rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
>>> 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? [ROSEN] > 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..) I think this example bespeaks Michael's own prejudice, his base manipulative twisting rhetoric, and his lack of desire to have a serious discussion. He labels science as evil arbitrarily, because he doesn't like it, as often as he claims that he does. He lists lack of religion, politics, and prejudice as not sufficient conditions for being able to blow up the world, because that dreadful scientific knowledge would still exist that might enable us to do so. But when I point out that such knowledge would not be used for such a purpose in the very absence of the aforementioned things, he goes right back to his pathological instinctive lumping in of science with "evil". Then he claims that getting rid of debasive elements of religion, politics, prejudice (of course, he feels the need to throw "evil" science in there, too) isa "pretty nihilistic solution". Fact is, it's the ONLY way we can hope to survive as a species and as a planet. What, pray tel, is "nihilistic" about it? Difficult, perhaps, but I would think it is the very antithesis of nihilism. (But to Michael, everything he doesn't like results in a "Praise Nihil" poem. Which "Father" were you talking about? Father Christmas? Father Gone [than we thought you were]?) > 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? Ah, Michael's crux. He asserts that prejudices, inane religious notions of "words of god", superiority/inferiority, evil of man, etc., and political philosophies promoting similar things through bogus "nationalism", must be part of "being human", and to eliminate these things would rid us of our "humanity". Now THAT strikes me as the true nihilistic position: equivalencing the elimination of such things with "lobotomizing". I guess Michael wouldn't feel human if he couldn't assert his prejudices at will. >>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? Why is "primetime TV" necessarily associated with technology of destruction? You can't forcefit benevolent technology (I can think of better examples, like medical advances, improvements in learning tools, etc.) together with destructive technology. In a world where the notions we've discussed were non-existent, there wouldn't be any destructive technology. > 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. The religionists and the communists blame each other because they are two sides of the same coin---philosophies based in presumption, in belief that these presumptions lead them to know what's best for other people and allow usurping control of their lives for their ends. Without these types being the ones paying the bills, scientific inquiry can proceed with less of the problems Michael speaks of. > 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. It's a good thing Michael is an honest and fair rhetorician and not a base propagandist. Nothing like asserting an association between science and evil where there is none, and then speaking of the danger to the innocent frogs presented by the evil science. > You are plenty willing to ignore illusory nonscientific causes like > purpose and morality when you argue about society and free will, Rich. Damn right. Which purpose are you talking about? The purpose for which we were created? (???) > 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. Oh, grow up, Michael. Teleological bullshit aside, this bnonsense about evil "western culture" being the cause of all destruction sounds an awful lot like Sunny blaming all the world's problems on men and testosterone. It is in fact, a base vile prejudice of yours without substantiation behind it. But, of course, being prejudiced is part of what Michael thinks of as being human. It allows him to detest Skinner without having to state why. It allows him to say that my comments about his choice philosophers are empty, without the need for an explanation. This is the "science" Michael uses in everyday life. His own personal subjective prejudice. And, of course, getting rid of it would be equivalent to a lobotomy. > 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. Actually, in a world where serious learning was encouraged rather than gut feeling emotional opinions about reality, when it came to physical reality, there wouldn't be "beliefs" at all. Personal taste in things like beauty, art, music, etc. would be based on each person's personal experiences leading to their opinions of what they think is beautiful. Personal tastes are indeed a matter of personal preference and in fact prejudice. But such prejudices have no place in relating to the real world at a physical level. > 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. That's right, Michael, relate a world in which there were no political and religious prejudices with Nazi Germany, because such a world would be (to you) evil. Nice try, kimosabe. > 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}? Care to explain what this has to do with science being "evil", or is this just more rhetoric? > 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? In an atmosphere where there is the incessant bullshit of religious and nationalistic prejudices, very likely. In the antithesis of such an atmosphere, hardly likely. >>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?). This is very nice rhetoric. Unfortunately, I haven't twisted your words at all. (I could never match your audacity in doing so here.) I repeat: your cure is to get rid of the symptom rather than the disease. Some red blood cells have been mutated by some organism inside the body, causing severe damage to the person. My solution: work to get rid of the organism. Your solution: drain the body of blood cells. Science is knowledge. You would have us get rid of knowledge to avoid destructive technology, while allowing destructive mentalities to persist. Einstein said World War IV would be fought with rocks. Your solution (get rid of scientific advance) would make it World War III that gets fought with rocks. In the face of such destructive mentalities, the wars will continue to get fought. If that is satisfactory to you (war is a human thing, to end war would be equivalent to a lobotomy, right, Michael?), fine. > I no more wish to get rid of science than you wish to send Christians to > concentration camps! Then what ARE you proposing? If not the eradication of scientific inquiry, then what? If you intend to allow science to continue to operate in this world atmosphere, you WILL get your most feared outcome (the destruction of your fellow frogs). So what is your implication in saying what you say, if not the eradication of science? > 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. Science reaches its ideals (or approaches them quite closely) where the "evil" manipulating it to its own purposes is absent. When does religion reach *its* ideals? How? >>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? So nice of you to answer my question. > 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.. Hmmm. How can scientists (rational or otherwise) do this either without the blessing and support of the real evil? It is only in the absence of that real evil that we can free ourselves of the dangers you speak of. But, of course, you've called that a "nihilistic solution", because to support that would require you to seek to eliminate your own prejudices, and you wouldn't want to have a set of beliefs that got you to do *that*, would you? > 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. Your line of thinking can be duplicated thusly. The fact is that music has been used to create an evil base of rabble-rousing militaristic violence oriented anthemic songs used to arouse the people to bogus patriotism, nationalistic fervor, terrorism, war, etc. Thus, by your reasoning, music is an evil. Just like science. > If my attitude is warped then my ears eagerly await satisfactory > rebuttal. When I hear that you've stoppped listening to the evil of music, Michael, I will consider that a fine rebuttal on your part to what I've said above. Obviously music is just as evil as science. However, if you continue to support this heinous evil that is destroying the minds of people on our planet, then you haven't got a leg to stand on. Go back to your pond and eat crickets, my friend. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr