhile elements of our evolution are expressed in our genes
- anything which interferes with the purely genetic evolution of the human race, including such things as the ability for human minds to make decisions that affect our survival, is necessarily bad for our genetic evolution.

In contrast, my assertion is:
- our species evolves physically, mentally, socially and technologically
- all of our forms of evolution are helpful to the species
- there is no particular benefit to be gained from promoting one of those forms at the expense of the others.

I think that my (and probably your) frustration in this and previous discussions we have had about human evolution has been caused by this fundamental and unexpressed clash of premises.

Edit to add a side note:
I'm another person who has chosen not to reproduce, in part to avoid perpetuating my illnesses and disabilities. There are more of us than is apparent.

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 06:34 PM

I do not see technology as slowing or halting our evolution as a species. I see our species as now contributing to its own evolution.

However, I've come to the point that I think I can understand what you're trying to assert: at least as the fundamental premises on which you base your arguments. Please permit me to lay it out in a fashion clear to me, so you can confirm or deny my understanding.

I believe you're asserting that:
- our species evolution is primarily genetic and physical
- all the worthwhile elements of our evolution are expressed in our genes
- anything which interferes with the purely genetic evolution of the human race, including such things as the ability for human minds to make decisions that affect our survival, is necessarily bad for our genetic evolution.

In contrast, my assertion is:
- our species evolves physically, mentally, socially and technologically
- all of our forms of evolution are helpful to the species
- there is no particular benefit to be gained from promoting one of those forms at the expense of the others.

I think that my (and probably your) frustration in this and previous discussions we have had about human evolution has been caused by this fundamental and unexpressed clash of premises.

That's close. Let me explain it somewhat more clearly (I know I'll get it eventually :) ).

Intelligence has a place, otherwise we would never have evolved that trait. But traits can be abused too. A predator that develops into a super-predator in only a few short generations can hunt its food supply into extinction and bring about its own extinction as a result. This has happened thoughout the fossil record.

We are the first species that we are aware of that is AWARE of this principle. We are essentially "hunting" our own species into extinction, but we do have the intellect to realize this and possibly correct it if we had a mind to.

EDIT: To acknowledge your edit. I want any legacy I leave behind to be one of an intellectual nature. Creating a child is easy enough, but leaving a lasting intellectual legacy is so much more useful than passing on my undesirable physical attributes.

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 06:42 PM

But how is it cheating if we are using what nature gave us?

I think more than anything most of what we do impacts the planet more than it impacts human evolution. And since we recognize that, we're working on fixing what we've broken.

I don't think that eliminating birth control, or making people with "bad genes" feel like they shouldn't have kids is going to solve any of the problems we've caused ourselves as a species.

In the dark ages, we let lots of people die. Hell, we took some people and locked them away hoping they would die...but somehow those traits that were once considered undesirable still exist and new ones are being discovered everyday.

So what's the point of not applying the technologies that we've discovered?

The knowledge we have now allows us to save some people- help other people- help ourselves- and now more people help with new discoveries. How is this not a positive step in our evolutionary process?

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 06:47 PM

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 09:08 PM

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 10:03 PM

I understand the point you are making, but I don't see how it can be applied to humanity. I feel that we are too complex an organism to say that using medicine/technology is detrimental to our evolution.

Yes, calculators have become a crutch. But that problem could be counteracted if more people made the choice to use pen and paper instead. We can also teach our children to do math without a calculator. People who use calculators are not doomed to never be able to do math without them.

If certain medicines were no longer available, well, some people certainly wouldn't be alive. Some of those people have likely contributed heavily to society and humanity overall, so letting them die probably would not have been in the best interest of our species.

Your arguement is a slippery slope at best. MAYBE certain people saved by modern medicine could be beneficial (as in the case of Stephen Hawking), but you would be hard pressed to find this is generally the case. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it is likely very much in the minority. Your viewpoint is an emotional viewpoint (or sympathetic, depends on how you define it). You WANT those people to benefit society, but the overwhelming majority likely don't. The ratio of healthy contributors to "less healthy" contributors is probably not too varied (I'd love to see research one way or the other though).

