[I'll just amplify where necessary; there isn't much.]
On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To the extent that you want to argue that scientific
pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything else,
I'm likely to agree. At the same time, study of behavior in other
animals can tell us a *lot* about our own.
In the same sense that studying the atmosphere of other planets helps us
understand our own, definitely. Contrast and compare is always useful in
developing an understanding. It provides a framework in which to evaluate;
even if one is primarily interested in only one of the many examples
considered.
I was thinking more along the lines of understanding where our own proclivities come from. If we study the behavior of chimps and bonobos, we can see not just how we're similar, but possibly *why* we occasionally get the urges we do.
Back in the 70s there was a bizarre counterculture movement that involved, among other things, "The Church of the SubGenius". One of the eople involved in that, Robert Anton Wilson, used to call most of what goes on in the world "primate politics". Territoriality, petty squabbles and crap-throwing, on almost any level you care to analyze. While it's a simplistic interpretation (necessary for satirical effect), it's worth considering. Just how much of our modern parochialism, nationalism and certainty we know the One True God is rooted in our ape brains?
One that recognizes that accomplishments have merit
that can't or won't necessarily be valued strictly in terms of dollars.
Pablo Picasso or Vincent van Gogh, anyone?
I think I understand your point, but you probably have picked a bad examples, their paintings sell for millions. :-)
Now they do. Van Gogh died in poverty. IIRC Picasso did as well. They're recognized now for their brilliance but at the time they weren't so appreciated. A strictly capitalist culture wold have considered them worthless and marginalized them further, or insisted they "get a job" -- possibly at the local Wal-Mart, in the housepaint section.
Capitalism is not inherently evil but it is capable of focusing too narrowly on one scale of measurement, and that can become evil when misapplied.
Actually the world seems much more a balance of trades and compromises.
In one sense, that is true. We make tradeoffs and compromises because
our power is limited. Sometimes we chose bad over worse. But, in another
sense, I don't think that's true. I don't think those with nothing to trade
lose their rights as humans.
Everyone always has something to trade. I don't mean in the literal sense; I mean we work with compromise every day, in our ways of thinking, feeling and doing things.
It would be a very bad idea for me to suppress or oppress and count on permanence in my supremacy -- one mistake and those whom I've oppressed will very definitely rise up and strike me down.
But, if that were true, why did oppression often last for centuries without
a successful revolt?
Alpha-male control over local groups (yep, back to primate politics again!). In a pack of chimpanzees it's a Very Bad Idea to challenge the leader ... and lose. Those who side with the loser tend to be pretty harshly punished.
What happens to revolts against oppressive human leaders, when those revolts fail?
More than that, people *can* get used to nasty brutish situations, normalized to them. As you've suggested in a different vein, they've been so habituated to a given way of living they don't really see into alternatives, or that alternatives might even exist.
But ... suppose you're an oppressed person and you have an opportunity to quietly slit the throat of some vile evil overlord, sneakily and without being caught.
If you want a modern example, where is the punishment
for executives who fatten their own pockets at the expense of their workers
and the shareholders of the companies they run?
That's a system corrupted by wealth.
How many abusive husbands are beaten in return?
More importantly, how many are castrated or shot?
I think people do get away with hurting other people for a lesser gain of
their own. Not all the time, mind you. But enough to make the statement
that "altruistic behavior is sometimes in one's own self interest and
sometimes not" valid.
Sure.
What other reason besides the understanding that it is the wrong thing
to do? Because the people stepped upon on to gain an advantage are just
as important as the person who contemplates the stepping.
They're potentially as valid, sure. I think I'm one of those people who
believes that one has to earn the right to call oneself human, and that
that right can be forfeit depending on one's actions. A kind of
nontheistic fall from grace, with possibility of repentance, and
definitely with a liberal dose of "original sin" in the idea that at
some point or another one really does have to produce *something* of
merit.
I find earned humanity rather problematic.
Good.
Let me ask several questions that illustrate some of my difficulties with earned humanity.
1) Are those who have been a net burden up until the present (i.e. children) sub-human because they have not overcome "original sin?"
Children are a special case. They are undeveloped and still acquiring the skills necessary to be contributing elements to the milieu. That said, the onus is on the parent/s (surrogate/s) to see that the children are raised appropriately and given the tools necessary to be worthwhile.
This means that the parent/s should not automatically expect help from others; but I do believe that it's in others' best interests to help anyway. (This is why, even though I have no kids, I always give a yea to school bond issues.)
2) Are severely handicapped people permanently sub-human?
I would think not since they lack the capacity to become a fully-functioning person.
3) Are high contributors superhuman and thus entitled to extra rights?
No; why would they be?
4) Do convicted felons forfeit their humanity, and are thus deserving of
any abusive actions?
Depends on what they did. Rapists and murderers, sure. Drug users, no.
5) Who gets to decide the value of contributions?
Why, the electorate. ;) What you might not have noticed was that the idea of earned humanity is one that's been in effect, to some degree or another, in the US for the last couple centuries. So we're still working on the answers to some of these questions.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
