|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > January 2006 > Ted L., Life after death?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Ted L., Life after death?
|
|
| GaryE 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| Just a question. To the man of experience. Let's suppose that
science, someday, is going to be able to regenerate new cells in a
body to fix problems,. Charlie just posted an article about doing
that with hearts. Even beyond that, alter DNA to eliminate problems
such as diseases and dysfunctions-- to use knowledge of DNA to change
an individual human genome. In short, eliminate large amount of
problems associated with genetic codes. If we depend on code, well
code can be changed once you understand how to use it. And our code
is pretty potent, to a point. We still die. Bad flaw in coding. And
if you change the codes, it often changes the response of the unit.
But just for the hell of it, , let's just suppose science will pave
the way for elimination of death. Let's just suppose we all could
live forever. What kind of change would that create?
Would there still be religion? I'd say the major religious calling
card is life after death. Would you agree? If you're not covering
your XXX for eternal life, what do you 'use' religion for? I suspect
the 'feeling' of religion or spirituality is a brain thing, operating
in the same arena of altered consciousness that alcohol put us in.
Spiritus contra spiritum, wasn't that it?
Of course religion's eternal life is in another world and you have
to leave this one and your family and friends to get to it. And
there is always a bit of a question of whether this life after death
scenario of most religions is true. I mean, no one we know has come
back and told us that, have they? In any event, wouldn't be better to
take a sure thing and just have eternal life here? What would that
do to the religious notion that there is a life after death when you
could have it without death?
Would you take it?
I'd say that in another century, we will know how to keep people alive
indefinitely. Probably reach the stage where you can quit aging as
soon as you reach adult hood. Always look 21 or thereabouts. No need
to retire, right? Perpetual 21. No funeral homes. Medicine will
change drastically. The government will have to step in and legislate
how this eternal life is administered. (:> Will births be allowed?
Will wars be necessary? True you could 'blow someone up' instantly
and end life, but then again, our personal data base of information
which will constitute our conscious self will be able to be stored on
a hard disk (or a CD) along with our complete genome, so that we could
reborn through cloning.
What do you think God's going to do when he sees that humans can build
humans? Perfect humans. Not these sickly, diseased dying humans that
he created. Many of which find it necessary to kill, harm, abuse,
rape, maim, rob, steal, lie and cheat to live out their mere existence
in a time which is probably infinite? Is God going to be pissed and
destroy the entire planet by sending a star to collide into it? (:>
Or maybe in the, what, 15 billion years of universe, someone has
already achieved perfection and eternal life. Maybe an entire
intelligent eternal 'population' somewhere in the universe. I figure
we wouldn't have to wait another 50 to 100 years to get this done if
we hadn't spent billion on keeping religions alive or keeping bombs
and bullets being built to kill people so you can take over their
stuff.
Best,
GaryE
| |
| Chronocidal Charlie 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GaryE wrote:
> Just a question.
> Would there still be religion? I'd say the major religious calling
> card is life after death. Would you agree? If you're not covering
> your XXX for eternal life, what do you 'use' religion for? I suspect
> the 'feeling' of religion or spirituality is a brain thing, operating
> in the same arena of altered consciousness that alcohol put us in.
> Spiritus contra spiritum, wasn't that it?
> What do you think God's going to do when he sees that humans can build
> humans? Perfect humans. Not these sickly, diseased dying humans that
> he created. Many of which find it necessary to kill, harm, abuse,
> rape, maim, rob, steal, lie and cheat to live out their mere existence
> in a time which is probably infinite? Is God going to be pissed and
> destroy the entire planet by sending a star to collide into it? (:>
>
> Or maybe in the, what, 15 billion years of universe, someone has
> already achieved perfection and eternal life. Maybe an entire
> intelligent eternal 'population' somewhere in the universe. I figure
> we wouldn't have to wait another 50 to 100 years to get this done if
> we hadn't spent billion on keeping religions alive or keeping bombs
> and bullets being built to kill people so you can take over their
> stuff.
>
> Best,
> GaryE
Know ya asking Ted one question but I wanna interject sumpin? Can I? Huh?
Pweeese? ;-)
I don't know how to tie this in, but I think it has bearing.
How do you code in morals. Not necessarily conventional morals as we see
them from a religious or even a universal ethical principle concept, but a
code that will allow men to live together in some sort of a commensal
relationship without lust, sloth, avarice (common vices) etc. creeping in?
And make it stick?
Nietzsche thought pretty deep on the subject before he went insane. ;-)
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nie...nealogytofc.htm
"To breed an animal that is entitled to make promises?surely that is the
essence of the paradoxical task nature has set itself where human beings
are concerned? Isn't that the real problem of human beings? The fact that
this problem has largely been resolved must seem all the more astonishing
to a person who knows how to appreciate fully the power which works against
this promise-making, namely forgetfulness. Forgetfulness is not merely a
vis interiae [a force of inertia], as superficial people think. Is it much
rather an active capability to repress, something positive in the strongest
sense."
--Excerpt, Second Essay Guilt, Bad Conscience and Related Matters
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1Y7iMvzmwLbIRXcRAqxTAJ9wK8fCq7lEmXvEkJqPO8yr1B8B4wCg0tLJ
J0X3XBPw/5COnJ3Yf42HueY=
=RYqE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| "GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:aeuat1t9itsbtma4t24pbv25l4nft58jvu@4ax.com...
> Would there still be religion? I'd say the major religious calling
> card is life after death. Would you agree? If you're not covering
> your XXX for eternal life, what do you 'use' religion for?
Good stream of thought, Gary. Charlie brought up a question of morals. I
think that's where religion will fight tooth and nail against what you're
propsing - on "moral" grounds. We see it now with the battle over stem cell
research. Religion simply won't give biologists and geneticists cart
blanche when it comes to advancements like cloning - gets to close to
"God's" territory. Bioethicists have their hands full. Advancements will
be made, but I figure much research will necessarily be conducted under the
table and with blind eyes turned. Of course, this living forever business
is fine and dandy, but why can't scientists get busy on something really
important like the elimination of male baldness!
| |
| Chronocidal Charlie 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Craig S. wrote:
> "GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:aeuat1t9itsbtma4t24pbv25l4nft58jvu@4ax.com...
>
>
> Good stream of thought, Gary. Charlie brought up a question of morals. I
> think that's where religion will fight tooth and nail against what you're
> propsing - on "moral" grounds.
Don't perceive me as bringing up a question as to the moral basis that
religion might fight as being immoral such as what has been proposed as
moral. I think I said that right. ;-)
I'm questioning on terms as to how does one code in morals, to the affect
like, "giving a human being a five minute break and than not having to
retrain him" and how to do it with out what Nietzsche refers to "Fossalized
Violence" if you may have read his entire tract, rather than just seeing
the word *moral* and jumping to a conclusion based on how moral or
objectionable someone other than you may see something. ;-)
Dispute this if you can. "The first eighteen to twenty years (formative
process) of a human beings life are spent in civilizing, socializing and
educating a human being to hopefully become a functioning contributing part
of a society rather than a burden upon an already overburdened society.
How would you spring one from womb with no fear of tomb with the necessary
inborn traits and characteristics to maintain "Peace on Earth and Good Will
Among Men?"
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1ZdVMvzmwLbIRXcRArEbAKCpGQwowO1/jogq7l6ivOfq7e/OWQCfQP/S
KiEgtm4/JPcPVQWNku1EtDA=
=sbln
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Chronocidal Charlie 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Forgot to mention in any of the preceding posts on this and figured I may as
well throw in some *sex* since this araa. ;-)
Genetically speaking....:-)
"Only about 3 percent of the 4,000 mammal species are monogamous (and Homo
sapiens isn?t one of them).
And we got a long way to go it seems.
http://www.wonderquest.com/animal-mate-for-life.htm
CC
Chronocidal Charlie wrote:
> Craig S. wrote:
>
>
> Don't perceive me as bringing up a question as to the moral basis that
> religion might fight as being immoral such as what has been proposed as
> moral. I think I said that right. ;-)
>
> I'm questioning on terms as to how does one code in morals, to the affect
> like, "giving a human being a five minute break and than not having to
> retrain him" and how to do it with out what Nietzsche refers to
> "Fossalized Violence" if you may have read his entire tract, rather than
> just seeing the word *moral* and jumping to a conclusion based on how
> moral or
> objectionable someone other than you may see something. ;-)
>
> Dispute this if you can. "The first eighteen to twenty years (formative
> process) of a human beings life are spent in civilizing, socializing and
> educating a human being to hopefully become a functioning contributing
> part of a society rather than a burden upon an already overburdened
> society.
>
> How would you spring one from womb with no fear of tomb with the necessary
> inborn traits and characteristics to maintain "Peace on Earth and Good
> Will Among Men?"
>
> CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1ZzRMvzmwLbIRXcRAkMEAJ0SkH7TlEPrQfVtCP0X0FTLPWCMxQCeMSAw
Xkq3FKC14L5dn0p87HDe2Eg=
=HKVg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Tim and Lisa 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
|
"Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%1hBf.18613$1J1.14798@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Forgot to mention in any of the preceding posts on this and figured I may
> as
> well throw in some *sex* since this araa. ;-)
>
>
> http://www.wonderquest.com/animal-mate-for-life.htm
>
> CC
>
I'll take the bald eagle, ;O)
| |
| Mark Warner 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| Chronocidal Charlie wrote:
>
> How do you code in morals. Not necessarily conventional morals as we see
> them from a religious or even a universal ethical principle concept, but a
> code that will allow men to live together in some sort of a commensal
> relationship without lust, sloth, avarice (common vices) etc. creeping in?
XXXX that. I'd take dyin'.
--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying
| |
| marioneta del calcetín 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| Interesting how some with a track record of emotional inadequacy as
revealed by the substitution of chemical dependency for disciplines
necessary to maintain emotional health, rely on faith in the future
of science as being a substitute superior to the disciplines
associated with faith in the presence of God.
Without appropriate management, what use would a new body be?
"GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:aeuat1t9itsbtma4t24pbv25l4nft58jvu@4ax.com...
> Just a question. To the man of experience. Let's suppose that
> science, someday, is going to be able to regenerate new cells in a
> body to fix problems,. Charlie just posted an article about doing
> that with hearts. Even beyond that, alter DNA to eliminate
> problems
> such as diseases and dysfunctions-- to use knowledge of DNA to
> change
> an individual human genome. In short, eliminate large amount of
> problems associated with genetic codes. If we depend on code, well
> code can be changed once you understand how to use it. And our
> code
> is pretty potent, to a point. We still die. Bad flaw in coding.
> And
> if you change the codes, it often changes the response of the unit.
>
> But just for the hell of it, , let's just suppose science will pave
> the way for elimination of death. Let's just suppose we all could
> live forever. What kind of change would that create?
>
> Would there still be religion? I'd say the major religious calling
> card is life after death. Would you agree? If you're not covering
> your XXX for eternal life, what do you 'use' religion for? I
> suspect
> the 'feeling' of religion or spirituality is a brain thing,
> operating
> in the same arena of altered consciousness that alcohol put us in.
> Spiritus contra spiritum, wasn't that it?
>
> Of course religion's eternal life is in another world and you have
> to leave this one and your family and friends to get to it. And
> there is always a bit of a question of whether this life after
> death
> scenario of most religions is true. I mean, no one we know has
> come
> back and told us that, have they? In any event, wouldn't be better
> to
> take a sure thing and just have eternal life here? What would
> that
> do to the religious notion that there is a life after death when
> you
> could have it without death?
>
> Would you take it?
>
> I'd say that in another century, we will know how to keep people
> alive
> indefinitely. Probably reach the stage where you can quit aging as
> soon as you reach adult hood. Always look 21 or thereabouts. No
> need
> to retire, right? Perpetual 21. No funeral homes. Medicine
> will
> change drastically. The government will have to step in and
> legislate
> how this eternal life is administered. (:> Will births be
> allowed?
> Will wars be necessary? True you could 'blow someone up' instantly
> and end life, but then again, our personal data base of information
> which will constitute our conscious self will be able to be stored
> on
> a hard disk (or a CD) along with our complete genome, so that we
> could
> reborn through cloning.
>
> What do you think God's going to do when he sees that humans can
> build
> humans? Perfect humans. Not these sickly, diseased dying humans
> that
> he created. Many of which find it necessary to kill, harm, abuse,
> rape, maim, rob, steal, lie and cheat to live out their mere
> existence
> in a time which is probably infinite? Is God going to be pissed
> and
> destroy the entire planet by sending a star to collide into it?
> (:>
>
> Or maybe in the, what, 15 billion years of universe, someone has
> already achieved perfection and eternal life. Maybe an entire
> intelligent eternal 'population' somewhere in the universe. I
> figure
> we wouldn't have to wait another 50 to 100 years to get this done
> if
> we hadn't spent billion on keeping religions alive or keeping bombs
> and bullets being built to kill people so you can take over their
> stuff.
>
> Best,
> GaryE
>
>
| |
| Chronocidal Charlie 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Warner wrote:
> Chronocidal Charlie wrote:
>
> XXXX that. I'd take dyin'.
>
Sheesh! Lawd Yassss.
I knows whut ennui at 64 is like. XXXX ennui at 640. Jus the thought of it
sux big time. ;-)
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1a5ZMvzmwLbIRXcRAhC4AJ9qzqpdErNFzylpoHOZ17nnmR0S6gCgmqn6
jw65CgWg0/f284T5N8G+jVg=
=cX3V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| "Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AHgBf.18402$1J1.12798@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Craig S. wrote:
>
I[vbcol=seagreen]
you're[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Don't perceive me as bringing up a question as to the moral basis that
> religion might fight as being immoral such as what has been proposed as
> moral. I think I said that right. ;-)
My moral quandary wasn't directly related to the question you posed - I was
just going off on a tangent, Charlie. Maybe I have ADD. 8~)
I read the Second Essay that you quoted from. Heady stuff. I'm not
convinced that our morals have been coded in. At this point it's impossible
to know. That would require human experiments of the kind that "morals"
prevent - raising "wild" humans in controlled environments to truly study
"nature vs. nurture." Studying rat behavior only takes us so far.
Here is Nietzsche's version of part of what I believe Gary is talking about :
"The mass of humanity sacrificed for the benefit of a single stronger
species of man-that would be a step forward ."
> I'm questioning on terms as to how does one code in morals, to the affect
> like, "giving a human being a five minute break and than not having to
> retrain him" and how to do it with out what Nietzsche refers to
"Fossalized
> Violence" if you may have read his entire tract, rather than just seeing
> the word *moral* and jumping to a conclusion based on how moral or
> objectionable someone other than you may see something. ;-)
>
> Dispute this if you can. "The first eighteen to twenty years (formative
> process) of a human beings life are spent in civilizing, socializing and
> educating a human being to hopefully become a functioning contributing
part
> of a society rather than a burden upon an already overburdened society.
>
> How would you spring one from womb with no fear of tomb with the necessary
> inborn traits and characteristics to maintain "Peace on Earth and Good
Will
> Among Men?"
I don't see where there would be much difference in that regard concerning
genetically improved (reprogrammed) humans. Humans still must be brought
into the world. I don't see the old-fashioned way going out of favor any
time soon. Of course, even with genetic modifications, the idea of
immortality seems a bit pie-in-the sky. Extened life - probably. *Very*
extended life - possibly. But I just don't get the feeling that *anything*
can really last forever. Even adding 50 or 100 years to expected human
longevity would surely change the way we would approach things like child
rearing, work, relationships, commitments and retirement, but I don't think
it would significantly alter our basic approach to life or death or right
and wrong, or cause more or less "bad conscience."
| |
| Chronocidal Charlie 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Craig S. wrote:
> "Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AHgBf.18402$1J1.12798@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> I
> you're
>
> My moral quandary wasn't directly related to the question you posed - I
> was
> just going off on a tangent, Charlie. Maybe I have ADD. 8~)
>
> I read the Second Essay that you quoted from. Heady stuff. I'm not
> convinced that our morals have been coded in. At this point it's
> impossible
> to know. That would require human experiments of the kind that "morals"
> prevent - raising "wild" humans in controlled environments to truly study
> "nature vs. nurture." Studying rat behavior only takes us so far.
I think most of us as human beings are capable of coming up with what seem
to be good ideas.
I'm not so sure most of us as human beings are capable of looking at the
long term implications of those *good* *ideas* .
I'm also not sure that Nietzsche didn't have either his head planted firmly
in his XXX or tongue planted firmly in his cheek.
Or that he may not have been in some way unknowingly been laying or adding
to the ground work for some of the things that have transpired
post-Nietzsche, up to the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Particularly
this Second Essay, 3 excerpt, particularly the "...have a right to breed
all sorts of European mandarins..." ;-)
"We Germans certainly do not think of ourselves as a particularly cruel and
hard-hearted people, even less as particularly careless people who live
only in the present. But have a look at our old penal code in order to
understand how much trouble it took on this earth to breed a "People of
Thinkers" (by that I mean the peoples of Europe, among whom today we still
find a maximum of trust, seriousness, tastelessness, and practicality, and
who with these characteristics have a right to breed all sorts of European
mandarins). These Germans have used terrible means to make themselves a
memory in order to attain mastery over their vulgar and brutally crude
basic instincts. Think of the old German punishments, for example, stoning
(even the legend lets the mill stone fall on the head of the guilty
person), breaking on the wheel (the unique invention and specialty of the
German genius in the area of punishment!), impaling on a stake, ripping
people apart or stamping them to death with horses ("quartering"), boiling
the criminal in oil or wine (still done in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries), the well-loved practice of flaying ("cutting flesh off in
strips"), carving flesh out of the chest, along with, of course, covering
the offender with honey and leaving him to the flies in the burning sun.
With the help of such images and procedures people finally retained five or
six "I will not's" in their memory, and so far as these precepts were
concerned they gave their word in order to live with the advantages of
society?and that was that! With the assistance of this sort of memory
people finally came to "reason"! Ah, reason, seriousness, mastery over
emotions, the whole gloomy business called reflection, all these privileges
and ceremonies of human beings?how expensive they were! How much blood and
horror is the basis for all "good things."
- ----------
John Locke's Blank Slate vs. Rousseau's Noble Savage? Are we born evil and
have had good beaten into us, or are we born good and had the hell beat out
of us?
Frankly, I think along the lines of the old "Iron Maiden" psychology
professor of mine who said the only *instinct* or hard wired thing in human
beings at birth is that *it* *sucks* which she used to jokingly explain
that human beings have no real hard wired instinctive behavior, and then
went on to explain the difference between Instinct and *innate* tendencies.