So, in the end your viewpoint is arguing that we should artificially sustain people who would otherwise hop out of the gene pool based on the ideal that they MIGHT make some meaningful and lasting contribution to society, where this is largely likely not the case.

As far as the calculator goes...if children only ever used calculators, after enough generations, children would start lacking in fundamental math skills. Using technology as a crutch, either to supplant functions that can already be performed by humans or to sustain "the back of the pack" hurts the entire species in the long run.

Example: a group of twenty varied humans running from a hungry lion (odds are, said scenario has happened at least once). The front runners definately can get away. The middle runners have a 50/50 chance. The tailing runners are definately lion-take-out (hey, the lion has to eat too).

If the entire pack slows to help pull the tailing runners along, the majority of the group will be overtaken, where if the front runners and middle runners manage to get away, their offspring will inherit the traits that made their forebears able to outrun the hungry angry lion. Uh huh, survival of the fittest.

It's cold, immoral, unsympathetic, and all other kinds of wrong (from an individual standpoint), but that's how evolution works. Evolution doesn't care about our human standards of morality.

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 11:04 PM

tendomentis

04-10-2008, 11:14 PM

I guess my point is that we're not in the savannah running away from the lions, anymore.

If we were, our situation would be a bit different.

And to some degree I actually agree with you- there are some people that I don't feel are "worth" sustaining. But it's not my right to make that decision. Some of the people I would say we should let die out of mercy, their family members (or other maybe less callous people than me) would say we should strive to keep alive...either because they think we may find a cure for them..or because of their emotional attachment...I don't know.

I think that as long as someone is a contributing member of society, no matter how small their contribution, they are helping society and should be sustained.

Maybe it is emotional. But that's how humans are. Maybe my emotional state would one day prevent me from surviving. I don't know. Would the less emotional of us go on to survive because we didn't let sentiment get in the way of us living? I don't know. But I think it is a part of human nature to want to keep our fellow beings alive and limit their suffering. We want to "fix" our bodies. I don't think its a weakness. I don't think man would have come this far if it wasn't for our intelligence and compassion for one another.

Why do we even have emotions if we aren't supposed to let them govern some of our decisions?

Actually, "man" has only come as far as he has to make things easier on "himself". Our technological advancement did not come from a spirit of empathy for others. Human nature is that each human wants what is best for that human. If it helps others along the way, all the better since it tends to garner extra attention, praise, and other advantages, but there is no such thing as pure philanthropy in a human being.

We might not be running from lions on a daily basis anymore (well, not EVERY day anyway), but the metaphor is still applicable. Competing systems did not stop evolving because we halted or stunted our own evolution; those competing systems are still trying to out-advantage us while we're resting comfortably on our declining laurels, as it were.

Those individuals that you think are contributing in "some small way"...I think that kind of situation would benefit from a cost benefit analysis. It seems cold, but I guarantee the rest of the universe/nature isn't concerned about the morality of the situation.

DesignFox

04-10-2008, 11:35 PM

... Competing systems did not stop evolving because we halted or stunted our own evolution; those competing systems are still trying to out-advantage us while we're resting comfortably on our declining laurels, as it were.

Those individuals that you think are contributing in "some small way"...I think that kind of situation would benefit from a cost benefit analysis. It seems cold, but I guarantee the rest of the universe/nature isn't concerned about the morality of the situation...

Maybe not. But I think that's what separates us from other animals.

As for competing systems, the one argument I can see is the ongoing debate about the use of anti-microbials. Over sterilization may be creating "super-bugs" and stunting our immune systems.

I don't think vaccinations hold us back from an evolutionary standpoint, because through the use of said vaccines, we've managed to eradicate certain diseases. They aren't a threat to us because we killed them off.

I guess we could go back to just getting sick and hoping for the best... maybe that would "toughen" us up to disease...or it could lead to us being wiped out if nobody made it. There's no gaurantee that anyone would survive if a super virus/bacteria started killing us. And there are more humans on the planet now than ever before.

Of course, it could be argued that making life more comfortable for ourselves has helped there to be too many of us...and maybe we'll overpopulate our way to extinction. But then, I guess that would be evolution itself at work...

I think no matter what we do, nature will take its course. Whether we sit back and stop taking our medicine, stop wearing our glasses and let our "weaker" brethren live or die... I don't think it would matter.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 12:31 AM

Maybe not. But I think that's what separates us from other animals.

