On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 1/1/2016 3:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/28/2015 5:30 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 12/28/2015 2:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/27/2015 3:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/23/2015 1:12 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, John Clark < <[email protected]> >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 Telmo Menezes < <[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and their land is not your land. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I do not have the same faith in the divine right of inherited >>>>>>>> wealth as you do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nice dodge. Yes, let's put all in the same bag, Wall Street trust >>>>>>> fund kids and remote tribes wanting to keep living their way in *the >>>>>>> place >>>>>>> they were born in*. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not a big fan of >>>>>> >>>>>> Wall Street trust fund kids >>>>>> >>>>>> either, and if one of them owned one of the 3 places on the planet >>>>>> where a thirty meter telescope could be built and refused to let it be >>>>>> used >>>>>> for that purpose I would be in favor of using the law of eminent domain >>>>>> to >>>>>> force the brat to sell it. And by the way, no native Hawaiian or anybody >>>>>> else was ever born atop Mauna Kea, there is nothing living up there >>>>>> except >>>>>> for a few astronomers, and if native Hawaiians >>>>>> >>>>>> get there way soon there won't even be that, they want to remove all >>>>>> telescopes from the mountain including the world class ones that have >>>>>> been >>>>>> there for decades. Why do you defend these people? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't defend them. I think they should not interfere with the >>>>> construction of the telescope. All I am saying is that ramming things down >>>>> people's throats isn't working out so well. I am suggesting that something >>>>> like the "prime directive" is probably a good idea. It would be nice to >>>>> put >>>>> a telescope in a certain mountain, but it's not our mountain, so tough >>>>> shit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?? Why isn't it our mountain? The Hawaiians didn't create it. The >>>>> ownership of land is a concept invented and enforced by the U.S. and >>>>> Hawaiian state government. There's no ownership of land apart from the >>>>> society that enforces it. In this case the state of Hawaii owns the land >>>>> and they approved the use of the land for astronomy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is the usual confusion between lawful and ethical. >>>> The desire and need to have some control over one's environment already >>>> existed in biological species much more ancient than the Homo Sapeins. >>>> >>>> >>>> But among social animals it was joint ownership...which is exactly the >>>> kind of ownership the government exercises over. The Hawaiians are like a >>>> small fraction of the tribe who wants to have exclusive control of a part >>>> of the joint territory because they have supernatural myths they tell about >>>> it. >>>> >>> >>> Suppose that centuries from now we are capable of traveling to inhabited >>> planets in other star systems. We come across a planet populated by >>> humanoids who are roughly in the middle ages. They are terribly afraid of >>> us and regard us as the demons of some ancient prophecy of their religion. >>> Do we see them as part of our tribe, take over the planet and impose our >>> values and technology for the greater good? Or do we try to remain >>> benevolently distant until they are ready? And if we chose the first, isn't >>> it true that they were right to consider us demons to being with? >>> >>> >>> The ethical choice is number one. And the answer is no. >>> >> >> So you agree with our subjugation if a more advanced civilization >> discovers their way to Earth? >> >> >> I agree with our advancement, yes. Nobody said anything about >> "subjugation"...you're trying to move the goal posts. >> > > I would say that you assume that our current culture is so correct that > any advanced civilization would share our values, but with more advanced > tech. It is very hard to see the limitations of a culture from the inside > -- and I do not exclude myself from this observation, of course. > > What if their values were repulsive to you? Would you just trust that they > are more advanced, so they know better? > > > No; but then I wouldn't recognize them as "more advanced" either. > "Advanced" is ambiguous. You seem to use it sometimes in a general sense, > including ethics, and other times as purely technological and assuming > Ok, but I do this in the open. What I'm asking is precisely what you allude to: does technological advancement imply ethical advancement? John seems to be on the "yes" camp, although it's hard to tell because he avoids playing along in thought experiments. > > What if they are hyper-intelligent social insects, > > > I don't think that's possible under Darwinian evolution. > This sort of questions is why I like artificial life so much. The idea of being able to simulate other instances of Darwinism and try to figure out what the universals are. In any case, I suspect you're right about social insects -- although one could imagine higher intelligence emerging in the swarm (a common trope in sci-fi). > > and find our individualism barbaric? What if they don't value empathy at > all? > > > Then they wouldn't be social, wouldn't have a society, and wouldn't travel > here to conquer us. > Humm... is empathy really needed for collective behavior? Sure, it might not be a society as we understand it, but it could be some other form of collaboration dictated by game theory / evolutionary niches. > > > >> Educating the American indians wasn't subjugation. The only subjugation >> they suffer is being kept in traditional roles on reservations by their >> "leaders". >> > > If the education is not desired, then it's subjugation. If they didn't > want you in the land where they and their ancestors lived, then you took > that land by force. I am not saying that this can be avoided: nature is > brutal like that. But pretending that our motivations are nobler than that > of any other species our group that is just struggling for survival is > disingenuous. > > > See, you've switched the goal posts. This started with condemnation of > the West imposing non-slavery and no-human sacrifice on the Aztec empire. > Well but that is not really true is it? The western world enslaved the populations that it found in other continents and it might have gratuitously tortured them. I hesitate on referencing some texts because I am not sure about the quality of the sources. > Now you've moved it to saying we're not more noble than them because we > did it for ourselves. We're certainly more ethical by our standards. You > may say that the Aztecs standards are just as good - but I doubt that you > can believe it. > I prefer our standards. Again, this all started because I posited that "something akin to the prime directive might be a good idea". My stance is this: looking at our own culture we can see many flaws, and we can infer that other flaws that we don't see are likely. So it is wise to be conservative when interfering with other cultures, especially with their natural development. Notice also that I even express some doubt over my own position from the beginning. It is John who insists on black/white distinctions, the sort of: "either you agree with me or you're a barbaric moron". I do think that it is unwise to shout "imbecils" when you have conflicts of interest with other societies. But I do not oppose anyone's right to say what they think. I do not like it when something that I value highly -- science -- is used to generate ideological certainties. I feel that comes dangerously close with dancing with the devil (religious fundamentalism). And I also have the right to say what I think. Telmo. > > Brent > > -- > 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.