I can't think of one damn thang that all human beings can be expected to
*always* do in a prescribed set of circumstances. Our Frontal lobe destroys
the chance of that ever happening. ;-)
We're in a mess and our best thinking got us here. ;-)
How the hell do we get us out of it.
Mass lobotomy? Then re-wiring. ;-)
On a time frame of eternity, the human race is not even out of infancy.
Kinda like your old friend Father Martin sed about a damn drunk solving all
the worlds problems, just ask him... Sez, "Hell! He can't even get out of
bed, but he can solve all the world's problems." ;-)
My luck I'd prolly wind up with eternal life and an incurable case of jock
itch or keep the damn hay fever I've already got.
Or maybe like the <marioneta del calcetín> or "Puppet of the Sock" posting
off aioe.org sed...
Without appropriate management, what use would a new body be?
I spend 55 years wearing out a body with my inability to manage my life and
now after ten years of concentrated effort, I might manage to shit at about
the same time and place two days in a row. ;-)
Too much thinking for me for one day.
I don't want to think anymore,
I'd rather be playing with the blond next door.
So take all the wisdom that comes from this pain,
And give me a chance to do it again.
I'd rather die young with a smile on my face,
Than the wisest old owl in the whole human race.
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1cWdMvzmwLbIRXcRAij0AKCVo5E9p8G2AmP0c6nmeYmhscpk5gCgvp82
rwz7aN/o8vEK5En3WmWjE0s=
=UCx+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| Craig S. wrote:
> I don't see where there would be much difference in that regard concerning
> genetically improved (reprogrammed) humans. Humans still must be brought
> into the world. I don't see the old-fashioned way going out of favor any
> time soon. Of course, even with genetic modifications, the idea of
> immortality seems a bit pie-in-the sky. Extened life - probably. *Very*
> extended life - possibly. But I just don't get the feeling that *anything*
> can really last forever.
The difference between T-Rex and humans is that there won't be a
lifeform left to dig for *human* bones.;) No museums, just the stardust
from whence we came. 
> Even adding 50 or 100 years to expected human
> longevity would surely change the way we would approach things like child
> rearing, work, relationships, commitments and retirement, but I don't think
> it would significantly alter our basic approach to life or death or right
> and wrong, or cause more or less "bad conscience."
With or without extended life, this is the key question IMO. Watched a
bit on the History Channel today about the various plagues throughout
history starting in 1348 with the bubonic plague that ravaged the
continents of Europe and Asia, killing an estimated forty million people.
The part that caught my eye was the social impact in some countries.
People who were formerly peasants moved up the social ladder, even
owning property while aristocratic family's wound up having to learn how
to plow a field because of the lack of labor available.
With that in mind, look at global population and immigration. How will
tomorrow's cultures have to evolve in order to have things like
"retirement?" Maybe they won't at all. Perhaps the *new* aristocrats
will be the corporate insiders who subcontract all public services
directly from the controlling Monarchy? A case can be made that we are
inching that way already. Maybe the aristocrats would have access to
extended life technology but the average schmuck would be considered
expendable, like a worker bee.
And though you want to last forever
You know you never will
You know you never will
And the goodbye makes the journey harder still
Cat Stevens
| |
| GaryE 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:16:43 +1000, "marioneta del calcetín"
<marioneta@nopam.com> wrote:
>Interesting how some with a track record of emotional inadequacy as
>revealed by the substitution of chemical dependency for disciplines
>necessary to maintain emotional health, rely on faith in the future
>of science as being a substitute superior to the disciplines
>associated with faith in the presence of God.
>
>Without appropriate management, what use would a new body be?
>
Well, I think science has done pretty good. Without it, you wouldn't
be able to post your thoughts, well within the box which they are.
Best,
GaryE
| |
| GaryE 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:44:04 -0500, "Craig S."
<cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutcharter.net> wrote:
>"GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
>news:aeuat1t9itsbtma4t24pbv25l4nft58jvu@4ax.com...
>
>
>Good stream of thought, Gary. Charlie brought up a question of morals. I
>think that's where religion will fight tooth and nail against what you're
>propsing - on "moral" grounds. We see it now with the battle over stem cell
>research. Religion simply won't give biologists and geneticists cart
>blanche when it comes to advancements like cloning - gets to close to
>"God's" territory. Bioethicists have their hands full. Advancements will
>be made, but I figure much research will necessarily be conducted under the
>table and with blind eyes turned. Of course, this living forever business
>is fine and dandy, but why can't scientists get busy on something really
>important like the elimination of male baldness!
>
Craig,
I think morals is a function of response. Completely within the range
of software and learning. It may take a few hundred or even a few
thousand branching statements to get it encoded properly in DNA so it
can be passed along in that mode.
A little study of ancient man early signs of prevailing 'warrior'
classes meaning that fighting and killing were predominant among
humans. That changed, albeit slightly, over time. We don't have no
war, no mo. Our morality has prevailed. God has triumphed. When is
the parade?
The morals are of our own making which is why they are implemented so
piss poorly, I'd say. Even attempts to credit a super power God and
death and eternal fire to their enforcement, but no real luck there.
So we created a college course to study the human problem with (not
of) morals and ethics. And some proclaimed God as the only viable
source. The same God who creates these imperfect dying humans?
Who only want to live and didn't do nothing to deserve the death
sentence except eat an apple without permission?
Thanks for the comments. I really was hoping that the meat of it
might survive before it got flaw found (where about the morals that
the world enjoys and lives by today?) or sneered at (drunks need a
higher power to serve) but it assumes a basic understand of science
and what it provides and where it might go. Heavy duty assumption..
To your comment, If we all (plural of you all) live another 100
years, much less a thousand, it will present some major rethinking of
how we think we live on this planet. Perhaps more than humans are
capable of without some divine guidance, I suppose. A divine guidance
program trumps a DNA encoded program?
Religions have so effectively captured the human brain, hasn't it?
By and large. To the point where anything which seems in contrast or
even opposes it has to be bad and flawed. Religion, it seems to me,
has always considered science a threat. Man's need to understand his
reality and facts indeed, seem to be a threat to religion. The Tree
of Knowledge is not to be eaten from. And to think I spent fifty
some odd years of my life as a pretty devout Xian. Sit down and shut
up Xian. Is that not programming? Considering that most of my
repsonse were either 'good' or 'bad', I think it was pretty binary.
Without religion, we wouldn't have love and tolerance (is our code)
and harmony and peace in the world. After all, humans are scum in
need of higher power to display those godly traits of love and
compassion. Sneer thy neighbor. Heh.
Best,
GaryE
| |
|
| GaryE wrote:
> Religions have so effectively captured the human brain, hasn't it?
Or vice versa?
> By and large. To the point where anything which seems in contrast or
> even opposes it has to be bad and flawed. Religion, it seems to me,
> has always considered science a threat. Man's need to understand his
> reality and facts indeed, seem to be a threat to religion.
Or the source of it?
> The Tree of Knowledge is not to be eaten from.
There's a metaphor here somewhere.
> And to think I spent fifty some odd years of my life as a pretty devout
> Xian. Sit down and shut up Xian.
> Is that not programming? Considering that most of my
> repsonse were either 'good' or 'bad', I think it was pretty binary.
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
> Without religion, we wouldn't have love and tolerance (is our code)
> and harmony and peace in the world. After all, humans are scum in
> need of higher power to display those godly traits of love and
> compassion. Sneer thy neighbor. Heh.
Rapacious bastards are found in *all* human endeavors, are they not?
Religion can't actually do *anything* to *anyone* seems to me.
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bYjBf.31326$RK3.8674@trnddc06...
> With that in mind, look at global population and immigration. How will
> tomorrow's cultures have to evolve in order to have things like
> "retirement?" Maybe they won't at all. Perhaps the *new* aristocrats
> will be the corporate insiders who subcontract all public services
> directly from the controlling Monarchy? A case can be made that we are
> inching that way already. Maybe the aristocrats would have access to
> extended life technology but the average schmuck would be considered
> expendable, like a worker bee.
Given the earth's present population that's continuing to grow, especially
in countries and areas that barely are able to provide sustenance and basic
services anyway, that idea that improved genetic coding will somehow trickle
thoughout all the world's people seems perhaps too far off in the future to
be valid at this point, considering the somewhat unstable political and
economic climate that always seems to be nipping at our collective heels.
Heck, we can't even feed everyone. Yes, improved genetics seems like a rich
man's game. Of course, those better genes would still trickle down in the
same old fashioned way as they always have - with rich men diddling the
hired help.
| |
| GaryE 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:52:21 -0500, "Craig S."
<cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutcharter.net> wrote:
>"F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:bYjBf.31326$RK3.8674@trnddc06...
>
>
>Given the earth's present population that's continuing to grow, especially
>in countries and areas that barely are able to provide sustenance and basic
>services anyway, that idea that improved genetic coding will somehow trickle
>thoughout all the world's people seems perhaps too far off in the future to
>be valid at this poin
Tch tch. Craig, if you can master genetic coding, you can apply it to
more than humans....the brain can be altered though,...you surely know
that.
>, considering the somewhat unstable political and
>economic climate that always seems to be nipping at our collective heels.
>Heck, we can't even feed everyone. Yes, improved genetics seems like a rich
>man's game.
Yes the supply will be limited to six...and that of course, will be
the six richest people in the world or the five richest and George
Carlin.
Of course, those better genes would still trickle down in the
>same old fashioned way as they always have - with rich men diddling the
>hired help.
>
A man's got to have a dreeam, or a nightmare.........