As for competing systems, the one argument I can see is the ongoing debate about the use of anti-microbials. Over sterilization may be creating "super-bugs" and stunting our immune systems.

I don't think vaccinations hold us back from an evolutionary standpoint, because through the use of said vaccines, we've managed to eradicate certain diseases. They aren't a threat to us because we killed them off.

I guess we could go back to just getting sick and hoping for the best... maybe that would "toughen" us up to disease...or it could lead to us being wiped out if nobody made it. There's no gaurantee that anyone would survive if a super virus/bacteria started killing us. And there are more humans on the planet now than ever before.

Of course, it could be argued that making life more comfortable for ourselves has helped there to be too many of us...and maybe we'll overpopulate our way to extinction. But then, I guess that would be evolution itself at work...

I think no matter what we do, nature will take its course. Whether we sit back and stop taking our medicine, stop wearing our glasses and let our "weaker" brethren live or die... I don't think it would matter.

I just don't understand the sentiment that we're somehow seperate from the animals. The human race just happens to be the largest (in terms of population) and smartest primate on the planet, but we are still in fact animals. We act like animals, utterly preocuppied with procreation (look at our media for evidence of that).

In a mass die off from disease, there is almost ALWAYS a small percentage that remain resistant, and in the few cases where there aren't it's because the losing species fell behind in the evolutionary arms race. That's evolution. You can postpone it, but you can't remove the threat completely.

We haven't completely erradicated the dangerous diseases. Take away our precious technology, and within a year you would have massive die-offs from diphtheria and malaria in metropolitan centers across the USA. We are shielded by our technology temporarily, and these diseases are busy evolving around our artificial countermeasures. Polio and other major diseases aren't gone, they're just waiting and continuing to evolve.

Seshat

04-11-2008, 03:34 PM

Human nature is that each human wants what is best for that human. If it helps others along the way, all the better since it tends to garner extra attention, praise, and other advantages, but there is no such thing as pure philanthropy in a human being.

That's cold and cynical. And I disagree with it.

I also know I'm never going to be able to change your mind about it, so I'm not even going to try. I'll simply state that I completely disagree. Some humans are self-centered, sure. But others aren't. And I do believe in pure philanthropy and pure generosity as human motivations. Charity for its own sake is a part of the human spirit.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 03:41 PM

That's cold and cynical. And I disagree with it.

I also know I'm never going to be able to change your mind about it, so I'm not even going to try. I'll simply state that I completely disagree. Some humans are self-centered, sure. But others aren't. And I do believe in pure philanthropy and pure generosity as human motivations. Charity for its own sake is a part of the human spirit.

Disagreeing is fine Seshat :)

It's an age-old philosophy question. To date, there is no recorded example of "pure philanthropy" ever having occured within the human species. When you break it down, even the most charitable act benefits the individual performing the act in some manner.

Yes, it's cold and cynical, but the universe we inhabit is not all sugar, spice, and everything nice. It's only human sentiment that wishes it were so, but if wishes were horses...

Norton

04-11-2008, 04:09 PM

I do believe in pure philanthropy and pure generosity as human motivations

I don't. Everything we do is for a reward. Even pure charity is rewarded by a sense of self-satisfaction, or a feeling of being useful, or by lifting the burden of guilt. We help others because it feels good to do so. Not that there's anything wrong with feeling good for helping others, but it is still a reward. No act is completely selfless.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 04:29 PM

I don't. Everything we do is for a reward. Even pure charity is rewarded by a sense of self-satisfaction, or a feeling of being useful, or by lifting the burden of guilt. We help others because it feels good to do so. Not that there's anything wrong with feeling good for helping others, but it is still a reward. No act is completely selfless.

That's what I was talking about. The "emotional kickback". Humans can't "progress" for anyone but themselves. We developed newer technologies to make our own individual lives better, not for the good of society.

All of our technology wasn't created to make life easier for humanity, but to make life easier for the person inventing it. The fact that it benefits others is a side-effect. Some inventions made others lives more miserable while still benefiting the owner/inventor (think weapons of mass destruction).

