The failure of modern humanism

[FUNKbrs]

Modern humanism is the basice belief in the human good, the idea that all humans are born as things of positive social and moral value, and only exposure to negative external elements causes corruption in the individual. This belief is predicated upon a logical scientific history in which humans are basically a type of animal evolved from other animals throughout a period of time that makes a single human lifetime inconsequential. Furthermore, it commonly assumes on faith that human cooperation can overcome any obstacle and presents itself as a message of hope.

Why then does humanity seem to be seeking isolation? Most major advances in popular consumer technology seem mindlessly devoted to separating people from one another physcially and emotionally. A deeper look at pre-history reveals the most prosperous time for individual humans to be the ice-age, when human populations were much lower, competition for resources was almost non-existent and social disputes were easily solved by creating separate camps. Technology such as cell phones, computers, and cars encapsulate individuals and filter their interactions into ice-age microcosms, tiny underpopulated worlds of limited social interraction where we can feel more comfortable. In a world of six billion people and infinite connectivity, people still only have the same handful of trusted friends and family members they had in the ice-age. The reason for this seems to be that humans are naturally limited in their mental capacity to deal with the stress of social interraction. In short, that humans are not naturally social or benevolent at all, and that altruism is at best a limited tribal phenomenon.

In comes a theology that admits to the existence of intrinsic human flaw. Human beings are insufficient to the task of living in civilization and need laws to maintain stability. We inherently seek not unity, but division. We seek not a mass orgy of human congregation, but single intimate interractions. our competitive nature which we inherit from our genetic origin of mammalian animals incompatible with large scale civilization, which requires individuals to work and act as one like ants or bees. In those insects, unquestioning faith in authority is a necessary trait for the survival of the hive. In a fallible human world, however, such faith in flawed humans only leads to death and war.

In the spirit of the preservation of human intellectualism, individuality, and nature, we have turned as a society that uses birth control to prevent this overcrowding, this being considered an improvement on the older techniques of war and slavery. Even our best and brightest advocate merely sitting back and waiting for our elders to die while we make no more children, increasing the world space for our own individual lives in opposition to natural selection by inheritance from dead generations.

In this, we see the line where the animal ends and the human begins. Animals have no care for any individual, although some mammals, being closer to humans genetically, share this trait. to be human, then, is to struggle agains the animal nature, to suppress instinct, to admit that the natural inclination is not a moral one, and those so-called people who fail to do so are not worthy of the name "human" but are rather animal infiltrators into the human race.

Her in this conflict we discover the reason for human mental disorder: people who put their own animal needs and feelings above logical reason. The animal nature is stronger in some people than others, and there is no shame in having an unchosen corrupt nature as long as every effort is made to fight it.

Here, then, is the quest for solitude. Why do humans form suburban communities? Why do those with the means always buy large, isolated country homes? If humanism is true, the rich would want to be surrounded by as many "good" people as possible, not all alone on a giant estate. The answer is that solitude allows the animal nature to be indulged. It removes the stress of social compliance. It is freedom, liberty, and power. It gives the creative mind room to function, to indulge in trial and experimentation.

How do we provide this solitude? There is a short list of answers: Outerspace exploration, extraspace creation, and innerspace development.

Outerspace exploration is an obvious answer. While the planet earth is finite, space is desolate and vast, with the power of stars uncounted to fulfill the dreams of men, provided such men have the technology to harness it. Space colonies, however, are prohibitively expensive in a world where animistic competition creates unnecessary shortages resulting in the starvation of millions.

Extraspace creation, which is a fancy way of saying "Internet" creates eheral or "videogame" space such as what is found in various MMORPGs and FPS online games, where human interaction is liimited to a party or team that is a single isolated unit. This solution is only an illusion and a way of escaping real-life.

Innerspace development is the oldest solution to this problem, generally associated with eastern philosophy and budhism, with hypnotic overtones. Through medtiation, the mind creates space within itself to deal with animistic self-conflict and escape external stress. These meditative techniques have been in use for thousands of years under various names.

Of the three solutions, only innerspace development is free and available to all people regardless of economic status. It needs only education by word of mouth to spread relief throughout the human tribe, thus making it unprofitable in the animistic competition equation. Those deeply invested in this selfdestruction therefore hate it, and have successfully sabotaged it in popular culture.

[JudgeDredd]

Dare is ask who wrote this.

Not that i put it past your ability on an exceptionally good day, but as cogent theories go, this is a cut above standard NG flair, and then some.

[MortifiedPenguins]

See, one thinks Funkbrs to be a ravanous baby eating, beer drinking rocker.

But then he comes out and suprises everyone.

But, I think for this argument that you need to find someone who believes in modern humanism. Since I do not, I could not answer it.

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/27/08 11:53 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: See, one thinks Funkbrs to be a ravanous baby eating, beer drinking rocker.

But then he comes out and suprises everyone.

A paradox indeed. His social skin is not what you'd call endearing, yet he oozes tribal kred.

I don't think modern humanism is representative of mankind becoming devoid of social skills as much as re-evaluating a social skillset based on next phase technology. The doubts expressed over a young generation naively opening themselves and their daily lives to global inspection, whilst frittering countless hours in virtual exploration, are perhaps near sighted. While the odd bad case makes the news, or concern that business interests will prevail, doesn't fairly represent the possibilities and value of networking for young and old alike. The doubts before every technology ushered in in recent years have often given way to delight on the progress and possibilities side. One can just as easily see the rapid ascent of today's techno-capable generation as desirous, not solely by vested interests, but by the users themselves. After all, that is the main selling point.

.

[Al6200]

At 2/27/08 02:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Modern humanism is the basice belief in the human good, the idea that all humans are born as :things of positive social and moral value, and only exposure to negative external elements causes :corruption in the individual.

That's humanism, but it also seems to be the hallmark leftist excuse for when the welfare state fails.

:This belief is predicated upon a logical scientific history in which humans are basically a type of :animal evolved from other animals throughout a period of time that makes a single human lifetime :inconsequential. Furthermore, it commonly assumes on faith that human cooperation can overcome :any obstacle and presents itself as a message of hope.

How does that make a single human lifetime "inconsequential"? Furthermore, it seems to me like humanists aren't trying to say "Come together, since we all evolved from apes". Most humanists seem to see humans as special, and dramatically more important than their evolutionary history would suggest.

Why then does humanity seem to be seeking isolation? Most major advances in popular consumer :technology seem mindlessly devoted to separating people from one another physcially and :emotionally.

:A deeper look at pre-history reveals the most prosperous time for individual humans to be the :ice-age, when human populations were much lower, competition for resources was almost :non-existent and social disputes were easily solved by creating separate camps.

Whether or not that is better than modern society is purely subjective, but I'd imagine the majority of modern humans would prefer today's world.

:Technology such as cell phones, computers, and cars encapsulate individuals and filter their :interactions into ice-age microcosms, tiny underpopulated worlds of limited social interraction :where we can feel more comfortable.