The poor you will always have......Jesus C.
If Bill (and Melinda) can give away a billion or more, (didn't Ted
Turner do the same thing?) there's got to be hope...what are you
giving to the poor?
Best,
GaryE
| |
| GaryE 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:20:02 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:
>GaryE wrote:
>
>
>Or vice versa?
Or vice versa versa?
>
>
>Or the source of it?
It=religion?
>
>
>There's a metaphor here somewhere.
The first order given to man. Don't try to get smart. You'll be
sorry.
>
>
>All the world's a stage,
>And all the men and women merely players:
>They have their exits and their entrances;
>And one man in his time plays many parts,
There are many applications on my computer......(:>
>
>
>Rapacious bastards are found in *all* human endeavors, are they not?
>Religion can't actually do *anything* to *anyone* seems to me.
It can a handy reason for hating, killing, controlling. Homosexuals,
are, after all, an abomination. Strictly by choice though. All for
the Greater Good, of course. Like Compassionate Conservatism reduces
Medicaid..the poor that the God Man said to take care of....
Best,
GaryE
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bYjBf.31326$RK3.8674@trnddc06...
> The difference between T-Rex and humans is that there won't be a
> lifeform left to dig for *human* bones.;) No museums, just the stardust
> from whence we came.
Oh, perhaps the highly evolved giant insect creatures will become interested
in archaeology. One of the things that really interested me in Bill
Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' was his detailing of the
rather perfect conditions that must be present for fossils to form, and how
if the human population were to suddenly vanish, a few million years hence
experts believe that statistically only a handful of complete fossilized
human skeletons would even exist and finding them would be like looking for
the proverbial needle in a haystack. Thank goodness we'll be leaving behind
all those cut diamonds to be remembered by.
> With or without extended life, this is the key question IMO. Watched a
> bit on the History Channel today about the various plagues throughout
> history starting in 1348 with the bubonic plague that ravaged the
> continents of Europe and Asia, killing an estimated forty million people.
>
> The part that caught my eye was the social impact in some countries.
> People who were formerly peasants moved up the social ladder, even
> owning property while aristocratic family's wound up having to learn how
> to plow a field because of the lack of labor available.
>
> With that in mind, look at global population and immigration. How will
> tomorrow's cultures have to evolve in order to have things like
> "retirement?" Maybe they won't at all.
I sometimes wonder how much we've really "evolved" in this regard. More
primitive societies seemed to revere their older population. The elders
were provided for by their progeny and looked to for insight and accumulated
wisdom. Now ignoring seems to be the norm as the elderly are frequently
left to fend for themselves. Progress?
> Perhaps the *new* aristocrats
> will be the corporate insiders who subcontract all public services
> directly from the controlling Monarchy? A case can be made that we are
> inching that way already.
The privatization of resources like rainfall access, which should logically
belong to everyone, is definitely an early warning sign of the trend.
> Maybe the aristocrats would have access to
> extended life technology but the average schmuck would be considered
> expendable, like a worker bee.
Ah, a return to the good old days. Looks like the ACLU has its work cut
out.
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:01 am |
| "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SqlBf.6503$zh2.600@trnddc01...
> Religion can't actually do *anything* to *anyone* seems to me.
Through financial pressure and political influence - sure it can.
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3ljbt19ep074kv2fd8mriqj87up4obvuj1@4ax.com...
> I think morals is a function of response. Completely within the range
> of software and learning. It may take a few hundred or even a few
> thousand branching statements to get it encoded properly in DNA so it
> can be passed along in that mode.
Well, it certainly hasn't become uniformly encoded into our species yet.
And we have a decent expanse of programming track record to date. I can't
see any reason that humans fiddling around with genetic code will change
this rather arbitrary nature that societal influence certainly doesn't
manage very consistently - sometimes it takes and sometimes it doesn't. Our
overflowing prisons is testament to that.
> A little study of ancient man early signs of prevailing 'warrior'
> classes meaning that fighting and killing were predominant among
> humans. That changed, albeit slightly, over time. We don't have no
> war, no mo. Our morality has prevailed. God has triumphed. When is
> the parade?
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Our morals still seem to be dictated
by convenience as much as anything. "Thou shalt not murder" sounds good in
theory - unless some other society or class happens to be doing something
you don't agree with or that you *perceive* to be a threat on some level.
Then it's okay to bring out the big guns with impunity - or at least with
God's blessing.
> Religion, it seems to me,
> has always considered science a threat. Man's need to understand his
> reality and facts indeed, seem to be a threat to religion. The Tree
> of Knowledge is not to be eaten from. And to think I spent fifty
> some odd years of my life as a pretty devout Xian. Sit down and shut
> up Xian. Is that not programming? Considering that most of my
> repsonse were either 'good' or 'bad', I think it was pretty binary.
In my view, collective religion has generally been about control. That
primary aim is camoflaged by notions of piety, spirituality, enlightenment
and salvation. But it's hard for me to get away from Big Message; 'If you
don't believe as we do - the correct way - then something very bad is going
to happen to you.' Would any Intelligent Designer of the intricacies of our
universe waste time with such trivial pettiness? I think not.
| |
| David M 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| Chronocidal Charlie wrote:
> Forgot to mention in any of the preceding posts on this and
> figured I may as well throw in some *sex* since this araa. ;-)
> Genetically speaking....:-)
> "Only about 3 percent of the 4,000 mammal species are
> monogamous (and Homo sapiens isn?t one of them).
No problem, Charlie. If man could live forever, most would have to
be neutered -- except for a few breeders kept in solitary
confinement until needed to replace those lost in tidal waves,
earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and such. Otherwise there soon
wouldn't be enough room to stand, let alone lie down.
| |
| Chronocidal Charlie 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GaryE wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:44:04 -0500, "Craig S."
> <cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutcharter.net> wrote:
>
> I think morals is a function of response. Completely within the range
> of software and learning. It may take a few hundred or even a few
> thousand branching statements to get it encoded properly in DNA so it
> can be passed along in that mode.
>
> A little study of ancient man early signs of prevailing 'warrior'
> classes meaning that fighting and killing were predominant among
> humans. That changed, albeit slightly, over time. We don't have no
> war, no mo. Our morality has prevailed. God has triumphed. When is
> the parade?
>
> The morals are of our own making which is why they are implemented so
> piss poorly, I'd say.
> And some proclaimed God as the only viable
> source. The same God who creates these imperfect dying humans?
> Who only want to live and didn't do nothing to deserve the death
> sentence except eat an apple without permission?
>
> Thanks for the comments. I really was hoping that the meat of it
> might survive before it got flaw found (where about the morals that
> the world enjoys and lives by today?) or sneered at (drunks need a
> higher power to serve) but it assumes a basic understand of science
> and what it provides and where it might go. Heavy duty assumption..
> Best,
> GaryE
Are you saying that you had hoped for a standing ovation with unanimous
applause and no one sitting silent or a total assenting "nod as one" rather
than mixed reaction with both yeas and nays from the committee?
And seriously Gary, the above is not a cutely couched "What the hell did you
expect?" question, nor "Things didn't work out to your expectations did
they!" negative putdown nor attempt at invalidation.
I realize Ted L. hasn't shown up to address the question that was proposed
to him. I'm curious as to whether he will exercise bite or flight.
The meat and summarization of the question as I perceived *it* still
survives Gary.
> What do you think God's going to do when he sees that humans can build
> humans? Perfect humans. Not these sickly, diseased dying humans that
> he created. Many of which find it necessary to kill, harm, abuse,
> rape, maim, rob, steal, lie and cheat to live out their mere existence
> in a time which is probably infinite? Is God going to be pissed and
> destroy the entire planet by sending a star to collide into it? (:>
>
> Or maybe in the, what, 15 billion years of universe, someone has
> already achieved perfection and eternal life. Maybe an entire
> intelligent eternal 'population' somewhere in the universe. I figure
> we wouldn't have to wait another 50 to 100 years to get this done if
> we hadn't spent billion on keeping religions alive or keeping bombs
> and bullets being built to kill people so you can take over their
> stuff.
And although I don't know about anyone else's replies, I looked at two words
there, not two words only, but two that stared out at me... *Perfect*
*humans* which caused me to question, in a probably imperfect, maybe even
unacceptable manner to you or some, and possibly not according to "Roberts
Rules" and even possibly lacking in interpersonal-communications skills,
and expressed some of my own thoughts and pasted in some thoughts of others
who have pondered the question, hopefully in a manner to fuel a discussion
rather than dampen it.
Let's look at the word *perfect* and what I believe most of us see as a
define of *it*
Brought to consummation or completeness; completed; not
defective nor redundant; having all the properties or
qualities requisite to its nature and kind; without flaw,
fault, or blemish; without error; mature; whole; pure;
sound; right; correct.
Now lets look at *human*
Belonging to man or mankind; having the qualities or
attributes of a man; of or pertaining to man or to the race
of man; as, a human voice; human shape; human nature; human
sacrifices.
> Or maybe in the, what, 15 billion years of universe, someone has
> already achieved perfection and eternal life. Maybe an entire
> intelligent eternal 'population' somewhere in the universe.
That to me brings up, Porky Pine's remark, ?Thar?s only two possibilities:
Thar is life out there in the universe which is smarter than we are, or
we?re the most intelligent life in the universe. Either way, it?s a mighty
sobering thought.?
Would that *someone* or "entire intelligent eternal 'population' be the
*alpha* and *omega* and perceive it's self as such and could we accept it?