My point in this thread was to question whether that "spirit of invention" (as it's often romanticized) is actually harmful to our species in the long term.

Boozy

04-11-2008, 04:42 PM

To date, there is no recorded example of "pure philanthropy" ever having occured within the human species.

That's quite a claim you're making there, and frankly impossible to prove or disprove unless you are familiar with every recorded action in history.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 04:46 PM

That's quite a claim you're making there, and frankly impossible to prove or disprove unless you are familiar with every recorded action in history.

If you can find a charitable action in human history that did not benefit the one performing the action in some way, I'd be happy to debate that with you.

Otherwise, the reverse is easily observed and (to my knowledge) can't be disproven.

You can't 100% prove something true, but you can 99% prove the alternatives as false.

AFPheonix

04-11-2008, 05:06 PM

How about any of the soldiers in recent history who throw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades? I don't think they even get a chance to feel good about themselves.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 05:22 PM

How about any of the soldiers in recent history who throw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades? I don't think they even get a chance to feel good about themselves.

Reverse emotional kickback. They know that if they don't, they'll probably still die and if they themselves don't die they know they would have to live with the guilt of knowing what they should have done to save their fellow soldiers but didn't.

Also, the military does all they can to essentially program that behaviour into a soldier so that there ISN'T the possibility of the soldier thinking through what they should do (raised military by a military father).

Norton

04-11-2008, 05:25 PM

Maybe they don't get a chance to appreciate their actions, but they do avoid the guilt of being the only survivor with the knowledge that they could have saved their comrades, but didn't.

*Tendomentis beat me to it*

Still, it doesn't make them any less heroic in my eyes.

DesignFox

04-11-2008, 05:25 PM

How about any of the soldiers in recent history who throw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades? I don't think they even get a chance to feel good about themselves.

I'd consider that a selfless act.

One guy died, but a few others got to live- I'd say that's pretty helpful toward humanity as a whole.

Although, some may argue that the person may have done it to score points with their chosen deity...but with a spur of the moment decision like that, I don't think that's likely.

DesignFox

04-11-2008, 05:29 PM

Norton and Tendomentis- While that argument is possible, it is also possible that they don't have the time to think that through. They just react.

Can't prove it one way or the other, though.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 05:30 PM

I'd consider that a selfless act.

One guy died, but a few others got to live- I'd say that's pretty helpful toward humanity as a whole.

Although, some may argue that the person may have done it to score points with their chosen deity...but with a spur of the moment decision like that, I don't think that's likely.

Well, there have been whole other threads to define selfless :) , and while I would call the act heroic, I can't define it as an act of "pure philanthropy" (which seems to be the track this forum thread appears to be going down now).

From a biological evolutionary perspective, in an internal conflict within a species, what is better for the species as a whole is for the stronger memebers of the conflict to subjugate or completely erradicate the weaker members (what becomes the losing side) as quickly as possible with as little collateral damage as possible.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 05:32 PM

Norton and Tendomentis- While that argument is possible, it is also possible that they don't have the time to think that through. They just react.

Can't prove it one way or the other, though.

In the event that they do just react (as the military would HOPE would occur), then the act is not one of philanthropy OR apathy. The emotional aspect does not even enter into it and it is as unemotional act as getting hit by a stray bullet (a bullet that MIGHT have killed someone else).

Either way, the act is not one of "pure philanthropy".

DesignFox

04-11-2008, 05:33 PM

From a biological evolutionary perspective, in an internal conflict within a species, what is better for the species as a whole is for the stronger memebers of the conflict to subjugate or completely erradicate the weaker members (what becomes the losing side) as quickly as possible with as little collateral damage as possible.

Haven't we had wars centered around this attitude? That certain members of our species are weaker/inferior and must be eradicated?

Am I misunderstanding that statement?

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 05:38 PM

Haven't we had wars centered around this attitude? That certain members of our species are weaker/inferior and must be eradicated?

Am I misunderstanding that statement?

No you're not misunderstanding, and you're referencing a point I made in my FIRST post in this thread. To quote my first post:
"Sure, certain people in human history (and you know who you are) have abused it, as others have abused other noble ideals, but is it wrong?".

The "it" being the ideal of "for the good of society" (hey, that's the name of this thread too :) ).