That's true. Of course, people have always had "friends" and small social networks. After all, it just isn't practical to be equally close to all of the other 6 billion people in the world.

:In a world of six billion people and infinite connectivity, people still only have the same handful of :trusted friends and family members they had in the ice-age. The reason for this seems to be that :humans are naturally limited in their mental capacity to deal with the stress of social interraction. In :short, that humans are not naturally social or benevolent at all, and that altruism is at best a limited :tribal phenomenon.

That's a pretty huge leap in logic.

Humans have less than 6 billion friends, ice age humans had less than 6 billion friends, therefore friendship is a tribal phenomenon.

But nonetheless, I don't have time to reply to the whole thing, but I have to say this is pretty good, much better than most threads started on NG.

Good job.

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/27/08 02:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Modern humanism is the basic belief in the human good, the idea that all humans are born as things of positive social and moral value, and only exposure to negative external elements causes corruption in the individual. This belief is predicated upon a logical scientific history in which humans are basically a type of animal evolved from other animals throughout a period of time that makes a single human lifetime inconsequential. Furthermore, it commonly assumes on faith that human cooperation can overcome any obstacle and presents itself as a message of hope.

As Al suggests, this is Standard Humanism, not Modern Humanism. However extending the concept into it's modern context certainly has merit. In essence, we all possess pre-programed survival mechanisms which include human traits such as tribalism, moralism, and trust or faith. Subverting these are our animal survival instincts such as distrust, indulging our pleasure centers, or our "kill or be killed" reflex, aka Survior-Island mentality.

..humans are naturally limited in their mental capacity to deal with the stress of social interraction. In short, that humans are not naturally social or benevolent at all, and that altruism is at best a limited tribal phenomenon.

The limitation is not an evolutionary mental one, or at least, not a higher-function mental limitation. If you examine an individual who lacks social skills (Autism for example) you find trust and decency are innate, but the ability to dissern trust and decency in others is perhaps totally lacking. The so-called higher-functions we possess (however detrimental of our natural benevolence) are our ability to finely attune to likelyhood and probability, in particular, with respect to social interaction.

Studies suggest that our greatest mental capacity therefore is mostly harnessed unconciously pre-evaluating scenarios, not the least, including the third of our lives spent in sleep. A big chunk of our down time, quiet introspection, or whatever you wish to call it, is also spent on this unconcious social pre-evaluation. Our need to be alone, or to "be in our own space", is tied to our ability to reason things out on an unconcious level, and thus allowing us to traverse our social lives in a more efficient manner. In a busy modern setting, our survial (job, etc) still heavily depend upon it.

In comes a theology that admits to the existence of intrinsic human flaw. Human beings are insufficient to the task of living in civilization and need laws to maintain stability.

Here, then, is the quest for solitude.

.

[FUNKbrs]

At 2/28/08 06:28 AM, Al6200 wrote: That's humanism, but it also seems to be the hallmark leftist excuse for when the welfare state fails.

If it makes you feel better, I'm rabidly anti polarization, so by definition I have problems with socialist OR capitalist thought.

How does that make a single human lifetime "inconsequential"? Furthermore, it seems to me like humanists aren't trying to say "Come together, since we all evolved from apes". Most humanists seem to see humans as special, and dramatically more important than their evolutionary history would suggest.

Have you ever heard the "genetic eve" or "out of africa" human evolutionary theories? These are the arguments from which I base the conclusion that humanists who believe in evolution are attempting to unify mankind

Whether or not that is better than modern society is purely subjective, but I'd imagine the majority of modern humans would prefer today's world.

I think you're a little bit biased, because you never lived in a less techical, larger frontiered world. In such a world, wealth is ripe for the taking, instead of having to be painstakingly crafted while in competition with masses of others trying the same thing. I don't think anyone enjoys the high pressure of modern life, although ancient life had it's own pressures, albeit those which had no solutions.

That's a pretty huge leap in logic.

It's more a time thing, really. If a close friend is someone you spend an average of an hour a day with, by definition you could never have more than 16 such friends and be able to sleep. Suck out 8 of those for working hours, and you have only 8, provided you never spend any time alone. This discounts group activities, because frankly, that type of interaction is not as meaningful.

But nonetheless, I don't have time to reply to the whole thing, but I have to say this is pretty good, much better than most threads started on NG.

Good job.

Thank you. You get tried of the repetive small minded bullshit after a while, you know? That's why I hardly post here anymore.

[FUNKbrs]

Thanks for reading my long ass post, guys. You've returned my faith in the human population.

And yes, for the record, I wrote that. The idea struck me on the drive to work. Can't you tell by all the spelling errors?

At 2/28/08 09:49 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: The limitation is not an evolutionary mental one, or at least, not a higher-function mental limitation. If you examine an individual who lacks social skills (Autism for example) you find trust and decency are innate, but the ability to dissern trust and decency in others is perhaps totally lacking. The so-called higher-functions we possess (however detrimental of our natural benevolence) are our ability to finely attune to likelyhood and probability, in particular, with respect to social interaction.

Argh... I don't know if I can accept autism as a decent example of an animistic or primitive human. There are types of autism, such as Asberger's (sp?) syndrome, in which the supposed "sufferer" is actually normally BETTER at science and math than at social interraction. So then, to say an autistic brain is regressed, more primitive, or more indicative of the innate parts of human nature is difficult for me. In fact, the opposite case may be made that an autistic brain is actually wired BETTER than a normal brain, just not in a way that works well socially.

Studies suggest that our greatest mental capacity therefore is mostly harnessed unconciously pre-evaluating scenarios, not the least, including the third of our lives spent in sleep. A big chunk of our down time, quiet introspection, or whatever you wish to call it, is also spent on this unconcious social pre-evaluation. Our need to be alone, or to "be in our own space", is tied to our ability to reason things out on an unconcious level, and thus allowing us to traverse our social lives in a more efficient manner. In a busy modern setting, our survial (job, etc) still heavily depend upon it.

I really like this point. It also reiterates that necessity is the mother of invention. Without open space, there is no room for progress or invention. Open space is a problem in itself, namely, what is the best way to use this wasted space? The beauty lies in that space is not necessarily physical space, but also mental space, which could be considered "boredom." A bored mind does in fact create, as I think this website is sufficient proof of. However, as a man who sleeps little and rarely, this only reinforces the value I place on such time.

[Noolie]

lol, I didn't read all that but I agree! Humanism is dumb.

[Drakim]

At 2/28/08 10:40 PM, Noolie wrote: lol, I didn't read all that but I agree! Humanism is dumb.

Care to explain why you think so? Or are you only here for the beer? (your post hardly helps the topic in any way right now)

[bobomajo]

At 2/27/08 02:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
mammalian animals incompatible with large scale civilization, which requires individuals to work and act as one like ants or bees. In those insects, unquestioning faith in authority is a necessary trait for the survival of the hive.

