ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/19/85)
>> The argument is simple. >> If there were no religion, we could still blow up the world. >> If there were no politics, we could still blow up the world. >> If there were no prejudice, we could still blow up the world. >> ... >> But if there were no devastating technology (which exponentially >> increases the potential for destruction of each and every person or hate- >> group on this planet), we could never blow up anything at all! [ELLIS] >But if there were none of the "evil" things you mention that lead to >discord and violence, WOULD we blow up the world? I agree. If we get rid of "evil" things like religion, politics, prejudice, and science we would not be able to blow up the world. That's a pretty nihilistic solution, but probably better than what we have now -- with sadistic mass murderers in the pentagon/kremlin/etc.. directing science to nuke me and my Mother, Nature. (Apparently, Science killed my Father earlier this century..) For that matter, if we lobotomized every person on this planet, we might be able to prevent destruction. Better yet, why not just kill the humans and mechanize ourselves? >Your cart is before your >horse again. It's like saying if you never eat you'll never get fat, so >you shouldn't eat. The argument is simple, yes. Simple in the sense that >it ignores the facts of the matter, and thus is simple-minded. Science >describes facts, they are made use of in an evil (or good) way based on the >presence of the types of things you mentioned. No. We MUST eat. We do not need the technology of destruction and primetime TV. If we must kill each other, why destroy the noncombatants? You say it is the religionists' fault. The religionists say it is the communists' fault. The communists blame... etc. Science cannot determine who is at fault -- Science objectively works for whoever pays the bill. Now, the frogs do not give a damn whose fault it is -- they simply want to splash into old ponds and eat enough flies to reproduce! Sadly, the frogs must go, too. You are plenty willing to ignore illusory nonscientific causes like purpose and morality when you argue about society and free will, Rich. But when it comes to precious science, you are the first to point your finger elsewhere. If purpose is `real', then western culture is the cause of destruction for bringing a soul-free nightmarish entity onto this planet -- science -- whose practioners rigorously ignore `purpose' while `the system' mindlessly executes the demise of what our Parents took a huge part of the life of the Universe to create. You probably wish that if everybody had identical beliefs (ie - scientific materialism) that the conflict would disappear. The `evil religionists' probably think that way as well. So do the communists. Maybe following the `One True Path' (whichever one that is) will minimize the likelihood that our technology will destroy everything. Suppose religion, politics... were gone. There will ALWAYS be unnoticed, suppressed, justifiably angry individuals and secret groups of people working for `higher purposes'. I would be proud to have been such a `terrorist' living in, say, Nazi Germany, though I may not have had the guts if I really were confronted with that situation. Who's right in such cases? What some call terrorists, others call heroes. Why is Queen Elizabeth I a magnificent heroine and not a ruthless slaughteress? History attaches the final labels. Consider that with the technology right now, a single determined crazy person could easily destroy many thousands of people -- what could 5 years savings spent on explosives at a packed sports stadium do? As technology advances, how long will it be before small terrorist organizations will be wielding nuclear weapons? Is it not wise, game-theoretically speaking, to risk a 1% chance of planetary devastation in the cause of say, {scientific rationality, Jehovah, capitalist democracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat, our long-suppressed kind whatever we may be}? And how many times will this drama be re-enacted? Without any consideration for the frogs? Will technology eventually invent the $10 (illegal, of course) nuclear weapon? And will these weapons not become yet more efficient through future scientific advances in the knowledge of power? >>>If you would tar science as the "root of all evil" (and not >>>the morals of those who use the facts obtained by science for "evil"), then >>>you are saying the above by implication. >> Objectively speaking, the `moral purpose' is a meaningless subjective >> illusion. The only real causes are the material and efficient ones, >> the physical mechanisms which cause an action -- the technology >> of destruction. >You have warped cause and effect massively here. Does being an "acausalist" >prevent you from thinking about how and why those physical mechanisms of >destruction come to be? You propose a strange cure: get rid of science and >technological knowledge because they provide the means for evil people to >engage in evil on a more massive scale, rather than getting rid of the >sources of the evil, the presumptive holierthanthou selfrighteousness of >religious and political movements which base their "tenets" on presumptions. If you wish, I can twist your words as manipulatively as you have twisted mine -- (Why do you want to send the Christians to behavior readjustment centers, Rich? Why do you want to devaluate the meaning of human life by turning us into robots, Rich? Why do you support a dictatorship of mindless specialists, Rich? Have you killed any Christians lately?). I no more wish to get rid of science than you wish to send Christians to concentration camps! What I do question is the idea that science is the solution to all our problems -- in fact, I am convinced that science is as much part of the problem as it is part of the cure; similarly for religion, politics, etc. There are both good and evil in all. Holierthanthou religionists are as evil as moreintelligentthanthou scientists or morepowerfulthanthou politicians. Ideally, religion should promote respect for others and humility; science, perceptive observation and understanding of physical phenomena; politics, unbiased resolution of conflict and general welfare. We all tend to notice the exceptions of other disciplines. >Doing, in fact, what you do when you describe your models of the universe. >Do you now understand why that is a dangerous notion? Look at it from the frogs' point of view: These humans come along who cannot settle their disputes -- one day, they blow up everything including the frogs, and all remotely distant relatives!! Now you sit there pointing your finger at some other collection of humans. Do you see why that is a dangerous notion? Until science can neutralize its nihilistic tendencies, I see no rational argument that it can offer to assert its superiority over other forms of mental activity (such as voodoo, organized crime, or drug addiction, for example). How many con-artists or even rapists after all, seriously threaten to destroy every form of life on this planet? Only so-called `rational scientists' really worry me.. The fact is that science has been used to create an evil technology that is aiming to destroy all life on this planet. All other rationalizations are subjective human delusions. If my attitude is warped then my ears eagerly await satisfactory rebuttal. khronos ouketi estai -michael