The Intellectual War on Science

  • 87 Replies
  • 6542 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
  • Blueberry Psūkhe Sorcerer
    • View Profile
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2018, 01:59:22 pm »
Anyone who finds joy in doing any thing other than working should be killed too. Reading SFF? Dead. Playing video games? Dead. Gardening? Dead. In fact, why not just off everyone that not contributing to the technological singularity - let our AI offspring rule the galaxy and do the universe a favour and off ourselves in the process.

To clarify, you're not including board gaming and miniatures collecting, of course - the contribution of these activities to humanity and the cosmos is an immeasurable. Just making sure before you spy yours truly for this "efficiency" endeavor.
May your death be soon, slow and painful

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2018, 02:02:37 pm »
To the Gallows!

Really anyone and anything that's not contributing to the thing that I think is most important - to the ovens! And of course, everyone else should have that right to designate their own goals and their own oven fuel.

Without sarcasm, I'm sure that the only conclusion to the path of 'hey lets kill a certain group of people' ends with everyone being dead - or at the very least, genocide and holocaust. Once you label a group as subhuman, you can easily put anyone else into that group as well. It becomes trivial to use the designation as a permanent and ultimate scapegoat. We've literally already seen it happen many times in human history. We even have a bunch of neat names for it: apartheid, holocaust, slavery, genocide, etc. etc.

"But this time, we'll just do it to this ONE group, what could possibly go wrong." - humans are stupid.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2018, 06:26:00 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2571
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2018, 06:15:02 pm »
Wilshire follows my point in illustrating that if we declare that we should only offer the opportunity for life based off certain objective criteria, how do we decide which?  And to what degrees?

Also, how to we unsure we don't slip into subjective criteria?

And who gets to decide?
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2018, 07:15:01 pm »
For additional discussion: I don't think all life is sacred. I just don't think humans are good at deciding how to draw that line, nor do I think that doing so would be helpful, as shown above. Not to be confused with the idea that humans are sacred either - in fact I think we should do a far better job controlling our population and managing our waste so as to stop the genocide of every other lifeform on the planet (as it'll lead to our own downfall, but whatever, that's perhaps another issue).

What I wanted to get to was, rather than killing off people who don't look the way we want them too, I'm much more for the manipulation of genetics to create humans that are 'better'. Rather than letting sloppy evolution drive us into the idiot corner, I think we need to take control of it. Stop letting people decide how many babies they make, and who they make them with.

Much better, though the outcome risks being similar to the above, to let let people augment their offspring as they choose. Better still to limit the number of new humans each human gets to make at the same time.

I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2018, 07:17:06 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2018, 01:22:41 am »
For additional discussion: I don't think all life is sacred. I just don't think humans are good at deciding how to draw that line, nor do I think that doing so would be helpful, as shown above. Not to be confused with the idea that humans are sacred either - in fact I think we should do a far better job controlling our population and managing our waste so as to stop the genocide of every other lifeform on the planet (as it'll lead to our own downfall, but whatever, that's perhaps another issue).

What I wanted to get to was, rather than killing off people who don't look the way we want them too, I'm much more for the manipulation of genetics to create humans that are 'better'. Rather than letting sloppy evolution drive us into the idiot corner, I think we need to take control of it. Stop letting people decide how many babies they make, and who they make them with.

Much better, though the outcome risks being similar to the above, to let let people augment their offspring as they choose. Better still to limit the number of new humans each human gets to make at the same time.

I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.
Laughed a little bit at how your posts started out (what I presume to be) exaggerating my posts into eugenics territory, and then turned into actually advocating for eugenics themselves  8)

Wilshire follows my point in illustrating that if we declare that we should only offer the opportunity for life based off certain objective criteria, how do we decide which?  And to what degrees?

Also, how to we unsure we don't slip into subjective criteria?

And who gets to decide?
We decide based on prior knowledge about life quality, life potential, potential for suffering etc.
All criteria are ultimately subjective.
Parents in dialogue with doctors should decide, or vice versa, e.g. a doctor might recommend euthanasia if a child e.g. is found to have mutations leading to severe disease and early death.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2018, 11:58:15 am »
I really wasn't trying to poke fun at you lol.
Euthanizing groups just doesn't work, humans can't handle it. Maybe someday in the future, but right now definitely not.

Eugenics, of the scientific Gene manipulation kind, seems like a much better option.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5225
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2018, 01:41:43 pm »
I'd have no problems with that to be honest.

Easier said than done, perhaps.

That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.

I'm sure I'm going to be further unimpressed moving forward in this thread by the way you write but could you please tone it down?

Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.

We already do this to some extent (given parental income) with genomic sequencing (if I have that right).

Any cut-off is arbitrary by definition. Why should abortions only be allowed in the first trimester? Why not the first trimester + 1 week?

I honestly don't have a stance on this conversation but a thought about these questions: many people find it visually disturbing and some find it socially abhorrent. A pregnant woman often is showing in that period and then has to explain to her peers (who, let's just say, can have a very wide range of responses to this topic) what happened to the baby.

This thread needs a new name.