Well I think thats a bit too dramatic of you. We created civilization so it was beneficial, it is because of the success of civilization is the reason most people seam to accomplish absolutely nothing in their lifetime (your occupation corporate slave is a good example). Yes you are right to a degree we must integrate into this organized structure called civilization to ensure our survival. But with out it we would spend all day stalking an animal so we could feed the tribe, we would have no time to think about anything. Improved intelligence is the product organization (insects don't apply because they use instincts, chemical scents, and pheromones to organize themselves not brains).

In this, we see the line where the animal ends and the human begins. Animals have no care for any individual,

Thats not true. Lots of animals have complex social structures that can care for individual, most birds care for their offspring and will act against their instincts to protect them (I have witnessed two parent doves protect their newly hatched chicks from a cat which had its eye on them), and even some birds form life partnerships much like marriage. Birds are not closely related to humans nor are they more intelligent than us. Also another way you can prove that animals can care for individuals is get a pet (not sure if reptiles will work), take care of it, nurture it, and it will become attached to you, even herbivores (non social animals) will become attached to you. Meaning emotions (the driving force behind socialization) are a very primitive behavior, that even something as intelligent as an "animal" can care about another organism even outside its species. Humans are not that special.

Her in this conflict we discover the reason for human mental disorder: people who put their own animal needs and feelings above logical reason. The animal nature is stronger in some people than others, and there is no shame in having an unchosen corrupt nature as long as every effort is made to fight it.

Other things apart from genetics may cause mental disorder, just like to say that because from past paragraphs you start to sound like your supporting eugenics.

Here, then, is the quest for solitude. Why do humans form suburban communities?

Human socializing is a far more complex process than we might think. So many things go on in your brain while socializing. Your right in the point we have to limit how many interactions we can maintain in order for our brains to handle. Although a quest for solitude as you call it is more as a procedure to maintain a smaller number of highly complex relationships rather than a large number of simple relationships. Even the most anti social person would want ad least one person to socialize with from time to time.

You raise some good very good points about society and the ability of the "cave man" to live in it. I don't know much about humanism, but the points you raise are not strong enough to discredit it, you make some jumps in logic. But if you were to spend some time studying animals in nature you would find a few similarities between us and them and realize that we are not so different. Its simply the fact that we were better equipped to build tools (hands with opposable thumbs) that allowed us to create civilization. Over all you sound like your down on humanity and maybe you could be thinking that you have no purpose in life, well depending on how you want to look at it our generation and many generations after us are sacrifices to advance our society to serve some purpose far off in the future (or some time soon if your religious), or you could not worry about it and try to enjoy you life the best you can (life in an incompatible society where you have the time to do leisurely and intellectual activities is better than life in you best suited society where you spend all your time gathering food).

[gumOnShoe]

I've read just about every post, skimming the latter ones for times sake, and overall I found the piece very persuasive, though there ended up being a few points I disagreed with.

First, I did agree that we aren't inherently good, but thats because I don't believe in good or evil. There isn't good or evil, they are just definitions we've built to justify morality. If no human needed to be taught not to steal, then maybe I'd buy that argument, but there is too much evidence around me. :)

As for mental disorders being due to animalism, I'm not to sure that I agree. Some disorders are more self serving than others, but some are completly out there and don't fit into your theory. Take schizophrenia, for instance. Those effected actually do hear and see their hellucinations. Their brain thinks its happening, so it doesn't have anything to do with indulging. If we are talking about drug adicts... thats even a chemical response to the substance.

Sex addicts? Maybe. I'd need a more concrete example, but at least on that point I find myself at odds, though the rest of it was interesting.

You missed the Libritarian way of gaining isolation, by which I mean building large rafts out of trash, adding guns to ward again pirates, and then setting out to sea farming as you go and helicoptering in goods. Also, we've got an entire ocean to settle. :)

[FUNKbrs]

At 2/29/08 03:32 AM, bobomajo wrote: Well I think thats a bit too dramatic of you. We created civilization so it was beneficial, it is because of the success of civilization is the reason most people seam to accomplish absolutely nothing in their lifetime (your occupation corporate slave is a good example). Yes you are right to a degree we must integrate into this organized structure called civilization to ensure our survival. But with out it we would spend all day stalking an animal so we could feed the tribe, we would have no time to think about anything. Improved intelligence is the product organization (insects don't apply because they use instincts, chemical scents, and pheromones to organize themselves not brains).

I'm not endorsing primitivism or hunter/gatherer societies so much as saying that's how our brains are wired. Technological progress is exponentially faster than evolutionary progress, so compared to our technology, our brains still have what I guess could be suitably called "vestigial tendencies" of inconsiderate, linear, goal-orientated, frontier based thought. In a frontier, cutting down every tree you see and burning firewood for all your energy needs is a great idea. However, at this point in time if everyone with the means to do so lived like that, the entire world would look like the northern Africa.

My argument here is that human beings, being wired to operate autonomously in tiny groups in frontier-space, need to replicate this frontier-space in some other way to be happy, and as Dredd expounded, to have the freedom to fully utilize their mental capacity.

For example, just as civilization is in the end beneficial, so is having a rectal exam regularly. That doesn't mean it's something our brains are wired to enjoy.

Thats not true. Lots of animals have complex social structures that can care for individual, most birds care for their offspring and will act against their instincts to protect them Birds are not closely related to humans nor are they more intelligent than us. . Meaning emotions (the driving force behind socialization) are a very primitive behavior, that even something as intelligent as an "animal" can care about another organism even outside its species. Humans are not that special.

Hah, don't get me started on emotions. Emotions are possibly the greatest source of weakness in society. All great historical societies were by nature stoic, because only the stoic can endure the unnatural impositions of society.

Yet again, let me reiterate, I'm not saying animals aren't social, or that they don't care for each other. What I'm saying is that this behavior is genetically self serving. It IS human nature to care for your own child. It's NOT human nature to care about the child enduring sweat-house labor conditions to provide Wal-mart with discount products with which to feed and clothe your own children. Get where I'm going with this? Caring for your own blood IS instinctual. Not caring for people who are not similar or well known to you is the same way. It's a tribal "us vs. them" sort of thing.

As far as pets are concerned, there are lots of pavlovian conditioning factors going on there that supercede nature. A dog will only love you if you feed it first, or if it's used to being fed, and that starting at a young age. A feral dog will never make a good pet.

Other things apart from genetics may cause mental disorder, just like to say that because from past paragraphs you start to sound like your supporting eugenics.

1: I am
2: Do you want a smart pretty wife, or a stupid ugly one? The smart one, right? Then you support eugenics too, it's just been stigmatized to you by anti-fascist propaganda. I fully admit to my fascist leanings regardless of fabricated social stigma.

Human socializing is a far more complex process than we might think. So many things go on in your brain while socializing. Your right in the point we have to limit how many interactions we can maintain in order for our brains to handle. Although a quest for solitude as you call it is more as a procedure to maintain a smaller number of highly complex relationships rather than a large number of simple relationships. Even the most anti social person would want ad least one person to socialize with from time to time.