Norton

04-11-2008, 05:46 PM

Haven't we had wars centered around this attitude? That certain members of our species are weaker/inferior and must be eradicated?

Of course wars have been started for silly reasons like that.

However, "strong" and "weak" can apply to every war. The winners are stronger as whole, which is what leads them to victory. The winners may have had more soldiers, more supplies and better medical care. Of course, it doesn't mean the people on the winning team are better humans than the losers, just better at war.

DesignFox

04-11-2008, 05:55 PM

I don't think it's noble. Because I say it's impossible to prove what is ultimately best for society as a whole.

Although, I will be honest with you Tendomentis, when it comes to certain debilitating disabilities, particularly mental disabilities, I have questioned the point of forcing their existence. (I'm talking about people in comas that are never to come out of it, children born completely paralyzed and completely mentally incapacitated who have no chance of ever functioning in normal society...etc.)

Granted, people in those situations are highly unlikely to reproduce and traits like that are not inheritable as far as I know...so does it harm our evolution to keep those people around? No. Does it put a drain on society? Yes.

In those instances, those people would NOT survive without medical equipment and/or constant personal care.

Since they cannot even communicate, there is little they can possibly offer back to the community.

Although- the flip side of that- by studying these people, we can try to figure out what is "broken" and how to "fix" it, to prevent others from suffering the same fate as they. Perhaps some of them will be cured in their lifetime and can then have a good quality of life.

Since we really don't know, perhaps it's best to take care of them and see what happens. If the apocolypse were to come...well.... that would be a sad day, because those unlucky few definitely won't make it.

On the flip flip side, I sometimes think it's cruel to keep people alive just for the sake of it. If our dog were to be hit by a car and could only lie around all day and drool- we'd put it down. We wouldn't want the animal to "suffer needlessly." Why do we, in some instances, force suffering on our fellow beings?

Although, if someone cannot communicate, how can we know if they are truly suffering or not?

Sticky question.

tendomentis

04-11-2008, 06:51 PM

I don't think it's noble. Because I say it's impossible to prove what is ultimately best for society as a whole.

MOD EDIT: No need to quote the whole thing. - Seshat

Although, if someone cannot communicate, how can we know if they are truly suffering or not?

Sticky question.

Of course it's impossible to PROVE what's good for a society, but it is possible to disprove what is good for society. If every infant upon birth were to decide to stop breathing, this could be very easily disproven as a "good" thing for society at large.

That same axiom could be applied to more complicated (and less immediately destructive) actions taken by our species.

Sylvia727

04-12-2008, 04:45 AM

tendomentis, you've referred several times to the Red Queen principle of keeping up in the evolutionary arms race. But it seems to me that we aren't competing with other species anymore (Unless the chimps are using their sign language to plan a violent takeover - and when Hollywood makes that movie, I want royalties! :p ) One might argue that we're competing with viruses, but at this point I don't see those as a significant rival. For one thing, they're parasites who need bodies to procreate in.

The only evolutionary principle I can see in action with the human race is humans vs. Gaea. We need to establish an equilibrium with our environment or we will die out/diminish severely, just as the predator which depletes its prey too quickly. But that's not an evolutionary arms race. That's humanity using the tools given us by evolution to fix a problem and evolve further.

I guess my question is, who/what are we competing with?

Seshat

04-12-2008, 08:13 AM

As soon as you add the subjective 'emotional kickback', you prevent the counter argument from ever being applied.

However, removing that emotional kickback from the equation, there are many, many examples of humans giving anonymous donations (thus no social approval or other external reward being available). Or, of course, the many cases of a person risking their lives to help another: bystanders simply going into a risky situation to rescue another person.

Take out 'I do charity because it feels good', and there are many acts of charity available to point to in which the charitable person receives no tangible or social reward.

Include it, and it makes my side (that pure philanthropy happens) of the argument totally unprovable because even if we find an example where a person claims no emotional reward, you can say 'well, they just didn't record it'.

tendomentis

04-12-2008, 12:29 PM

As soon as you add the subjective 'emotional kickback', you prevent the counter argument from ever being applied.