Particularly when we have not yet even seemingly evolved to where we as
individuals can accept something as simple as Max Ehrmann said in our
dealings with each other...
"If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans."
Essentially, to cut this short since I'm getting hungry and need to get off
my XXX and fix me some breakfast, *My* *concept* of *God* in response to
the question you posed for what ever reason you posed it...
> What do you think God's going to do when he sees that humans can build
> humans? Perfect humans. Not these sickly, diseased dying humans that
> he created. Many of which find it necessary to kill, harm, abuse,
> rape, maim, rob, steal, lie and cheat to live out their mere existence
> in a time which is probably infinite? Is God going to be pissed and
> destroy the entire planet by sending a star to collide into it?
would be...
Similar to a *father* who wakes up one day and realizes one of his children
has matured to an equal or greater status and revels in the idea of the
fact, and says...
"My seed has borne fruit."
or simply a non-committal,
"So What!"
If it was perfect, *it* just might not give a shit one way or the other and
*we* having attained perfection wouldn't give a shit if *it* gave a shit
one way nor the other since we would have no need for *it's* approval.
That's all.
But you asked Ted L. didn't you. ;-)
Keeping in mind...
Eternal Laws of Usenet
1. If you post and pretend to be a fool, people will believe that
you are a fool.
Corollary: If you then post and explain that you were only
pretending, nobody will change their mind.
2. The Net-Nature is very simple. Usenet is not dominated by
the smartest people, the most interesting people, or the most
learned people. It is dominated by the people who want to tell
other people their opinions. To expect anything else is absurd.
3. Similarly, the topics that dominate any given newsgroup are
not the most interesting, the most helpful, or the most useful.
They're the most acrimonious and the most dissent-laden. How else
could things possibly turn out?
4. A person who says, "Sorry, I had to point that out to you" is
always telling two lies. Ditto for "Sorry, I couldn't pass this
up." "I see your point but...." usually means the opposite.
5. When a fool posts deliberate flame bait, he/she has absolutely
no influence over whether he/she succeeds. You do.
6. It is easy to patronize the author of the post in which you
agree. It is equally as easy for the author to patronize you back.
This can go on for weeks on end.
Corollary: You will look clever to the people who already agree
with you and like a fool to the rest.
Second Corollary: If you post to a newsgroup to which you are new
and someone patronizes you, that can also go on for weeks on end.
7. If you feel you know something funny or clever or wise, you
may decide to post it here. Please keep in mind, you are the
4,000th person to do so.
8. If you hate or love something, there is a newsgroup where
people are discussing it. Abortion, Republicans, eating meat,
tattooing, worship, bondage, whatever. You will be tempted to
appear on that newsgroup and point out to everyone the error of
their ways. Please keep in mind that you are the 4,000th person to
do so.
9. Every newsgroup has a 'hall monitor' who senses it is his/her
job to monitor what goes on in the newsgroup. Bear in mind that
Usenet has survived all these attempts of censorship and control.
10. You, personally, are a unique, exciting, vibrant,
intelligent, wise, and self effacing individual with a great deal
to contribute to the newsgroups you select on the Net. So is every
other schmuck who posts. Get over it.
11. The demise of this newsgroup and the Net is imminent--and
always will be.
12. Internet gurus on a specific topic are a dime a dozen. It is
the people who don't know much who are rare.
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1k37MvzmwLbIRXcRAo3pAJ459XwJnAG0J/DyPnc1/3jx+zvT5gCgvEY9
4mkeAkNF/JhTsQ5uDWEYuMo=
=4WpN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0tact1drdeo5c0rlr0ahtjl0puf442uolk@4ax.com...
> Of course, those better genes would still trickle down in the
> A man's got to have a dreeam, or a nightmare.........
>
> The poor you will always have......Jesus C.
>
>
> If Bill (and Melinda) can give away a billion or more, (didn't Ted
> Turner do the same thing?) there's got to be hope...what are you
> giving to the poor?
Probably not enough, but certainly not sperm.
| |
| Ted L. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:i7sBf.32408$SD1.14660@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> I realize Ted L. hasn't shown up to address the question that was proposed
> to him. I'm curious as to whether he will exercise bite or flight.
>
Well, I am sorely tempted to let the thread run on its own, which it will do
anyway, but never fear, I will eventually respond. I want to track down a
quotation that I think fits (I think at one time I posted what I have in
mind so I should be able to find it if I can come up with enough key words)
and take off from there.
--
Ted L.
Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:i7sBf.32408$SD1.14660@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> That to me brings up, Porky Pine's remark, "Thar's only two
possibilities:
> Thar is life out there in the universe which is smarter than we are, or
> we're the most intelligent life in the universe. Either way, it's a
mighty
> sobering thought."
There may be other, different ways of considering or measuring what
"intelligence" is or might constitute. Believing that we could comprehend
all the possibilities sort of arrogantly puts us at the top of the heap by
default. The universe is a mighty big place and for all our smarts, we
could be wiped out in a heartbeat. Our "intelligent" existence sure seems
arbitrary.
> Essentially, to cut this short since I'm getting hungry and need to get
off
> my XXX and fix me some breakfast, *My* *concept* of *God* in response to
> the question you posed for what ever reason you posed it...
> would be...
>
> Similar to a *father* who wakes up one day and realizes one of his
children
> has matured to an equal or greater status and revels in the idea of the
> fact
Good thing God ain't a sponsor, then, or we'd never get a moment's peace.
At least this way he's left the earth be for the last few billion years
instead of prying into our affairs and offering a lot of unwanted, unneeded,
or unwarranted "help."
| |
| Chronocidal Charlie 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Craig S. wrote:
> "Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:i7sBf.32408$SD1.14660@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> possibilities:
> mighty
>
> There may be other, different ways of considering or measuring what
> "intelligence" is or might constitute. Believing that we could comprehend
> all the possibilities sort of arrogantly puts us at the top of the heap by
> default. The universe is a mighty big place and for all our smarts, we
> could be wiped out in a heartbeat. Our "intelligent" existence sure seems
> arbitrary.
We only have our commonly accepted human concept of intelligence as a basis
for comparison or speculation.
It seems flawed.
Perhaps we need to open our minds to the possibility that there is a form of
intelligence that we can't even begin to comprehend.
We like to say, "If you can dream it, you can achieve it."
But some of our dreams turn out to be nightmares.
But the scrambled egg, bologna and cheese sandwich made a miraculous
transformation in my outlook for the day. ;-)
I think I'll spend the day perfecting my gcc or compiler...
charlie@1[~]$ make intelligence
make: *** No rule to make target `intelligence'. Stop.
charlie@1[~]$ make intelligent
make: *** No rule to make target `intelligent'. Stop.
charlie@1[~]$ Make smart
bash: Make: command not found
charlie@1[~]$ make smart
make: *** No rule to make target `smart'. Stop.
charlie@1[~]$ Why
bash: Why: command not found
charlie@1[~]$ why
bash: why: command not found
charlie@1[~]$ dumb XXX
bash: dumb: command not found
charlie@1[~]$ smart XXX
bash: smart: command not found
charlie@1[~]$
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1mDdMvzmwLbIRXcRApSEAKCinO+7HK9U0Ew3IShaHe3RgXcdfgCdG7og
EN5kMya+UHpwT4h5WxuJT3U=
=9KsW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Craig S. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:citBf.28718$v05.20868@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> We only have our commonly accepted human concept of intelligence as a
basis
> for comparison or speculation.
>
> It seems flawed.
>
> Perhaps we need to open our minds to the possibility that there is a form
of
> intelligence that we can't even begin to comprehend.
"The sky is not blue. It merely looks that way because blue is the name we
have given that color."
-- George Carlin --
| |
|
| Craig S. wrote:
> "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in message
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Through financial pressure and political influence - sure it can.
"Guns don't kill people, people do."
| |
| Ted L. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:aeuat1t9itsbtma4t24pbv25l4nft58jvu@4ax.com...
> Just a question.
Just now in thinking about how I want to respond to your question I was
struck by something, which I'll throw out with little particular comment.
Our relationship with and knowlege about God is, to pick a somewhat
arbitrary number, 90% up to God -- we have little to do with it. "Religion"
is 90% up to man -- God has had little to do with it. Something seems wrong
with that imbalance.
OK, here's the quotation I had in mind...
"Deep down in human existence,
there is an experience of being cut off from life.
There is some memory of having been treated cruelly,
and - a little deeper, perhaps -
the memory of having treated someone else cruelly as well.
Deep down in human existence
there is an experience of seeing the light and turning away from it,
either because it is too beautiful to behold or
because it spoils the dank but familiar darkness.
Deep down in human existence
there is an experience of reaching for forbidden fruit,
of pushing away loving arms,
of breaking something on purpose just to prove you can.
Deep down in human existence
there is an experience of doing whatever is necessary to feed and comfort
the self,
because there is no one else to trust,
no other purpose to serve,
no other god to follow."
"Speaking of Sin, " by
Barbara Brown Taylor, pp. 62-63
Will living forever (or some approximation thereof) change that?
It is *not* life after death that is the question that we need answers to,
but how do we live the life we have?
More later...
--
Ted L.
Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
| |
| GaryE 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:57:02 GMT, Chronocidal Charlie
<clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote:
>Are you saying that you had hoped for a standing ovation with unanimous
>applause and no one sitting silent or a total assenting "nod as one" rather
>than mixed reaction with both yeas and nays from the committee?
No, but apparently you like the characterization for your own
purposes.