That was kind of my point. If other people are so positive, why would someone want only a handful of friends? My argument is that the world is overcrowded; that the human instinct to expand in physical space by having children is counterproductive to society, that that instinct is BAD, and must be overcome.

I don't think anyone here will disagree that condoms are necessary, but not at all natural feeling.

But if you were to spend some time studying animals in nature you would find a few similarities between us and them and realize that we are not so different.

Right, I'm not drawing a line and saying we're totally different. What I'm saying is that we SHOULD be totally different from animals, because we don't face the same kinds of problems they do. It's animal nature to kill someone who sleeps with your spouse behind your back to protect your mating rights. Humans should be above that, and according to the law, they are held accountable if they succumb to their animal natures.

At 2/29/08 07:48 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

. If no human needed to be taught not to steal, then maybe I'd buy that argument, but there is too much evidence around me. :)

Preaching to the choir, brother. Don't make me pull up the countless "why babies are evil" examples. I could go on all day.

As for mental disorders being due to animalism, I'm not to sure that I agree. Some disorders are more self serving than others, but some are completly out there and don't fit into your theory. Take schizophrenia, for instance. Those effected actually do hear and see their hellucinations. Their brain thinks its happening, so it doesn't have anything to do with indulging. If we are talking about drug adicts... thats even a chemical response to the substance.

Yeah, but those people are still wired that way. It's their nature to be crazy. I'm not using some fuzzy, feel good, romantic notion of nature being all trees and streams here. I'm talking about nature as in if you take a soldier off of a battlefield, his default attitudes and emotions aren't going to mesh well with peaceful society. I'm using nature as in "it's the nature of a knife to be sharp" as opposed to "I wish I was out watching nature." It's natural to be born with an appendix. It's also natural to die of a ruptured appendix. Neither of these things is convenient or nice, and I'm all for people using technology to over come their naturally inflamed appendixes to avoid dying.

Sex addicts? Maybe. I'd need a more concrete example, but at least on that point I find myself at odds, though the rest of it was interesting.

Sounds like a perfect example to me. Baby-mama in the hood, 6 kids and they're all starving to death just because she kept meeting men and doing what came to her naturally. Had she gone against nature and imposed birth control or abstinence on herself, however less pleasurable those options may be, she'd be making the world a much better place for the people around her.

You missed the Libritarian way of gaining isolation, by which I mean building large rafts out of trash, adding guns to ward again pirates, and then setting out to sea farming as you go and helicoptering in goods. Also, we've got an entire ocean to settle. :)

GAH! I'VE BEEN PWNT!!!!

[bloodmage2]

this is one of the many reasons that i feel that humanity should be purged from the earth.

[Noolie]

At 2/29/08 05:37 PM, bloodmage2 wrote: this is one of the many reasons that i feel that humanity should be purged from the earth.

I agree!

[BuddhaGeo]

Excuse me for turning a bit off-topic, but do you specialize at writing essays of such nature? Or did you do extremely well at your English Essay classes at school?

I wish I could summarize my essays as eloquently and profoundly as you

[FUNKbrs]

At 3/3/08 01:41 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: Excuse me for turning a bit off-topic, but do you specialize at writing essays of such nature? Or did you do extremely well at your English Essay classes at school?

I wish I could summarize my essays as eloquently and profoundly as you

I always did well in essays. When I was a kid I wanted to be a novelist, but then I grew up and realized there's more openings in music, if you can believe THAT. For one, being in a shitty unsigned band means a lot more free beer and hot college tail than being a shitty unsigned novelist.

However, I've got a book cooking up on my NG blog, if you care to read it. It's all the way up to chapter 13, with only 7 more to go in the outline.

There's not a lot of employment for people who like writing philosophical essays, you know.

But yeah, unsuccessful artist. This is what I do for shits and giggles.

BTW, I'm not saying I'd write essays for students for the right price... wait.. yes the hell fuck yeah I am. All I need is an outline of the material, really.

[BuddhaGeo]

At 3/3/08 01:51 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: However, I've got a book cooking up on my NG blog, if you care to read it. It's all the way up to chapter 13, with only 7 more to go in the outline.

I'll be sure to skim through your stories; I have been writing a short story myself lately and I'm feeling quite reluctant to publish its draft on NG.
You think I should give it a chance?

[gumOnShoe]

At 2/29/08 10:12 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: I'm not endorsing primitivism or hunter/gatherer societies so much as saying that's how our brains are wired. Technological progress is exponentially faster than evolutionary progress, so compared to our technology, our brains still have what I guess could be suitably called "vestigial tendencies" of inconsiderate, linear, goal-orientated, frontier based thought. In a frontier, cutting down every tree you see and burning firewood for all your energy needs is a great idea. However, at this point in time if everyone with the means to do so lived like that, the entire world would look like the northern Africa.

I suppose, I'd argue we haven't changed all that much. We clear out vast tracks of lands for the suburbs you talked about earlier. We burn fossil fuels instead of forests. We gather circuit boards instead of gold. I'd say that we haven't stopped evolving in anyway. I agree that technology appears to be growing exponentially faster than the biological evolution our bodies undergo; however, I'd say that these technological innovations are really biology at work. The fact of the matter is that technology is increasingly a part of human evolution. We are our technology the more we advance, and it won't be too long before these mechanical developments become a part of our bodies. The drug industry, hip replacements, bio-implant experiments are only the beginning. Very soon, the technological evolution is going to merge with the biological one.

I bring this up only because I believe there will come a time where we will be wholly dependent on technology. At that point you'll have to deal with technologists as well as humanists. And maybe what we really need to think about is that in many ways a human is like a machine. It will use everything it is given for its own goals. We all operate in the most efficient ways our brain will allow us to, to meat those goals. We all start out neutral like a machine, but eventually we'll be used by someone else for some purpose. The main difference between machine and man is that eventually man takes over controlling things where as the machine is identifiably always running off of something man made.

Technological progress is man's progress. I don't think our brains can be compared so easily as a separate entity from the technology they are creating, until the technology begins making choices as to where it is going. When that happens, perhaps you can disjoint the two.

I might be nitpicking, but I like these other lines of thought you've merged into your argument without fully examining them.

My argument here is that human beings, being wired to operate autonomously in tiny groups in frontier-space, need to replicate this frontier-space in some other way to be happy, and as Dredd expounded, to have the freedom to fully utilize their mental capacity.

I think there are probably vestiges of this in our actions, but I also think a lot of it is set by example. There are plenty of people that get along fine in the city and who don't want to live anywhere else. Sure there are those that want to get away, but its because of some dream they've had inspired elsewhere. You are blank till you come into the world, aside from dna, and then you are taught what to do. I'd say that a man with an apartment in the city, taught to accept it, could be just as happy with a person on a frontier.

For example, just as civilization is in the end beneficial, so is having a rectal exam regularly. That doesn't mean it's something our brains are wired to enjoy.