MOD EDIT: no need to quote the whole thing - Seshat

Include it, and it makes my side (that pure philanthropy happens) of the argument totally unprovable because even if we find an example where a person claims no emotional reward, you can say 'well, they just didn't record it'.

You can't remove the emotional kickback from the equation anymore than you could remove any other sum from an equation. 2+2 still equals 4, even if you don't like what the total means to your side of the debate.

If you benefit at all from an act, than it can't be an act of pure philanthropy, even if the benefit is simply emotional or otherwise internalized. I understand you disagreeing (as is your right), but it doesn't make you any less incorrect in the end.

tendomentis

04-12-2008, 12:38 PM

tendomentis, you've referred several times to the Red Queen principle of keeping up in the evolutionary arms race.

MOD EDIT: No need to quote the whole thing - Seshat

I guess my question is, who/what are we competing with?

Technically, we are still competing with any species that CAN threaten us. So (at least for the part of the USA that I currently live in), wolves, bears (big grizzly ones at that, not Pooh bears), and yes viruses of all different flavors. I think there is even a large breed of mountain lion in this area (I'd have to check again to be sure). We hold them back out of are largely populated centers, but they do sneak back in occasionally and they are still considered a threat. Man to bear, the bear pwns the man in the face.

The Red Queen principle doesn't state that the competing species be similar at all, just a competitor. Bereft of technology, if an equal number of bears decided to live in the house that I share (I have three roommates), the bears would unfortunately win. Same with viruses. Stripped of our technological crutch, a great deal of the human population would die off from a resurgence of diseases that we thought were "dead".

Your idea of humans versus the environment is good thinking, but I think it's really humans versus humans in that case. The environment wouldn't kill us off (it's not actually competing with us), but our own human actions could (again, going back to the origins of this thread).

Seshat

04-13-2008, 01:50 AM

Your (Tendomentis') original quote was:

"Human nature is that each human wants what is best for that human. If it helps others along the way, all the better since it tends to garner extra attention, praise, and other advantages, but there is no such thing as pure philanthropy in a human being."

I assert that philanthropy in which a person is not motivated by tangible or social advantage exists, in the human being. I leave aside the question of internal emotional advantage - it's irrelevant to the purpose of my assertion anyway.

I believe that humans are capable of rising above the question of 'what's best for me individually?', and capable of asking and acting on 'what's best for my society?' , 'what's best for some other person?' or even 'what's best for my planet?'; even when they are not motivated by tangible or social benefit from doing so.

(Note that some who are not motivated by tangible or social benefit will still gain it, and some who are motivated by the desire for such benefit will not. This does confuse the issue.)

Heck - you yourself, tendomentis, ask such questions. It's entirely possible that you act on them (how would I know?) with no motivation for tangible or social benefit. If you do, then you're proof of my assertion.

tendomentis

04-13-2008, 03:04 AM

MOD EDIT: No need to quote the whole thing - Seshat

I believe that humans are capable of rising above the question of 'what's best for me individually?', and capable of asking and acting on 'what's best for my society?' , 'what's best for some other person?' or even 'what's best for my planet?'; even when they are not motivated by tangible or social benefit from doing so.

Seshat, your beliefs are your own of course, but choosing to believe that pure philanthropy exists within humanity and turning a blind eye to the emotional benefits that would negate your hypothetical pure philanthropy doesn't lend much credibility to your point of view. You fail to acknowledge the emotional benefits that an act of charity would cause within the acting human to allow your concept of pure philanthropy to exist.

So, in essence, your belief in pure philanthropy is a faith based assertion, and not an assertion based on all available knowledge or demonstration of the concept. I will respect your position and not attempt to disprove your faith (faith based assertions also are generally impossible to correct since any data presented to correct the assertion is disregarded and justified by the faith-based aspect of the incorrect assertion itself, as is seen in your case where you simply refuse to acknowledge the "emotional kickback" in order to sustain your belief).

Your concept of pure philanthropy existing within humanity is a noble concept, but I can't accept it on faith as you do. It would be impossible to prove that it doesn't exist, but I see evidence every day to DISprove your assertion and none to support it.

Seshat

04-13-2008, 04:07 PM

Actually, I was trying to say that the emotional kickback - which I do not in any way deny - is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is more about whether humans always act in a way which gives them survival advantage.