>And seriously Gary, the above is not a cutely couched "What the hell did you
>expect?" question, nor "Things didn't work out to your expectations did
>they!" negative putdown nor attempt at invalidation.
I would have like to have seen a little creativity in addressing the
premise. It's a little out of the box, for sure. But since I don't
have to believe anything but what I want to believe, I'm free to do
this.
>
>I realize Ted L. hasn't shown up to address the question that was proposed
>to him. I'm curious as to whether he will exercise bite or flight.
>
>The meat and summarization of the question as I perceived *it* still
>survives Gary.
>And although I don't know about anyone else's replies, I looked at two words
>there, not two words only, but two that stared out at me...
>
>Let's look at the word *perfect* and what I believe most of us see as a
>define of *it*
>Now lets look at *human*
I think in your analysis and focus on two specific words missed my
point., or my expectation, whichever you like. But then, you had
your own purpose, so be it. I'm just throwing ideas out there. They
are based on what I've read and understand. No big deal. Addressing
it to Ted L., was a bit of play on my part. It's pretty well opposite
of what I read of him, so thought I'd see what he might say..if he
would close up and knock it down or just play with and have a little
fun being creative. I do like out of the box type thinking because I
really believe that if you keep saying and doing the same things, you
keep getting the same results. If you got it down, that's OK. But I
don't. got it down.
>That to me brings up, Porky Pine's remark, ?Thar?s only two possibilities:
>Thar is life out there in the universe which is smarter than we are, or
>we?re the most intelligent life in the universe. Either way, it?s a mighty
>sobering thought.?
That would be tangental to my main premise which is that science might
be able to deliver on the staying alive promise better than religion.
Heretical, to be sure. But I've got some ten years of heretical
thoughts going now and I like it more and more. Who knew? I reserve
the right to change my mind, of course. If God lands in my back seat
and tells me that I'm in deep shit with the main power in the whole
universe, then I need to listen up.
>
>Would that *someone* or "entire intelligent eternal 'population' be the
>*alpha* and *omega* and perceive it's self as such and could we accept it?
I haven't got that far yet. Not sure it's relevant to what I was
doing. Not even sure I understand the question.
>
>Particularly when we have not yet even seemingly evolved to where we as
>individuals can accept something as simple as Max Ehrmann said in our
>dealings with each other...
I think we probably have evolved as far as we can at this moment in
time. I think there is more truth to be learned in the future if we
can stand it. If one gets heavily vested in the past though, future
truth's are probably irrelevant or maybe even threatening. I think it
is fairly common for people to vest heavily in what they believe
because they make it part of their persona. I like to not be vested
so heavily because I can still learn if I'm able to break out of my
mold(y) person and listen for a moment. More will be revealed is not
just bullshit, is it?
I'm sure the flat earth people were pissed and resentful to find
that one of their main premises was not actually true. Besides we all
pretty well know that religion, for example, is a divider more than it
is a unifier. Jesus is purported to have said that he came to bring a
sword, and father against son, and vice versa. A part of his dual
personality. Love your enemies but disown your father if he doesn't
believe.
>
>"If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter;
>for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
>Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans."
I'm missing the point of this entirely. Are your trying to give me
some advice?
>
>Essentially, to cut this short since I'm getting hungry and need to get off
>my XXX and fix me some breakfast, *My* *concept* of *God* in response to
>the question you posed for what ever reason you posed it...
From my perspective, this wasn't about anyone's concept of God unless,
of couse the took it that way.
>
>Similar to a *father* who wakes up one day and realizes one of his children
>has matured to an equal or greater status and revels in the idea of the
>fact, and says...
>
>"My seed has borne fruit."
>
>or simply a non-committal,
>
>"So What!"
That would be a human response, would it not? The other Father that
I'm familiar with would make sure his progeny was obedient first and
foremost. And via his human incarnation, loving of his neighbors,
his enemies, and turning the other cheek. Don't see much of that.
Wonder why?
>
>If it was perfect, *it* just might not give a shit one way or the other and
>*we* having attained perfection wouldn't give a shit if *it* gave a shit
>one way nor the other since we would have no need for *it's* approval.
I need to try to stay from absolute kind of words when I'm playing
with ideas. It's distracting and tends to generate opposition rather
than thought because a word or two turns out to be, in fact, my
hyperbole but is taken in some literal sense.
Best,
GaryE
| |
|
| Ted L. wrote:
> OK, here's the quotation I had in mind...
>
> "Deep down in human existence,
> there is an experience of being cut off from life.
Or maybe the shocking introduction *to* it?
> There is some memory of having been treated cruelly,
> and - a little deeper, perhaps -
> the memory of having treated someone else cruelly as well.
Having your first greeting be the spanking of your tiny bare XXX is a
hell of a way to start a game where cruelty tends to be viewed as
counterproductive.
> Deep down in human existence
> there is an experience of seeing the light and turning away from it,
> either because it is too beautiful to behold or
> because it spoils the dank but familiar darkness.
Dank? There was darkness alright, and the peaceful condition of a
little water creature living in a realm of amniotic fluid suddenly
disturbed with a stern invitation to give up those silent blissful
comforts and become an air breathing mammal in a frightening, noisy
environment, entirely dependent on other mammals (who may or may not
have been in a welcoming mood) for survival. "Deep down experience of
seeing the light" indeed.
| |
|
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:44:39 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Having your first greeting be the spanking of your tiny bare XXX is a
>hell of a way to start a game where cruelty tends to be viewed as
>counterproductive.
Not mention for some of us having chunk of pecker trimmed off too!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
| |
|
| Tex wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:44:39 GMT, "F.H." wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Not mention for some of us having chunk of pecker trimmed off too!
Another cruel act by religions.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <dr49ni$1rs$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, marioneta del calcetín
<marioneta@nopam.com> wrote:
> Interesting how some with a track record of emotional inadequacy as
> revealed by the substitution of chemical dependency for disciplines
> necessary to maintain emotional health, rely on faith in the future
> of science as being a substitute superior to the disciplines
> associated with faith in the presence of God.
>
> Without appropriate management, what use would a new body be?
If you mistake "chemical dependency" for some sort of "substitution for
emotional inadequacy" then you clearly just wouldn't understand. Lord,
or Reality, knows what emotional inadequacy has you fumbling in this NG
at all.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <cfiBf.738$yj6.535@fe03.lga>, Craig S.
<cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutcharter.net> wrote:
> Humans still must be brought
> into the world. I don't see the old-fashioned way going out of favor any
> time soon.
You mean purchasing sperm bank deposits to mix with eggs in the labs
and hiring surrogate wombs for fetal development until they baby is cut
out will be with us for awhile?
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <aeuat1t9itsbtma4t24pbv25l4nft58jvu@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote:
> Let's just suppose we all could
> live forever. What kind of change would that create?
Only the richest and most powerful would get to, of course.
Heck, we already have millions and millions of people die every year
for lack of the most basic resources. The musical chair basis of life
in this world has always been something of a pressure relief valve,
even for the richest and most powerful. Once the emptying of those
chairs, and thrones, is thwarted... well...
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <3ljbt19ep074kv2fd8mriqj87up4obvuj1@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote:
> To the point where anything which seems in contrast or
> even opposes it has to be bad and flawed. Religion, it seems to me,
> has always considered science a threat. Man's need to understand his
> reality and facts indeed, seem to be a threat to religion.
A sorrier "threat" are those that are so blindly bigoted that they
can't even see that they're speaking of and from their own religion, in
denouncement of only others'.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <9BnBf.1209$772.1029@fe05.lga>, Craig S.
<cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutcharter.net> wrote:
> "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bYjBf.31326$RK3.8674@trnddc06...
>
>
> Given the earth's present population that's continuing to grow, especially
> in countries and areas that barely are able to provide sustenance and basic
> services anyway, that idea that improved genetic coding will somehow trickle
> thoughout all the world's people seems perhaps too far off in the future to
> be valid at this point, considering the somewhat unstable political and
> economic climate that always seems to be nipping at our collective heels.
> Heck, we can't even feed everyone. Yes, improved genetics seems like a rich
> man's game. Of course, those better genes would still trickle down in the
> same old fashioned way as they always have - with rich men diddling the
> hired help.
In class warfare, such liability persons are given jobs that kill them
off. Along with genetically tinkering The Superior Race, comes the
importance of not allowing the Inferior Mutts to spread too far.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <3ljbt19ep074kv2fd8mriqj87up4obvuj1@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote:
> And some proclaimed God as the only viable
> source. The same God who ...
Atheistic agnostics always insist on just their own disbelieved
concepts of God. It's as ted-ious as the religious proslytizers.
It couldn't get more obvious that "if there was a god" then reality
would be, or seem, just like it is/does to us now. And that there'd be
a basis for that which would be every bit as, and likely vastly more
than, intelligent than our puny version of rating it all.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <9EjBf.20160$1J1.3030@tornado.texas.rr.com>, Chronocidal
Charlie <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote:
> How much blood and
> horror is the basis for all "good things."
I'm currently reading the book, "The Lucifer Principle", which has a
fascinating take on this.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| In article <dgbct1dvhpmm142ulkq23hkmkedjrnaob8@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> The first order given to man. Don't try to get smart. You'll be
> sorry.
How do folks so blithely run by the fact that it's "the fruit of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil"? Must be a preferred
disbelieved concept, instead, that's maybe handier for pretending
another blame/criticism.
| |
| Ted L. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "Ted L." <Tedl719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IitBf.146$Tk.125051@news.sisna.com...