But it also doesn't mean that our brains are wired not to enjoy it. Brains are wired not to enjoy most things the first time. I'd say that sex they are wired to enjoy, but even some of those things can be skewed.

I'd almost argue that society is what tells you a man shouldn't have a rectal exam. There are plenty of homosexuals who don't mind having something up their anus, so the potential to enjoy it is there. Of course, its an anal exam, not sex, but if society was altogether more accepting you might be too.

Other things apart from genetics may cause mental disorder, just like to say that because from past paragraphs you start to sound like your supporting eugenics.

1: I am

Then I definitely disagree with you. Eugenics is a failed policy. Its been proven again and again. The best possibility for a species to survive is the ability to adapt. And adaptation comes from the ability to have multiple options, which means multiple kinds of people. Just because a person doesn't appear to be good for the human race now, doesn't mean they won't be later down the line. Plus, if the genetic code becomes too similar, you find yourself with more and more genetic mutations and anomalies that hurt the species as a whole. That's why cousins and siblings can't or, rather, shouldn't mate.

2: Do you want a smart pretty wife, or a stupid ugly one? The smart one, right? Then you support eugenics too, it's just been stigmatized to you by anti-fascist propaganda. I fully admit to my fascist leanings regardless of fabricated social stigma.

Of course I would choose the smart one, pretty not necessarily. I think you are going to find different people's needs to be, well, different. Also, weeding out "unworthies," such as being ugly or unintelligent, does not guarantee removing these traits from society. I'm sorry, but this part of your entire argument falls apart.

that instinct is BAD, and must be overcome.

I don't think instinct is bad at all. It just needs to be changed overtime. These things change with time and should. If it weren't for instinct, we wouldn't function. Instinct is really just another word for patterned thinking. Solving math problems can become instinctual to an individual with time.

Oh, now I'm responding to your responses to me.

As for mental disorders being due to animalism, I'm not to sure that I agree. Some disorders are more self serving than others, but some are completely out there and don't fit into your theory. Take schizophrenia, for instance. Those affected actually do hear and see their hallucinations. Their brain thinks its happening, so it doesn't have anything to do with indulging. If we are talking about drug addicts... that is even a chemical response to the substance.

Yeah, but those people ar...dying.

It is this frontier, instinctual theory you have that you implied caused insanity. And that was what I was disagreeing with. Use technology to get over it, sure, but isn't that a part of being human now? I see that people are the way they are without getting romantic delusions about it, but I don't think that you can imply that any of what you said causes human insanity. It is a much wider array of causes than human's need to expand, or their acceptance of their instincts. Some humans don't have control over their instincts.

You can never overcome your instincts, you can only change them. Instincts, I would claim are your pattern of thoughts that you use to make your decisions. Whether its playing music to get women ;), or something else.

Sounds like a perfect example to me. ...better place for the people around her.

But is it instinct telling her it is cool to have sex with every man she meets or is it her society? We've seen prudish societies and we've seen sexually aggressive societies. I don't think we can discount societies influence on the baby making sluts of our world.

Also, I think its illogical to assume we would ever get over our instincts. Stoicism is just another line of thought, another way to be, another way to make decisions. It too

[FUNKbrs]

At 3/3/08 02:01 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: You think I should give it a chance?

What's the worse that could happen? Abusive reviews? At least if you post it you could show people on line and get some reviews and constructive criticism.

At 3/3/08 04:47 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I suppose, I'd argue we haven't changed all that much. .... I'd say that we haven't stopped evolving in anyway. I agree that technology appears to be growing exponentially faster than the biological evolution our bodies undergo; however, I'd say that these technological innovations are really biology at work. The fact of the matter is that technology is increasingly a part of human evolution. We are our technology the more we advance, and it won't be too long before these mechanical developments become a part of our bodies. The drug industry, hip replacements, bio-implant experiments are only the beginning. Very soon, the technological evolution is going to merge with the biological one.

You do see how "change" and "evolution" are just synonymns, right? Evolving IS changing, although evolving requires more time. I certainly agree that the application of intelligence is a result of evolution. However, because evolution and technological change operate at such different speeds, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that this causes more than a little distress to the average human.

I'm tempted to say people becoming more like machines is a good thing, but then again I'm a misanthropist anyways.

Technological progress is man's progress. I don't think our brains can be compared so easily as a separate entity from the technology they are creating, until the technology begins making choices as to where it is going. When that happens, perhaps you can disjoint the two.

Well, there's the brain, and then there's THE BRAIN, if you get what I'm saying. The endocrine system, of which the brain is a major part, doesn't always synch up with itself. The back end of the brain the the front end are pretty well separated; that's why you don't have to think about complicated brain managed things like heartrate and liver function, even though they're going on. Hormonal imbalances resulting in various mental disorders are a perfect example of these various disjoints.

My argument here is that human beings, being wired to operate autonomously in tiny groups in frontier-space, need to replicate this frontier-space in some other way to be happy, and as Dredd expounded, to have the freedom to fully utilize their mental capacity.

I think there are probably vestiges of this in our actions, but I also think a lot of it is set by example. There are plenty of people that get along fine in the city and who don't want to live anywhere else. Sure there are those that want to get away, but its because of some dream they've had inspired elsewhere. You are blank till you come into the world, aside from dna, and then you are taught what to do. I'd say that a man with an apartment in the city, taught to accept it, could be just as happy with a person on a frontier.

Vestigial culture? Yeah, I agree with this concept. Just keep in mind I also still agree with eugenics. I DO believe some cultures (like genital mutilation cultures that cut off their women's clitori) are just... BAD, and need to be replaced. Like, SS style. Yeah. I went there.

But it also doesn't mean that our brains are wired not to enjoy it. Brains are wired not to enjoy most things the first time. I'd say that sex they are wired to enjoy, but even some of those things can be skewed.

Depends on who that first sex is with... HAR HAR. I have a girl in mind. SHE'S A BAD LAY. EDN.

I'd almost argue that society is what tells you a man shouldn't have a rectal exam. There are plenty of homosexuals who don't mind having something up their anus, so the potential to enjoy it is there. Of course, its an anal exam, not sex, but if society was altogether more accepting you might be too.

I'm tempted to say since a rectal exam isn't sex, not even homosexuals like it. Speculums can't say "I love you".

Just because a person doesn't appear to be good for the human race now, doesn't mean they won't be later down the line. Plus, if the genetic code becomes too similar, you find yourself with more and more genetic mutations and anomalies that hurt the species as a whole. That's why cousins and siblings can't or, rather, shouldn't mate.

You're looking at eugenics all wrong. I'm sorry, but cancer and down syndrome are just never going to be beneficial traits. I'm not talking about something fine-tuned to pop out fine german soldiers. I'm talking about not letting stupid people have more children than smart people. I don't want to live in a world where being stupid makes you more fit to survive than being smart.

2: Do you want a smart pretty wife, or a stupid ugly one? The smart one, right?