Emotional advantage is only a slender survival advantage; and rarely significant when compared to the tangible or social cost of some types of philanthropy.

In this case, it was me who failed to be clear. Let's eliminate the phrase 'pure philanthropy' from this particular argument, and rephrase my assertion more accurately:

Human beings sometimes perform acts which lower their survival advantage, and they perform them for emotional and/or charitable reasons.

tendomentis

04-14-2008, 02:27 PM

Human beings sometimes perform acts which lower their survival advantage, and they perform them for emotional and/or charitable reasons.

Humans OFTEN perform acts that lower their survival advantage. Riding without a helmet, neglecting to fasten your seat belt, driving well above the speed limit, merging without checking their blind spots, smoking, excessive alchohol intake, over-eating, unprotected sex, etc....the list really does go on and on. They do it for the personal benefits with no regard to the long-term effects on the species.

That's kind of the point of this thread. Humans DO NOT perform acts for charitable (hitherto defined as "selfless") reasons; there is ALWAYS a personal benefit to the "charitable" or "selfless" person performing the act, even if it is just an emotional benefit.

Humans demonstrate over and over again throughout our recorded history that we are a very short-sighted species. We only will be concerned with how our present day actions affect future generations when our social standing (our perceived "image") is negatively impacted if we are not. Even the "movers and shakers" who start an activist movement redeem some self-satisfaction or sense of achievement from their actions (if not other benefits as well).

As a short-sighted species, we OFTEN perform acts that lower our survival advantage for short term personal benefit, which is what "charity" and "philanthropy" are when you analytically critique them rather than romanticize them. Such acts are generally NOT done for "the good of society", but for the individual. The fact that such acts CAN benefit others (again, often only in the short term) is a side-effect that can be disguised as the original intent.

My viewpoint is still that our species' use of technology to "better" our lives is halting any progressive evolution we might make as a species, both mentally and physiologically. We prefer our technological crutch because we look at what is good for ourselves as individuals rather than what is for "the good of society" overall.

DesignFox

04-15-2008, 03:59 PM

My viewpoint is still that our species' use of technology to "better" our lives is halting any progressive evolution we might make as a species, both mentally and physiologically. We prefer our technological crutch because we look at what is good for ourselves as individuals rather than what is for "the good of society" overall.

I guess I just have to agree to disagree. I can't put any of my jumbled thoughts into words, right now.

I just think that it's impossible to prove how we would develop from an evolutionary standpoint, and therefore impossible to say that what we are doing with technology is bad for everyone.

Boozy

04-15-2008, 08:49 PM

I just think that it's impossible to prove how we would develop from an evolutionary standpoint, and therefore impossible to say that what we are doing with technology is bad for everyone.

I agree. We cannot presume to know the results our actions will have over the course of generations. There are countless variables, and its the height of hubris to assume we know them all.

rahmota

04-19-2008, 11:00 PM

I agree. We cannot presume to know the results our actions will have over the course of generations. There are countless variables, and its the height of hubris to assume we know them all.
Exactly go back a few hundred years to the begining of the industrial revolution and see what the brains though technology would do to human evolution, then the begining of the technology revolution. All along humanity has been tying to predicte what our future will be like thanks to our technology and they havent exactly been doing too good with the accuracy ratio there.

machinest

04-20-2008, 12:04 AM

I think that the use of technology is one of the major forms of how humans have evolved. I can no more see us not using technology than a bear not using its claws. It is the way that we have evolved to deal with the world.

BlackIronCrown

05-02-2008, 04:26 AM

I was citing artificial birth control as a negative for the human species at large.

My personal viewpoint is that any circumvention of our species' natural evolution will inevitably have a negative impact on our species as a whole in the long term.

Then we began circumventing it the moment we figured out how to make tools.
Evolutionarily, humanity is at a standstill. We no longer adapt to other systems; we make those systems adapt to us. Technology is our personal solution for evolution.

I, for one, favor technology over evolution. It gives us control over our destinies and allows us to be the arbiters of our eventual fate.

If the entire pack slows to help pull the tailing runners along, the majority of the group will be overtaken, where if the front runners and middle runners manage to get away, their offspring will inherit the traits that made their forebears able to outrun the hungry angry lion. Uh huh, survival of the fittest.