>
> More later...
>
OK, Gary, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, isn't the real
question not "is there life after death?" but is there more to and going on
in this universe than what science is able to observe? (or something like
that.) For all of recorded history (and no doubt before that) various
people have said that there is, in the context of their equivalent of
science, i.e., how things "normally" work. Behind the wishful thinking,
story telling, imagined explanations, legal fictions, and even unusual
mental states is there any underlying truth, or reality, to what those
people have said?
If the answer to that question is "no", end of discussion.
If not, the sky's the limit. But I guess we do have to remember that if
that reality exists, it is what it is -- not necessarily what we think it
ought to be.
--
Ted L.
Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
| |
| Ted L. 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| "Craig S." <cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote in message
news:XMsBf.163$4I6.35@fe03.lga...
>
> Good thing God ain't a sponsor, then, or we'd never get a moment's peace.
> At least this way he's left the earth be for the last few billion years
> instead of prying into our affairs and offering a lot of unwanted,
unneeded,
> or unwarranted "help."
>
You think so, eh?
--
Ted L.
Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
| |
| GaryE 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:40:33 -0600, "Ted L."
<Tedl719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Ted L." <Tedl719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:IitBf.146$Tk.125051@news.sisna.com...
>
>OK, Gary, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, isn't the real
>question not "is there life after death?" but is there more to and going on
>in this universe than what science is able to observe?
I would not disagree with that. But. More what? More natural laws?
More phenomena that we are not able to experience in the minute space
we occupy and observe from? The notion that there has to be more than
this? Now that's closer, isn't it? What 'we' don't know can be
ascribed to whatever one wants. We really don't know why we have a
universe at all. It would be reasonable to figure we will never
figure it out. That's the 'why is there something rather than nothing
question". There is the problem that our abilities and senses are
probably limited as we are likely a finite unit in terms of what are
capable of understanding, assuming infinity?
However we can learn still. Or we can take the truth that was
gleaned from the past in either science or religion of what ever we
like as truth, and say 'is that all there is?" (Peggy Lee). I just
recall once in a while someone telling me that if you think you can't
do something, you are going to be right? If we think we can't
understand something, we are going to be right. I feel like we really
know but a little, you see. Don't know exactly why, but I keep trying
to learn even to expand my own existence into something which I
consider more. More interesting if nothing else. I discovered a few
years back that I am my own worst enemy and one of the top reasons why
is allowing myself to get bored. But what if the payoff is more life?
More of the existing reality? I don't know, seems worth a look.
(or something like
>that.) For all of recorded history (and no doubt before that) various
>people have said that there is, in the context of their equivalent of
>science, i.e., how things "normally" work. Behind the wishful thinking,
>story telling, imagined explanations, legal fictions, and even unusual
>mental states is there any underlying truth, or reality, to what those
>people have said?
We are thinking (learning) machines or people, if you like. We seem
to be programmed that way or maybe let's assume that it's in us. A
basic function of the unit. If this, then that. But we all have
slightly different If this, then that, data bases, which respond to
differing conditions in differing ways. No two alike, right? Closest
thing we have that gets that is twins. Duplicate coding, is that not
so? Early on, almost same experiences so the coding creates similar
responses. Twins are very important to understanding some human
phenomena.
>
>If the answer to that question is "no", end of discussion.
>If not, the sky's the limit. But I guess we do have to remember that if
>that reality exists, it is what it is -- not necessarily what we think it
>ought to be.
I've been involved, many years ago as a college student in philosophy
courses that pose the question of what is 'reality' and what is
'truth' and what is 'good'. We studied people who put forth their
own answers to those questions. They were all limited in the sense of
what they would accept as their own version of reality or fact. And
they are ultimately going to be dated because we collectively learn
more through scientific investigation about our world and ourselves a
more manageable (to this time) base of information, important
information that only breaks down into complexity at extremely lower
levels of reality. I don't think we learn more about philosophy
and/or religion, a somewhat branch of philosophy. Could be wrong,
but I don't see that. What kind of philosophy is it that says it's
cool to blow yourself up and end your existence and that of others?
Does that not hurt your head? Such a conclusion would not likely come
from what we see as science. Science doesn't espouse killing
anything, does it. Must revere life more. Is that fair? But you
see, we are still learning throug science but religion had all their
answers long ago. You can't learn more when you know all the answers?
Fair?
Back then, we had to suppose that all that we actually experience
materially is only what it seems, not what it is. In other words, we
are not capable or realizing reality. I thought that was a bit
absurd, at the time. In other words, what we see as reality is not
objective, not even real. We see 'colors' which we define for our own
purposes but what is real is wave lengths. And then we look at wave
lengths and discover that at some point, they seem to disappear from
our observation. My my.
Who needs that kind of reality. Not much point in life if that's it.
So the unit invents a reality. We name colors that are really
different wave lengths on a spectrum so we 'create' something.
We create other unknowns into something we can use. Make sense?
Now what if we didn't have death? Or suppose we could exist as long as
Methuselah. Would we have to shift our reality to conform? Do we
'gain' (seeing that is a self made and self defined situation)? And
what does that have to do with drinking alcohol because all we really
need to be concerned with is memorizing pages or phrases out the Big
Book or AA or religion or whatever. It doesn't matter much if we die.
But what if we live. I mean a very long time. Will we change our view
of reality and create another one? Would you want to die and go to
heaven if we suddenly had a breakthrough and found it we could
generally extend life without creating it for the haves and not for
the have nots? Universal. Y'all come. What might that change for
you? We would still have taxes. (:>
Best,
GaryE
| |
| David M 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| Ted L. wrote:
> OK, Gary, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, isn't the
> real question not "is there life after death?" but is there more
> to and going on in this universe than what science is able to
> observe? (or something like that.)
No scientist worth his salt would ever deny that there are more
things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than he can now observe. That
is why he keeps theorizing and testing and revising, because he has
found that by doing so he is able to explain more and observe more.
| |
| Tommy 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| Craig S. wrote:
> "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bYjBf.31326$RK3.8674@trnddc06...
>
> especially in countries and areas that barely are able to provide
> sustenance and basic services anyway, that idea that improved genetic
> coding will somehow trickle thoughout all the world's people seems
> perhaps too far off in the future to be valid at this point,
> considering the somewhat unstable political and economic climate that
> always seems to be nipping at our collective heels. Heck, we can't
> even feed everyone. Yes, improved genetics seems like a rich man's
> game. Of course, those better genes would still trickle down in the
> same old fashioned way as they always have - with rich men diddling
> the hired help.
Or the religious, the religous 'RIGHT' I think they call themselves. The
Ted Ls and Falwells of this world. They'll diddle anything that has a
crack.
Has there ever been decency and goodness n the world.
Reading the histories of various peoples is there or was there ever a people
who just wanted to live in peace and harmony.
Maybe there's a genetic code somewhere in the human genome that can be
decoded and implanted. Where would one start though. :-)
Once upon a time the Japanese, the Indians (of India) the Chinese even, but
they were hill people. Oh well even my own countrymen don't escape. What
about allowing priests to marry, they'd have good genetics. Oops they do
allow proddie priests to marry and it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Looks like this is where we came in - In the Beginning there was -------
|ZZZZ yawns
Bring back Atheism :-))
Cheers
Tommy
| |
| Tommy 2006-01-27, 11:02 am |
| Craig S. wrote:
> "Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:citBf.28718$v05.20868@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> "The sky is not blue. It merely looks that way because blue is the
> name we have given that color."
> -- George Carlin --
Hmm, they failed in Russia to outlaw religion - I wonder why.
The opium of the masses.
Japan and China and, India, Pakistan, the Far and Near East, Nth Korea,
Cambodia, Vietna, now why do I get the impression that all the ills of the
world are considered the property of Chistians
Why???
Because anti-christians can and do speak freely about any lies they can
conceive.
Try doing this in an anti-christian country lads. Go on I dare you. Know
something else that could bother one, if chrisitanity is so wrong, bad and
evil, why is it the last bastion against the enemies of freedom, and
depreovation of civil rights.
Ha its easy to write tripe when your only weapon is a cooking pot :-))
Many prominent neoconservatives are calling on America not only to conquer
Iraq (and perhaps more Muslim nations after that), but also to rebuild Iraqi
society in order to jumpstart the democratization of the Middle East. Yet,
Americans know so little about the Middle East that few of us are even aware
of one of one of the building blocks of Arab Muslim cultures -- cousin
marriage. Not surprisingly, we are almost utterly innocent of any
understanding of how much the high degree of inbreeding in Iraq could
interfere with our nation building ambitions.
In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are
first or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married
hospital patients and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or
second cousin, while a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were "consanguineously"
married. The most prominent example of an Iraqi first cousin marriage is
that of Saddam Hussein and his first wife Sajida.
By fostering intense family loyalties and strong nepotistic urges,
inbreeding makes the development of civil society more difficult. Many
Americans have heard by now that Iraq is composed of three ethnic groups --
the Kurds of the north, the Sunnis of the center, and the Shi'ites of the
south. Clearly, these ethnic rivalries would complicate the task of ruling
reforming Iraq. But that's just a top-down summary of Iraq's ethnic make-up.
Each of those three ethnic groups is divisible into smaller and smaller
tribes, clans, and inbred extended families -- each with their own
alliances, rivals, and feuds. And the engine at the bottom of these
bedeviling social divisions is the oft-ignored institution of cousin
marriage.