Of course I would choose the smart one, pretty not necessarily. I think you are going to find different people's needs to be, well, different. Also, weeding out "unworthies," such as being ugly or unintelligent, does not guarantee removing these traits from society. I'm sorry, but this part of your entire argument falls apart.

Meh. It's proven to work on dogs. I think you just don't like the idea of holding people up to a measuring stick like the SS.

I don't think instinct is bad at all. It just needs to be changed overtime. These things change with time and should. If it weren't for instinct, we wouldn't function. Instinct is really just another word for patterned thinking. Solving math problems can become instinctual to an individual with time.

Instinct is not the same as pavlovian responce. Instinct is turtles swimming to the sea. Pavlovian response is a dog snatching food from the table.

You can never overcome your instincts, you can only change them. Instincts, I would claim are your pattern of thoughts that you use to make your decisions. Whether its playing music to get women ;), or something else.

Argh... again, my definition of instinct requires inability to change. There are very strong ingrained behaviors that are NOT instinct. The instinct to fight over women will never change. If it could be, then it wouldn't truly be inborn, and then wouldn't really be instinct.

But is it instinct telling her it is cool to have sex with every man she meets or is it her society? We've seen prudish societies and we've seen sexually aggressive societies. I don't think we can discount societies influence on the baby making sluts of our world.

Also, I think its illogical to assume we would ever get over our instincts. Stoicism is just another line of thought, another way to be, another way to make decisions. It too

I think this is the part where you start agreeing with my earlier point... but then it cuts off. FAIL.

[gumOnShoe]

I think this is the part where you start agreeing with my earlier point... but then it cuts off. FAIL.

Meh, I was trying to respond to too many things at once, and I wasn't entirely sure what you were saying altogether until I was partially through responding to you and then I didn't want to change it continued to get confused.

My main points are, I guess, that:

1) Eugenics is a bad idea.
2) Instinct isn't inborn, but acquired from society in most cases.

And yeah, I completely disagree with any of the SS shit you are saying. Eugenics doesn't work, and I can't believe you think its a good idea. Even if on some level selective breeding did work, it isn't right for our society, nor is it something that should be implemented. Education over eugenics anyday. I've seen kids that are nothing like their crappy as parents everyday of my life, and most of the time its all environment.

[dySWN]

Well thought out arguments? On my Newgrounds BBS?

It's more likely than you think...

[JackPhantasm]

At 2/27/08 02:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Modern humanism is the basice belief in the human good, the idea that all humans are born as things of positive social and moral value, and only exposure to negative external elements causes corruption in the individual.

I didn't read the rest yet but that's just it right there. In pretty much every environment there are negative elements that will inevitably encounter every young human being.

So an increase in one will result in an increase in the other.

These are persisting things, persisting characteristics in man. Generated by opportunity and greed, or even perceived well doing. Anything really. Anything can cause harm. Anything does.

And it is, will, and does happen all the time.

[FUNKbrs]

At 3/3/08 07:40 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

My main points are, I guess, that:

1) Eugenics is a bad idea.

Eugenics=healthy babies. Nothing more. No genocide, no forced sterilizations. Just healthy babies. A eugenic program can be completely voluntary. It's just such an obviously good idea that governments tend to get a little too enthusiastic about it and then fuck it up.

2) Instinct isn't inborn, but acquired from society in most cases.

I would like to apologize in advance for the classless thing which I am about to do, but you have left me no choice, good sir.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/i nstinct

in·stinct1 /%u02C8%u026Anst%u026A%u014Bkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-stingkt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.

When I say "instinct" I'm not fucking around, being all metaphorical and shit. When I was talking about "pavlovian tendencies" I was talking about the environmental stuff you were talking about. I thought that "pavlov" was better known than "operant conditioning" which is all jargony sounding, although just as accurate.

Furthermore, the very fact that you could make such a mistake reinforces my argument that human beings as a whole DO NOT and SHOULD NOT operate on instinct. Body modification is a perfect example of how human beings have overcome instinct to avoid pain. Overcoming instinct makes us divergent, diversified, and cultural technological beings. Instinct BY DEFINITION makes us homogenous.

And yeah, I completely disagree with any of the SS shit you are saying. Eugenics doesn't work, and I can't believe you think its a good idea. Even if on some level selective breeding did work, it isn't right for our society, nor is it something that should be implemented. Education over eugenics anyday. I've seen kids that are nothing like their crappy as parents everyday of my life, and most of the time its all environment.

You're just bitter because I'm willing to question the aptitude of the individual to make their own choices in sex and marriage. However, the divorce industry more than supports this sad truth about humans ability to make their own decisions in children and relationships.

Furthermore, don't buy into the monsterizing propaganda against the SS and WWII germany. The rise of Germany was a pretty miraculous thing, and it took a lot of brilliant minds to make it happen. Not every german scientist drank Jew blood for breakfast, you know. A lot of them were busy working on medical advances we enjoy today.

[JackPhantasm]

Okay I read all of it. You're saying that technology is changing people back to the ice ages?

That people must battle between animal and human instincts (the latter not really being instinct, but learned behaviors).

Deep shit.

I'll get back to you on that.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/4/08 10:37 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Eugenics=healthy babies. Nothing more. No genocide, no forced sterilizations. Just healthy babies. A eugenic program can be completely voluntary. It's just such an obviously good idea that governments tend to get a little too enthusiastic about it and then fuck it up.

If you aren't in favor of government intervention into eugenics, you'll understand why I'm against any form of organized eugenics. If you want to try to predetermine who your children are by who you marry, that's fine, but society should never accept eugenics as a method for choosing how to have children. The system is too corruptable and will never work. Like communism, it looks really good on paper, but we can't implement it in our society.

I would like to apologize in advance for the classless thing which I am about to do, but you have left me no choice, good sir.

My fault entirely. I tend to redefine words based on what I wish their connotation was. Unfortunately, it confuses others and myself and is due to my lack of vocabulary or ability to fully express myself at the time.

When I say "instinct" I'm not fucking around, being all metaphorical and shit. When I was talking about "pavlovian tendencies" I was talking about the environmental stuff you were talking about. I thought that "pavlov" was better known than "operant conditioning" which is all jargony sounding, although just as accurate.

Pavlov is the guy who did experiments with dogs right? I took abnormal psychology at my college so that's what I remember. Also, you don't want operant conditioning, you want classical conditioning. Operant conditioning is the kind I was talking about where things can change based on reinforcements and punishments.

Anyhow, aside from sexual instincts you haven't listed many instincts you would like to see us overcome. And while I agree some sexual instincts need to be supressed or at least controlled, I don't see how eugenics is the answer. If a person can be taught to not follow their instincts, then eugenics is not the answer. Sure, a dog salivates when he sees food coming, but he may have been conditioned not to eat by electric shock. Using tasers on people isn't what I'm recommending, but learned behaviour can help check instinct with out resulting to eugenics. And I'm sure there is evidence of instinct changing as a society, for long periods of times, finds certain instincts unnaceptable.

