On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 8:31 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >>>> >> >>>> >>>> So you agree with our subjugation if a more advanced civilization >>>> discovers their way to Earth? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> If I had to answer with one word it would be "Yes". If I thought your >>> scenario was a real >>> >>> possibility I'd give a more >>> nuanced answer >>> , >>> but >>> I don't for 3 reasons: >>> 1) My likes or dislikes on this matter would make no difference. >>> >> >> > >> They make no difference in this case, but they allow you to consider what >> the ethical behavior is when you are the advanced civilization >> > > Although it is > not popular to say so I don't think ethics are objective, > I tend to agree. > but that is not to say I think ethics are unimportant, far from it, I > think subjectivity is vastly more important than objectivity. > I am a bit surprised to read this from you. > And I think you've forgotten how this discussion started, the culture that > existed in Hawaii when Captain Cook landed there is long gone, the people > who live in Hawaii today live in the same culture you and I do regardless > of who their ancestors were 300 years ago. But in any culture you're going > to have individuals that are particularly stupid and ignorant and these > elements were allowed to destroy the Thirty Meter Telescope which would > have enriched the entire human race. > Perhaps you are right, but your certainties on such matters make me uneasy. Almost every time I travel somewhere new I discover that I was fed misconceptions and gross simplifications from the mainstream media of my own culture. > > And don't talk to me about cultural traditions, I seriously doubt many > Hawaiians think much about Mother Earth or Father Sky, I'm not at all sure > any of them do; > I think you have a very simplistic model of the human psyche. It is possible to hold powerful romantic/cultural notions without literally believing in the myths. In fact, the literal believers tend to be quite destructive (e.g ISIS or the Southern Baptist Church). > I think a small minority of people destroyed the > Thirty Meter Telescope > because they found that they could, and because they discovered that > power is fun, and > > because destruction is so much easier than construction. > But if you know these things and you don't practice them, then surely there's something else at play? You know that power is fun yet you are above such games. They know that power is fun and they embrace it. Why? Your theory seems incomplete. > > > >> > >> Your position overall seems to be that power=ethics. >> > > My position is: > > 1) Building the > Thirty Meter Telescope > would have been ethical, in fact it would have been a wonderful monument > to humanity; if that > advanced > alien > civilization > you talk about asked me for one reason why humanity was worth saving and > should not be destroyed I would have shown them the telescope. > You can still show them the Large Hadron Collider, or the Hubble Telescope, or the International Space Station, or thousands of other things. > > 2) Only the ethics of the powerful matter, > The powerful individuals in a society do not arrive in space ships. They are created within that society. > in this case we let a small group of ignoramuses have the power > And this reads like a contradiction of the above sentence. First you define this class of "the powerful", but then you render it meaningless by stating that even a group of ignoramuses can obtain that power. But at the same time you are a victim and the telescope is "destroyed" and there is nothing that can be done about it. > and they made a barbaric decision, and for reasons I don't understand some > people think it is liberal or progressive to make excuses for that barbaric > behavior. > > Somebody on this list told me it's not like it's a battle between the > forces of enlightenment and the forces of darkness, but I think that's > *EXACTLY* what it is. > > >> >> >>> Even is ET does exist we have nothing he would covet so there would be >>> no point in concurring us. >>> >> >> > >> That I don't know. They might be interested in expanding their living >> space to Earth, >> > > > If they have the technology for a interstellar invasion fleet then they'd > already have nanotechnology and > > von Neumann probes > > and could build a > > Dyson Sphere around their sun; hell we'll have the technology to do that > in > > less than a century, probably less than 50 years. Earth has nothing unique > to offer them that they couldn't obtain with > > nanotechnology > with a lot less trouble. > Sounds reasonable, but what about preventing us from becoming a threat? > > >> >>> > > >>> The Spaniards were total bastards, but the Aztecs were n >>> ot exactly goody-two-shoes >>> either. >>> >> >> > >> I never said the opposite. I am just saying that the Aztecs were not the >> invading force. >> > > And the reason the Aztecs were not the invading force wasn't because > they had better morals, it was because they had inferior technology. If > they had the ability the Aztecs would have happily invaded Spain. > I agree. > > > >> you have to take the cultural context into account. It is quite different >> to die in a way that you consider honorable and meaningful within you >> belief system, or die under an invading force. > > > Most scholars think the reason the Aztecs went to war with neighboring > tribes was to obtain prisoners they could torture to death in religious > ceremonies. The Aztecs were not the only culture to engage in human > sacrifice but I can't think of another that embraced the practice with such > gusto. > > > > >> >> >>> it's all irrelevant now of course, the Aztecs and Spaniards involved in >>> those controversial activities have been dead for 500 years, so today the >>> matter is of academic interest only. >>> >> >> > >> Well, the images that the telescopes can observe are also from a much >> more distant past. >> > > No, the telescope can't observe a goddamn thing thanks to a gang of > ignorant > barbarians and a gaggle of self described progressives who make excuses > for them. > I am surprised by your adoption of labeling such as "progressives", "politically correct", "liberals", etc. I honestly thought you would regard such a demonstration of herd mentality as beneath you. In my life I have been labeled as "too left-wing", "too right-wing", "too intellectual", "pseudo-intellectual", "anti-intellectual", "progressive", "conservative", etc, etc. I long ago realized that these labels are meaningless to the discussion and are only useful in identifying the tribe that the person who utters them identifies with. I also take the contradictory nature of such accusations as encouraging: I might be wrong, but I am trying to think for myself. Telmo. > > John K Clark > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