The fractiousness and tribalism of Middle Eastern countries have frequently
been remarked. In 1931, King Feisal of Iraq described his subjects as
"devoid of any patriotic idea, ? connected by no common tie, giving ear to
evil; prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government
whatever." The clannishness, corruption, and coups frequently observed in
countries such as Iraq appears to be in tied to the high rates of
inbreeding.
Muslim countries are usually known for warm, devoted extended family
relationships, but also for weak patriotism. In the U.S., where
individualism is so strong, many assume that "family values" and civic
virtues such as sacrificing for the good of society always go together. But,
in Islamic countries, loyalty to extended (as opposed to nuclear) families
is often at war with loyalty to nation. Civic virtues, military
effectiveness, and economic performance all suffer.
Commentator Randall Parker wrote, "Consanguinity [cousin marriage] is the
biggest underappreciated factor in Western analyses of Middle Eastern
politics. Most Western political theorists seem blind to the importance of
pre-ideological kinship-based political bonds in large part because those
bonds are not derived from abstract Western ideological models of how
societies and political systems should be organized. ? Extended families
that are incredibly tightly bound are really the enemy of civil society
because the alliances of family override any consideration of fairness to
people in the larger society. Yet, this obvious fact is missing from 99% of
the discussions about what is wrong with the Middle East. How can we
transform Iraq into a modern liberal democracy if every government worker
sees a government job as a route to helping out his clan at the expense of
other clans?"
Retired U.S. Army colonel Norvell De Atkine spent years trying to train
America's Arab allies in modern combat techniques. In an article in American
Diplomacy entitled, "Why Arabs Lose Wars," a frustrated De Atkine explained,
"First, the well-known lack of trust among Arabs for anyone outside their
own family adversely affects offensive operations? In a culture in which
almost every sphere of human endeavor, including business and social
relationships, is based on a family structure, this orientation is also
present in the military, particularly in the stress of battle. "Offensive
action, basically, consists of fire and maneuver," De Atkine continued. "The
maneuver element must be confident that supporting units or arms are
providing covering fire. If there is a lack of trust in that support,
getting troops moving forward against dug-in defenders is possible only by
officers getting out front and leading, something that has not been a
characteristic of Arab leadership."
Similarly, as Francis Fukuyama described in his 1995 book "Trust: The Social
Virtues & the Creation of Prosperity," countries such as Italy with highly
loyal extended families can generate dynamic family firms. Yet, their larger
corporations tend to be rife with goldbricking, corruption, and nepotism,
all because their employees don't trust each other to show their highest
loyalty to the firm rather than their own extended families. Arab cultures
are more family-focused than even Sicily, and thus their larger economic
enterprises suffer even more.
American society is so biased against inbreeding that many Americans have a
hard time even conceiving of marrying a cousin. Yet, arranged matches
between first cousins (especially between the children of brothers) are
considered the ideal throughout much of a broad expanse from North Africa
through West Asia and into Pakistan and India.
In contrast, Americans probably disapprove of what scientists call
"consanguineous" mating more than any other nationality. Three huge studies
in the U.S. between 1941 and 1981 found that no more than 0.2% of all
American marriages were between first cousins or second cousins.
Americans have long dismissed cousin marriage as something practiced only
among hillbillies. That old stereotype of inbred mountaineers waging decades
long blood feuds had some truth to it. One study of 107 marriages in Beech
Creek, Kentucky in 1942 found 19% were consanguineous, although the
Kentuckians were more inclined toward second cousin marriages, while first
cousin couples are more common than second cousins pairings in the Islamic
lands.
Cousin marriage averages not much more than one percent in most European
countries, and under 10% in the rest of the world outside that Morocco to
Southern India corridor.
Muslim immigration, however, has been boosting Europe's low level of
consanguinity. According to the leading authority on inbreeding, geneticist
Alan H. Bittles of Edith Cowan U. in Perth, Australia, "In the resident
Pakistani community of some 0.5 million [in Britain] an estimated 50% to
60+% of marriages are consanguineous, with evidence that their prevalence is
increasing." (Bittles' Web-site www.Consang.net presents the results of
several hundred studies of the prevalence of inbreeding around the world.)
European nations have recently become increasingly hostile toward the common
practice among their Muslim immigrants of arranging marriages between their
children and citizens of their home country, frequently their relatives. One
study of Turkish guest-workers in the Danish city of Ish?und that 98% --
1st, 2nd and 3rd generation -- married a spouse from Turkey who then came
and lived in Denmark. (Turks, however, are quite a bit less enthusiastic
about cousin marriage than are Arabs or Pakistanis, which correlates with
the much stronger degree of patriotism found in Turkey.)
European "family reunification" laws present an immigrant with the
opportunity to bring in his nephew by marrying his daughter to him. Not
surprisingly, "family reunification" almost always works just in one
direction -- with the new husband moving from the poor Muslim country to the
rich European country.
If a European-born daughter refused to marry her cousin from the old country
just because she doesn't love him, that would deprive her extended family of
the boon of an immigration visa. So, intense family pressure can fall on the
daughter to do as she is told.
The new Danish right wing government has introduced legislation to crack
down on these kind of marriages arranged to generate visas. British Home
Secretary David Blunkett has called for immigrants to arrange more marriages
within Britain.
Unlike the Middle East, Europe underwent what Samuel P. Huntington calls the
"Romeo and Juliet revolution." Europeans became increasingly sympathetic
toward the right of a young woman to marry the man she loves. Setting the
stage for this was the Catholic Church's long war against cousin marriage,
even out to fourth cousins or higher. This weakened the extended family in
Europe, thus lessening the advantages of arranged marriages. It also
strengthened broader institutions like the Church and the nation-state.
Islam itself may not be responsible for the high rates of inbreeding in
Muslim countries. (Similarly high levels of consanguinity are found among
Hindus in Southern India, although there, uncle-niece marriages are socially
preferred, even though their degree of genetic similarity is twice that of
cousin marriages, with worse health consequences for offspring.)
Rafat Hussain, a Pakistani-born Senior Lecturer at the U. of New England in
Australia, told me, "Islam does not specifically encourage cousin marriages
and, in fact, in the early days of the spread of Islam, marriages outside
the clan were highly desirable to increase cultural and religious
influence." She adds, "The practice has little do with Islam (or in fact any
religion) and has been a prevalent cultural norm before Islam." Inbreeding
(or "endogamy") is also common among Christians in the Middle East, although
less so than among Muslims.
The Muslim practice is similar to older Middle Eastern norms, such as those
outlined in Leviticus in the Old Testament. The lineage of the Hebrew
Patriarchs who founded the Jewish people was highly inbred. Abraham said his
wife Sarah was also his half-sister. His son Isaac married Rebekah, a cousin
once removed. And Isaac's son Jacob wed his two first cousins, Leah and
Rachel.
Jacob's dozen sons were the famous progenitors of the Twelve Tribes of
Israel. Due to inbreeding, Jacob's eight legitimate sons had only six unique
great-grandparents instead of the usual eight. That's because the inbred are
related to their relatives through multiple paths.
Why do so many people around the world prefer to keep marriage in the
family? Hussain noted, "In patriarchal societies where parents exert
considerable influence and gender segregation is followed more strictly,
marriage choice is limited to whom you know. While there is some pride in
staying within the inner bounds of family for social or economic reasons,
the more important issue is: Where will parents find a good match? Often, it
boils down to whom you know and can trust."
Another important motivation -- one that is particularly important in many
herding cultures, such as the ancients ones from which the Jews and Muslims
emerged -- is to prevent inheritable wealth from being split among too many
descendents. This can be especially important when there are economies of
scale in the family business.
Just as the inbred have fewer unique ancestors than the outbred, they also
have fewer unique heirs, helping keep both the inheritance and the brothers
together. When a herd-owning patriarch marries his son off to his younger
brother's daughter, he insures that his grandson and his grandnephew will be
the same person. Likewise, the younger brother benefits from knowing that
his grandson will also be the patriarch's grandson and heir. Thus, by making
sibling rivalry over inheritance less relevant, cousin marriage emotionally
unites families.
The anthropologist Carleton Coon also pointed out that by minimizing the
number of relatives a Bedouin Arab nomad has, this system of inbreeding
"does not overextend the number of persons whose deaths an honorable man
must avenge."
Of course, there are also disadvantages to inbreeding. The best known is
medical. Being inbred increases the chance of inheriting genetic syndromes
caused by malign recessive genes. Bittles found that, after controlling for
socio-economic factors, the babies of first cousins had about a 30% higher
chance of dying before their first birthdays.
The biggest disadvantage, however, may be political.
Are Muslims, especially Arabs, so much more loyal to their families than to
their nations because, due to countless generations of cousin marriages,
they are so much more genealogically related to their families than
Westerners are related to theirs? Frank Salter, a political scientist at the
Max Planck Institute in Germany whose new book "Risky Transactions: Trust,
Kinship, and Ethnicity" takes a sociobiological look at the reason why Mafia
families are indeed families, told me, "That's my hunch; at least it's bound
to be a factor."
One of the basic laws of modern evolutionary science, quantified by the
great Oxford biologist William D. Hamilton in 1964 under the name "kin
selection," is that the more close the genetic relationship between two
people, the more likely they are to feel loyalty and altruism toward each
other. Natural selection has molded us not just to try to propagate our own
genes, but to help our relatives, who possess copies of some of our specific
genes, to propagate | | |