Furthermore, the very fact that you could make such a mistake reinforces my argument that human beings as a whole DO NOT and SHOULD NOT operate on instinct. Body modification is a perfect example of how human beings have overcome instinct to avoid pain. Overcoming instinct makes us divergent, diversified, and cultural technological beings. Instinct BY DEFINITION makes us homogenous.

I just don't agree that all instinct is useless. Perhaps it is better to intelligently consider your instincts at certain points in your life, but with out them humanity might fizzle out of existance. And I'm not sure you could ever even get rid of instinct as you are suggesting, but instead just teach people to do otherwise until they phase out naturally over time or are no longer a problem in funcitoning society.

You're just bitter because I'm willing to question the aptitude of the individual to make their own choices in sex and marriage. However, the divorce industry more than supports this sad truth about humans ability to make their own decisions in children and relationships.

I'm not bitter because you are questioning an individuals aptitude to make decisions. In fact, I'd be more in favor of agreeing that individuals rarely come to the right conclusions, regardless of whether it has to do with mating or instinctual actions. Some people, for instance, continually choose to follow political ideas that just don't work or other philosophies.

Furthermore, don't buy into the monsterizing propaganda against the SS and WWII germany. The rise of Germany was a pretty miraculous thing, and it took a lot of brilliant minds to make it happen. Not every german scientist drank Jew blood for breakfast, you know. A lot of them were busy working on medical advances we enjoy today.

And a lot of those advances came at the expense of human lives that did not need to be sacrificied. That science was ammoral, and regardless of the benifits reaped therein, the ends do not justify the means. If you believe otherwise, why don't you go provide your body this instant to some scientist who will infect you with aids in order to find a cure?

The rise of WWII Germany was not a miraculous thing (ah godwins law), but that is history and has little to do with the validity of your other arguments. Eugenics, in all applied forms, has always lead to the mistreatment of individuals for the supposed sake of the majority. It is wrong and unnecessary.

[FUNKbrs]

At 3/4/08 01:46 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: If you aren't in favor of government intervention into eugenics, you'll understand why I'm against any form of organized eugenics. If you want to try to predetermine who your children are by who you marry, that's fine,

That is by definition eugenics. There's nothing wrong with eugenics. It's ok. "Eugenics" is only a dirty word when you let it be. For rational people it's just happy, healthy babies. Nothing more, nothing less. Like a form of progressive pre-natal care, really.

but society should never accept eugenics as a method for choosing how to have children. The system is too corruptable and will never work. Like communism, it looks really good on paper, but we can't implement it in our society.

Communism DOES work, and it works really well, just only on a small scale. The system only gets screwed when the actors in it don't know each other personally. Again, the older argument that the world is just too crowded and people don't work well in groups larger than tribes pops up again.

Pavlov is the guy who did experiments with dogs right? I took abnormal psychology at my college so that's what I remember. Also, you don't want operant conditioning, you want classical conditioning. Operant conditioning is the kind I was talking about where things can change based on reinforcements and punishments.

Grargh, you get my point. Culture is not instinct, and furthermore, the two are mutually exclusive. The more you live off of instinct, the less cultured you must be, because culture is based upon social group, and instinct is purely genetic so all members of the same species share it universally.

Anyhow, aside from sexual instincts you haven't listed many instincts you would like to see us overcome.

All people basically do is eat, fuck, and sleep. Isn't sexual instincts enough? I mean, stopping people from eating and sleeping would detriment society. Stopping them from fucking would probably benefit. Argh, it's all moot and tangent on this side.

I'm not sure you could ever even get rid of instinct as you are suggesting, but instead just teach people to do otherwise until they phase out naturally over time or are no longer a problem in funcitoning society.

We're in that "over time" phaze now. I'm not God, you know. I can only control now as it extends to the end of my lifetime. But if humans want to explore space, earth instincts aren't going to do them very much good, are they?

I'm not bitter because you are questioning an individuals aptitude to make decisions.

YES YOU ARE. YES. YOU. ARE. MOM!!!!! HE'S BEING BITTER!!!!

I tell you what you think and who you are.

In fact, I'd be more in favor of agreeing that individuals rarely come to the right conclusions, regardless of whether it has to do with mating or instinctual actions. Some people, for instance, continually choose to follow political ideas that just don't work or other philosophies.

Yeah, I know what you're talking about. Basically, there's the right way which is all jack boots, iron eagles, and eugenics, and then there's the lovey-dovey wrong ass way people keep trying to force down my throat, which is all tolerance for weakness and waste with no strength behind it.

And a lot of those advances came at the expense of human lives that did not need to be sacrificied.

Lies. Tell that to the people who's lives were saved.

That science was ammoral, and regardless of the benifits reaped therein, the ends do not justify the means. If you believe otherwise, why don't you go provide your body this instant to some scientist who will infect you with aids in order to find a cure?

Because my selfish instincts won't allow it? Damn... If I could only stop being an animal and overcome that....

But honestly, don't kid yourself. The ends can and do justify the means all the time.

The rise of WWII Germany was not a miraculous thing (ah godwins law), but that is history and has little to do with the validity of your other arguments. Eugenics, in all applied forms, has always lead to the mistreatment of individuals for the supposed sake of the majority. It is wrong and unnecessary.

Whatever. F'em.

Also, everyone knows that Hitler was Jesus, and yet again, he had to be crucified for our sins because the world still wasn't pure enough to withstand Armageddon. God in his infinite mercy granted us a little more time to racially purify ourselves through eugenics so that he may send yet another Fuhrer to lead us. Otherwise, why would the Bible be so full of genealogies? You have to think about these things.

Also, next time you kill someone, make sure to write weird stuff in the blood and leave fried chicken bones and watermelon rinds all over the place so the Feds will blame it on the Black Panthers. Helter SKelter!

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/4/08 03:00 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: That is by definition eugenics. There's nothing wrong with eugenics. It's ok. "Eugenics" is only a dirty word when you let it be. For rational people it's just happy, healthy babies. Nothing more, nothing less. Like a form of progressive pre-natal care, really.

Its unfortunate I'm quoting wikipedia, but its accurate: "Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention"

It is this intervention outside of your own life I disagree with. We agree on what most of the definitions are, but you want to apply it in a different way than me. You've said you agree in an SS like way of enforcing it. Elaborate because I'm mostly unsettled with the fact that you aren't fully expressing your opinions, though you keep getting closer to it I think.

If you are just viewing birth control as eugenics, I'd disagree on some level because that does not necessarily lead to human gene improvement. Improvement is such a subjective term anyway.

Communism DOES work, and it works really well, just only on a small scale. The system only gets screwed when the actors in it don't know each other personally. Again, the older argument that the world is just too crowded and people don't work well in groups larger than tribes pops up again.

That's fine, but Eugenics might only work on the personal level with your spouse/significant other. Its not working elsewhere.

All people basically do is eat, fuck, and sleep. Isn't sexual instincts enough? I mean, stopping people from eating and sleeping would detriment society. Stopping them from fucking would probably benefit. Argh, it's all moot and tangent on this side.