Ok, we need to stop the brakes RIGHT HERE. Y'know why?
Survival of the fittest has absolutely nothing to do with evoluionary survival. Even Darwin says this in his famous book on the subject. People have misunderstood this for centuries.

Evolutionary survival has to do with who can best adapt to a situation. The whole thing about the weak ones of a pack being eaten is pure nonsense. A better analogy to bring this close to humans is where those tailing runners stop, pull out submachineguns, and blow away the lion.

Those tailing runners? Have proven their worth. They adapted. They survived. They have evolved.

tendomentis

05-15-2008, 09:10 PM

Haven't been back to check on this thread in a while.

I, for one, favor technology over evolution. It gives us control over our destinies and allows us to be the arbiters of our eventual fate.

How completely untrue that statement is. Technology doesn't make you the arbiter of your fate any more than natural evolution does. It just provides a false sense of security that the majority of the human population buys into.

Honestly, that's the same exact mindset that doomed the RMS Titanic. Those who neglect history and all that jazz...

DesignFox

05-15-2008, 09:59 PM

Technology doesn't make you the arbiter of your fate any more than natural evolution does.

If that's the case, what's the difference if we use our technology or not? If our time as a species is up, it's up. Whether we fight disease or accept and die from it, the end result will ultimately be the same- maybe. There's no real way of knowing.

tendomentis

05-15-2008, 10:12 PM

The difference is very simple. By being immunized against malaria (for example) we don't develop the natural immunity to that disease that we have for other deadly diseases, and in a disaster that robs us of our technology we are negatively impacted where if we hadn't circumvented our natural evolution we might have that immunity. The use of technology is essentially allowing our population to exist on credit. We aren't developing these immunities because we simply don't NEED to at the moment as we have an artificial alternative.

That isn't "fate". Fate is something altogether different (but that's for another thread).

DesignFox

05-15-2008, 10:40 PM

But we haven't developed immunity on our own. That's why we have vaccines to begin with.

Small pox wasn't eradicated because people just became immune to it. We vaccinated everyone in the world. Now it's gone. No more small pox.

Maybe we can't acheive the same with all diseases, but protecting the larger part of the population hasn't hurt anything. Maybe the apocolypse will come and maybe it won't. Some people will survive. Others won't. That's just the way it will be.

tendomentis

05-15-2008, 10:54 PM

Out of the THOUSANDS of known diseases (god knows how many unknown there are), smallpox is the ONLY disease to be "certified" as eradicated.

Bear in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually non-existant, just not present enough for a human institution to declare it non-existant due to the lack of evidence to the contrary.

But again, that's only ONE disease out of a countless number. That's not much of a justification.

Seshat

05-16-2008, 06:06 PM

The difference is very simple. By being immunized against malaria (for example) we don't develop the natural immunity to that disease that we have for other deadly diseases

You're combining two distinct issues here.

Immunisation is done by putting a weakened form of the disease into the patient, and having the patient's own antibodies recognise the disease. The patient will thenceforth manufacture antibodies against the disease the patient has been immunised to - exactly as the patient would if they had caught the disease.
So immunisation immunity is identical to natural immunity.

However, there is another form of natural immunity to illness. Some people are genetically immune to some illnesses. Many people of European decent have a particular gene pattern which renders them immune to bubonic plague. Many people descended from tropical people have a gene pattern which renders them resistant to malaria.

Groups of people develop this sort of resistance over many generations of epidemic: and only for diseases where a genetic resistance is possible.

If you truly wanted this sort of genetic resistance, you'd have to create an epidemic of - say - bubonic plague. Have it run its course, then take the survivors. Move them to the tropics, and let them catch malaria. Take the survivors, move them to a subtropical zone. Give them smallpox. Take the survivors....

Continue until you have about twenty people left, who are totally insane with grief and post-traumatic-stress-disorder. But they probably have a genetic resistance to most illnesses which humans can have a genetic resisance to.

There's just one problem with doing this: people resistant to malaria frequently have sickle-cell. The same genetic variation that causes cystic fibrosis protects against typhoid. Tay-Sachs and tuberculosis are similarly linked.

Nothing is easy.