This is fine for now, I think. Ease facilitates conversation and at this point everyone partaking knows where to find this thread - a new title would only serve to direct newcomers. Though, you're largely the "first cause" for this tangential conversation. Any ideas what to call the newly sorted thread?

in fact I think we should do a far better job controlling our population and managing our waste so as to stop the genocide of every other lifeform on the planet (as it'll lead to our own downfall, but whatever, that's perhaps another issue).

It's only the biosphere that enables our survival ;).

We decide based on prior knowledge about life quality, life potential, potential for suffering etc.
All criteria are ultimately subjective.
Parents in dialogue with doctors should decide, or vice versa, e.g. a doctor might recommend euthanasia if a child e.g. is found to have mutations leading to severe disease and early death.

I think a problem for you in advocating your position here, here or anywhere, is that the actual starting conditions aren't this conversation - you'd spend your whole life consolidating this position (which is what H and Wilshire are asking of you) and then facilitating the social conditions to enact it in the world as it is (fighting the same fight that the "pro-choice" camp has already been fighting for years) but also people would vehemently oppose you with much less grace than is shown here.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • The Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2018, 04:20:54 pm »
This thread needs a new name.

This is fine for now, I think. Ease facilitates conversation and at this point everyone partaking knows where to find this thread - a new title would only serve to direct newcomers. Though, you're largely the "first cause" for this tangential conversation. Any ideas what to call the newly sorted thread?

Try "The euthanization of defectives, a discussion".
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 04:22:42 pm by BeardFisher-King »
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2018, 04:41:12 pm »
What about:
"How to Start a Modern Dunyain Cult: Step One - Drowning in Unwatered Wine"?

Of course, it'd be the first in a series. I imagine step two would be something like: how to convince a bunch of people that something imaginary is real, step three: how to have a migration to some far off mountain, step four: how to create a secret compound.

Gets more complicated from there - sending out christ-figures to make new world religions to condition the ground for the eventual return, create the literal anti-christ and send him off into the world, unite the world against a shared foe, purposefully create a fake worldwide apocalypse, accidentally make it a real one (almost), repeat the last few steps until the world ends.

We could call the whole series: "TSA IRL LOL"... though "Apocalypse For Dummies" has a catchier ring to it.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • The Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2018, 05:05:38 pm »
Sounds like a lot of work, Wilshire. A lot of work.....

But TaoHorror might be on board. He's seriously (?) interested in creating a new religion.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 05:07:22 pm by BeardFisher-King »
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2571
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2018, 05:11:52 pm »
I imagine step two would be something like: how to convince a bunch of people that something imaginary is real

It's not imaginary any more if we make it real.

step three: how to have a migration to some far off mountain, step four: how to create a secret compound.

First rule of the secret compound: we don't discuss the secret compound...
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2018, 05:49:42 pm »
I'm sure I'm going to be further unimpressed moving forward in this thread by the way you write but could you please tone it down?
How am I supposed to know that retard and wheelchair are no longer acceptable words? I'll use "handicapped" if you inst.

Quote
We already do this to some extent (given parental income) with genomic sequencing (if I have that right).
Exactly.

Quote
I honestly don't have a stance on this conversation but a thought about these questions: many people find it visually disturbing and some find it socially abhorrent. A pregnant woman often is showing in that period and then has to explain to her peers (who, let's just say, can have a very wide range of responses to this topic) what happened to the baby.
Hence why I mentioned the thing about shaming earlier.

Quote
I think a problem for you in advocating your position here, here or anywhere, is that the actual starting conditions aren't this conversation - you'd spend your whole life consolidating this position (which is what H and Wilshire are asking of you) and then facilitating the social conditions to enact it in the world as it is (fighting the same fight that the "pro-choice" camp has already been fighting for years) but also people would vehemently oppose you with much less grace than is shown here.
Sure, I don't actually believe this will ever be implemented in the West, for the same reason people are morally opposed to genetic modification. Countries with less restrictive views on human nature like China will march ahead, and in North Korea they already kill all disabled babies AFAIK, although North Korea is definitely not a good role-model.

Quote
I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.
If you think about it, these are actually not separate things ontologically speaking.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2018, 07:30:35 pm »
Quote
I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.

If you think about it, these are actually not separate things ontologically speaking.

I'm not sure I follow. Which thing's aren't separate?

Evolution vs. Eugenics? I guess yy strict definition they are pretty much same, but by common understanding and implication they really aren't. Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction, eugenics is evolution with a goal. So yeah, while the scientific term evolution (change of allele frequency over time) necessarily covers eugenics, its misguided (mislead) to suggest that they are the same thing.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2018, 07:59:36 pm »
Quote
I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.

If you think about it, these are actually not separate things ontologically speaking.

I'm not sure I follow. Which thing's aren't separate?

Evolution vs. Eugenics? I guess yy strict definition they are pretty much same, but by common understanding and implication they really aren't. Evolution is a a wholly random process without direction, eugenics is evolution with a goal. So yeah, while the scientific term evolution (change of allele frequency over time) necessarily covers eugenics, its misguided (mislead) to suggest that they are the same thing.
Think: "What am I?" and then reflect over this again.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5704
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2018, 08:03:40 pm »
A collection of tightly bound quarks and gluons popping in and out of existence?
I'm not sure rhetorical questions are going to help me out here, but if you can't articulate what you're getting at,  I won't lose sleep :) .
One of the other conditions of possibility.