Over eating, under eating and others could also be addressed.

We're in that "over time" phaze now. I'm not God, you know. I can only control now as it extends to the end of my lifetime. But if humans want to explore space, earth instincts aren't going to do them very much good, are they?

Probably not, but some of them might. If we just go weeding them out until they no longer exist we might run into problems. Perhaps when/if we colonize other planets bringing along a lot of people willing to mate won't be a bad idea so that we have a larger population to get more done.

YES YOU ARE. YES. YOU. ARE. MOM!!!!! HE'S BEING BITTER!!!!

:)

I'd stop replying if I were bitter. But for me to be bitter, you'd have to be espousing truths. And you've mixed in some opinion with your fact there.

Yeah, I know what you're talking about. Basically, there's the right way which is all jack boots, iron eagles, and eugenics, and then there's the lovey-dovey wrong ass way people keep trying to force down my throat, which is all tolerance for weakness and waste with no strength behind it.

Now are you trying to troll me Funk, or are you just appealing to my better side? If you actually believe in Nazi Germany's ideals we're never going to come to any kind of settlement.

Lies. Tell that to the people who's lives were saved.

Would you let me kill you right now if it mean saving someone else's life? We're really getting down to these base philosophical questions.

But honestly, don't kid yourself. The ends can and do justify the means all the time.

Not for me.

Also, everyone knows that Hitler was Jesus, and yet again, he had to be crucified for our sins because the world still wasn't pure enough to withstand Armageddon. God in his infinite mercy granted us a little more time to racially purify ourselves through eugenics so that he may send yet another Fuhrer to lead us. Otherwise, why would the Bible be so full of genealogies? You have to think about these things.

I hope you are just trolling me, I've walked into it well enough. I like to believe people are telling the truth because it leads to more interesting conversations, regardless of whether they are, but I've just about had enough with this one. I think we agree up to a point, and that point is whether or not one life is worth others, or whether ends justify the means or any of that.

I fundamentally disagree with your ideology, not the facts you twist to support it.

[FUNKbrs]

At 3/4/08 03:37 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Its unfortunate I'm quoting wikipedia, but its accurate: "Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention"

Wait... and penetration based sex isn't a concious action? Heredity doesn't just happen on accident you konw. There are orgasms involved.

Wiki, full of blind leftist propaganda? Do go on!

I'm mostly unsettled with the fact that you aren't fully expressing your opinions, though you keep getting closer to it I think.

Actually, after you agreed with my main points I could care fuck-all over the details, however fun they may seem to work out. Eugenics is at best a side issue. That's when I'm sure you noticed my change in tone.

That's fine, but Eugenics might only work on the personal level with your spouse/significant other. Its not working elsewhere.

I TELL YOU WHO TO FUCK. I TELL YOU WHO TO LOVE!!!!!

Sorry. I just had to. You make it so easy.

Over eating, under eating and others could also be addressed.

Point.

Probably not, but some of them might. If we just go weeding them out until they no longer exist we might run into problems. Perhaps when/if we colonize other planets bringing along a lot of people willing to mate won't be a bad idea so that we have a larger population to get more done.

Not weed them out. Just categorize them into separate breeding populations, like show dogs. Certain traits only go with certain traits. If everything keeps getting mixed together, the species will never diversify; kind of like shaking up a vinagrette when you're trying to pour the oil and vinegar into separate jars so you can lubricate hinges and preserve pickles instead of just having a generic salad topping.

I'd stop replying if I were bitter. But for me to be bitter, you'd have to be espousing truths. And you've mixed in some opinion with your fact there.

No, I'm blatantly fucking with you because I've nothing serious left to talk about since you agree with my basic tenets.

Now are you trying to troll me Funk, or are you just appealing to my better side? If you actually believe in Nazi Germany's ideals we're never going to come to any kind of settlement.

I agree with some of the Nazi ideals, but not others. Still, I have to admit I've always enjoyed defending Hitler. It's a side effect of DAGist thought, which I guess you don't remember.

Would you let me kill you right now if it mean saving someone else's life? We're really getting down to these base philosophical questions.

How many will I save? And more importantly, are they assholes?

Not for me.

Never had a dog put to sleep? How about spraying for bugs? Not pleasant, not preferable, but somethings have to be done, considering the end results.

I hope you are just trolling me, I've walked into it well enough. I like to believe people are telling the truth because it leads to more interesting conversations, regardless of whether they are, but I've just about had enough with this one. I think we agree up to a point, and that point is whether or not one life is worth others, or whether ends justify the means or any of that.

Wait 'till you debate religion with Pox. That guy gives up a lot faster than I do, and jumps straight to the silly buggers.

I fundamentally disagree with your ideology, not the facts you twist to support it.

Lies. You secretly agree with everything I've said, but you're too guilty to admit it because of ingrained social prejudice.

Man, I need to make another "prowar and slavery" thread based on Plato's laws again.

BTW, who else misses Dr. Arbitrary? That guy was awesome at this kind of stuff. Too bad he's fighting in Iraq right now.

MMMmmm... DAGist thought. It's been a long time. I have to say I've missed it. Although technically I think I've graduated to Neo-Luddite thought. No. My ego's too huge for that. It's still DAGist.

Devil's
Advocacy
Group
DAG
There used to be a whole organization of us, back before we dominated politics and got bored because there were no mountains left to climb, as it were.

[Nylo]

Well written, though I'd have to disagree with the basic concept that human beings are seeking isolation. From your interpretation, at least from how I understood it, the concept of isolation is fed and encouraged through our perception to feel a vast, open environment full of possibility where crowd control is not an issue, and we can only psychologically handle roughly the same amount of social interaction we could years ago.

I can't seem to fathom how you consider being constantly connected through a vast cell phone network, having transcontinental contacts via social networking online , being connected to 24/7 news media coverage, and living in the market-apex of modern world trade could be considered at or near isolation. I think where we differ is that you consider physical interaction as the only thing that counts, whereas I count the perception of interaction as a bonus on top of physical interaction.

I would heavily agree with your post, if say, we were living in medieval Europe, or the ancient Caste system of India. Social interaction was highly regulated, education was tightly controlled, and things as basic as self-comprehension were extremely limited.

I would argue that mankind is going in the opposite direction, that it's opening itself up to more outside sources of influence and "networking" on a large scale, especially through globalization, migration, and advancements in engineering and technology. If I said years ago that the earth revolved around the sun, I'd be laughed at, and that would be that. Today, I could say that the universe was created spontaneously, and I'd get laughed at by peers who are seeking higher education along with me. I could go online to, say, Newgrounds and post that statement here, and then PoxPower would tell me how pathetic I am or something to that sort. I could then google search a social networking site and find people as equally bat-shit insane as I am and feel content.

As for rich people that seek big houses and gated communities, does that just go along with territory in the context of class-based societies? The measure of power and property seems to compliment the perception of self-importance, rather than bring one closer to isolation.