On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:16 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > O > n Sun, Jan 3, 2016 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>> 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. >> > > Subjectivity, especially my subjectivity, is the most important thing in > the universe; or at least it is in my opinion. > > I am not disagreeing, it is just surprising to read this from you considering your consistent refusal to engage with arguments that rely on first person / third person distinctions. > > >> >>> >> >>> 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, >> > > Perhaps? Perhaps! In the pro versus anti telescope matter are you REALLY > uncertain about which side represents the forces of enlightenment and which > side represents the forces of darkness? > This is your usual trick of taking statements out of context. Perhaps you are right that native Hawaiians live in our culture -- perhaps not, as you yourself posit below when you claim to possess knowledge that they do not. Perhaps you are right that building scientific instruments at all costs is the way to enrich the entire human race -- perhaps not, and things are more complicated than that. > > >> > >> Almost every time I travel somewhere new I discover that I was fed >> misconceptions and gross simplifications from the mainstream media >> > > > The mainstream media > > has not reported on the issue and probably doesn't > even > know it exists, > Of course not, the mainstream media has devolved to pure entertainment + propaganda for the status quo. If you are looking for serious journalism there, you are wasting your time. Of course, I am not sufficiently optimistic to claim that you can find serious journalism anywhere in 2016. > and if they did would side with the barbarians or at least make excuses > for them just as you do. If they ever do something on it I can easily > visualize > a > puff piece on the Noble Hawaiians > and their colorful belief in Mother Earth and Father Sky. > You and the mainstream media > > would get along fine. > > >> >>> >> >>> 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. >> > > There is indeed something else at play, knowledge. 29% of the people in > the USA can't find the Pacific Ocean on a globe, the largest geological > feature on the planet. To those people the Thirty Meter Telescope would > have just been a big building. However I am not part of that 29%, I believe > I could find the Pacific Ocean on a map if I tried real hard and I believe > I could have recognized the beauty in the things the Thirty Meter Telescope > would have found, but people that don't even know what the Pacific Ocean is > could not. > > But, I hear you say, that means if I was as ignorant as they are I'd > oppose the telescope too. Well yes it's true I would, but I'm not so I > don't. And I don't think its moral to defend ignorance or make excuses for > ignorance or patronize ignorance, I think its moral to oppose it. > I agree with you that ignorance is probably the biggest problem of our times. What I am claiming (from the beginning) is that insulting the ignorant, or forcing their hand does not solve that problem. Insulting the ignorant makes you feel good about yourself and gives you a dopamine shot, but it accomplishes nothing. A more subtle problem is that it is not easy for us to be aware of our own ignorance. The rational response to this problem is to keep an open mind and a modest attitude. Forcing other people to conform to the world view and way of life of the dominant power does not produce good results either. We have endless historical examples of that, and we are suffering to this day from the most recent case: dumb military intervention in the Middle East. Let me ask you something: how many research grants and scientific resources could be created with the money that has been spent on unnecessary wars? On the TSA? On spying on everyone? Shouldn't we solve these things before claiming moral superiority? What about the fact that we not only tolerate but make allies out of one of the most brutal, anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-freedom regimes in existence (Saudi Arabia)? > > >> >>> 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, >> > > T > he International Space Station > is by far the most expensive "scientific" instrument ever made and is > also close to useless and a > particle accelerator has't found anything surprising in nearly half a > century > but telescopes certainly have and > the thirty meter telescope > > could > > have > > seen > t > hings 156 times dimmer > > than what the Hubble can see > > and WHY DO YOU DEFEND THESE PEOPLE? I don't get it. > I defend these people because they have done nothing to me and I don't remember being offered their land. > > >> >> >>> 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. >> > > Yes and liberals gave them the power to destroy because they believed > they deserved it due to who their ancestors were. I do not have that belief > so I guess I'm no longer a liberal. > Ok. The good thing with avoiding these labels to begin with is that you can investigate every question and form your own opinion, free of any tribal biases. I did not know that this was a core "liberal" belief, but surely it is contradictory, because from what I observe some types of people are not allowed to make similar claims. When they tried to steal Bundy's land and give it to a corporation, the liberals called him an old racist for defending his property (of course they also took advantage of the fact that he is too old to speak fluent PC and took some of his claims out of context). > > >> >> >>> 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. >> > > If history has taught us anything it's that being a ignorant person and > being a powerful person is not a contradiction. And the Hawaiians of > native descent have power only because liberals feel they must give power > to any vocal minority no matter how ignorant if they claim they are somehow > victims of a injustice that happened many centuries before they were born. > For decades I called myself a liberal until I ran into too many white > liberals with knee jerk guilt reactions over things that happened centuries > before their grandparents were born. I don't feel the slightest bit guilty > over bad stuff my great great great great grandfather may or may not have > done and if that diminishes my liberal credentials then so be it. > Ok, you are preaching to the choir. The ethical question we are investigating is: "what makes something yours". > > >> >>> 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? >> > > I works both ways, ET's home planet has nothing (other than information) > to offer us, if we need more living space > we can > just send a > > von Neumann probe > to Jupiter and program it to dismantle the planet and use the matter to > build a Dyson Sphere. Who needs a tiny planet a thousand light years away? > > >> 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 >> > > I like labels because coherent thought would be > > impossible without them. > You are making a logical mistake. The fact that coherent thought is not possible without categories does not imply that all categories are valid or useful. Some categories are just a subtle form of name calling / ad hominem, and I think this is the case for modern political labels. For example, "liberal" diverged so much from its original meaning (and in different directions, in Europe it's seen as a right-wing stance, in the US as left-wing) that I'm not sure it means anything anymore. So when you say you're no longer a liberal I don't feel that I received any useful information whatsoever. > So > I make no apology for pinning the label "anti-intellectual > > barbarian" to those who destroyed the telescope nor do I apologize for > pinning the label "knee jerk liberal" on those who feel it is their duty to > make excuses for them. > > I am not asking you to apologize. Remember that my only stance in this discussion was "I think that something akin to the prime directive might be a good idea". You are so emotional about this that it's hard to have a serious discussion about this simple proposition. You then proceeded to attach all sorts of labels to me and other people instead of arguing. Notice that I even say "it might be...". You're the one with all the certainties. > I have some other labels I could use too but you probably don't want to > hear about those. > Please feel free. > > >> >> > >> are only useful in identifying the tribe that the person who utters them >> identifies with. >> > > I identify with the knowledge tribe. Are you sure you want to identify > with the ignorance tribe? > To a degree yes. I feel more ignorant as I age, not less so. This makes sense because unknown unknowns become known unknowns (to steal from Donald Rumsfeld's epistemological theory). 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.
