Re: What is wealth?
Wealth can be defined in evolutionary terms. Whatever enhances your health, your security, your status or your power in the group is wealth. In other words -- in a state of nature -- anything the possession of which improves your reproductive fitness. That is the ultimate basis of the concept of wealth, and all our elaborations and abstractions don't change that much. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net To: Killer Bs Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: 12/11/2008 3:58 PM Subject: Re: What is wealth? At 12:01 PM Thursday 12/11/2008, Nick Arnett wrote: Wealth is making $100 more than your wife's sister's husband, according to H.L. Mencken. I think others have suggested that it's making more than your wife can spend . . . Don't Shoot The Messenger Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically I agree. Ask just about anyone this question: supposing you were going to be placed, at random, into any soceity on Earth -- you do not know what social status you will have, what your income level will be, even what gender or nationality you will be -- the only choice you get is the initial choice of countries. In what country would you most like to be placed, totally at random? From my point of view, it has to be the United States of Western Europe. In most of the rest of the world, the odds would be stacked against you. Olin - Original Message - From: Euan Ritchiemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. Non-wealthy people living in the modern democracies enjoy the greatest freedoms and wealth available to the non-elite in human history. With the possible exception of pre-farming/pre-nation state humanity where everyone was pretty much equally well off in the prosperous environments. But you'd have to make a value judgement on how much you value modern amenities for that one. There is an argument to be made that, oh say, a thousand years ago the simple life of a healthy peasant farmer was rewarding and enoyable living with the soil and not being burdened by too much philosophy - but that's just saying people who have found their niche have a good thing. You can find your niche today. I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically Maybe not at certain points in history, but the American system -- even more so than the British system before it -- is remarkable in the degree that it has managed, over the course of its existence, to continually expand the scope of who is included under the Constitutional system. Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:05 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
Well, I didn't mention transparency specifically, but there can be no accountability without transparency, so it's implicit. I mut have missed that post, Charlie. Sorry about that. Olin - Original Message - From: Charlie Bellmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:50 PM Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania) On 17/11/2008, at 12:23 PM, Olin Elliott wrote: I'm a little surprised, since this is a David Brin discussion group, that no one has suggested that the best possible fix for government waste and courruption is greater transparency and accountability. I did: On 15/11/2008, at 6:02 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: Accountability is the most important thing in governance in my view, whether it be a national government or a local authority, a multinational corporation or mom-and-pop-shop, an international charity or a locolly run charitable trust. Well, I didn't mention transparency specifically, but there can be no accountability without transparency, so it's implicit. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
Not if 'us' encompasses the many hard working debt avoiding people who will also suffer by having their wages garnished via taxes to pay the ransom corporations are holding the U.S taxpayer to. As I said before, I commend people who have avoided that temptation. But I think its fair to say they are a minority in the US. Credit card dept is rampant, and during the era of easy credit they were available to almost anyone, including a lot of us hardworking folks. Some econonimst are now saying that widespread credit card default -- the credit has alo be securitized in ways similar to how mortgage debt was -- may be the next big bubble burst. It's a much small market than the mortgage market in terms of dollars involved, but it could still be a huge mess. Olin - Original Message - From: Euan Ritchiemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 8:55 PM Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania) Ted Turner was asked recently on a CNN interview who was responsible for the financial crisis and he said All of us. We've been spending more than we make for a long time ... Basically, he's right. Not if 'us' encompasses the many hard working debt avoiding people who will also suffer by having their wages garnished via taxes to pay the ransom corporations are holding the U.S taxpayer to. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional associations of various disciplines? If they were nominated by their scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:59 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea of a shadow scientific Congress sounds like an idea with merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended to economists, lawyers, artists etc. Posting on topic? You just asking to be moderated, aren't you? Seriously, though, I think that many members of Congress have one or more advisers on science and technology. The idea of organizing them into this shadow Congress is intriguing, but I don't quite see how it would work. For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names of foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist? The Right has sold America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability to think critically is an elitist who couldn't possibly understand the problems of soccer moms and joe six pack. What would they think of a council of scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than six thousand years old and even in *gasp* evolution? Olin - Original Message - From: Claes Wallinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:43 AM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! Olin Elliott wrote: For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional associations of various disciplines? If they were nominated by their scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. Just to add to the shock of on-topic discussion. /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
Unless you, Olin, were referring to the total transparency, as in the dear Doctor's essay, of putting a not-so-closed-circuit camera in the governor's office. We could run it on C-Span. It would make great tv. I've always thought we should have a law that makes any statement made by an elected official, or anyone acting under his authority, legally the equivalent of being under oath. Politicicans could be charged with perjury for any public statement that is demonstrably untrue. Olin - Original Message - From: Claes Wallinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:47 AM Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania) Olin Elliott wrote: Well, I didn't mention transparency specifically, but there can be no accountability without transparency, so it's implicit. I mut have missed that post, Charlie. Sorry about that. Unless you, Olin, were referring to the total transparency, as in the dear Doctor's essay, of putting a not-so-closed-circuit camera in the governor's office. :-) /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. Well, we elected an elite president, not he same thing as being eletiest -- unless being raised by a single mother and grandmother, earning a scholarship to college and working your way through Harvard make you an elitist but being born a millionaire and getting into ivy league schools on your father's influence (Bush) or being the son and grandson of Admirals and marrying a multi-millionaire (McCain) makes you just plain folks. There is a different between being elite -- well educated, skilled and intelligent -- and being an elitist. I think its pretty clear which of our politicians fall under which label. I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar activity. I had the same thought about the rate of atomic decay. I haven't looked it up on Conservapedia yet. Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:38 AM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names of foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist? The Right has sold America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability to think critically is an elitist who couldn't possibly understand the problems of soccer moms and joe six pack. What would they think of a council of scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than six thousand years old and even in *gasp* evolution? Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar activity. I couldn't help immediately imagining somebody using that idea to show that the earth really is only a few thousand years old. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
So I don't think I'm able to refute the idea that a majority of U.S citizens have credit card debt. To be fair, I don't have statistics for my claim either. It could be that the majority of Americans don't have credit card debt, but I would surprised by that. In any case, I do believe that my generation -- Baby Boomers, loosely -- internalized ideas about possessions, debt and spending that were very different from the generations that proceeded us. Olin - Original Message - From: Euan Ritchiemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania) [Referencing people who avoid debt] As I said before, I commend people who have avoided that temptation. But I think its fair to say they are a minority in the US. Betting you were wrong there I went looking for facts and found this interesting summary of numbers on U.S debt... http://www.christianccc.org/facts.htmlhttp://www.christianccc.org/facts.html ...but it's unfortunately mostly averages where what I want to find is an absolute count of how many have credit card debt. Some more detail is here... http://www.directlendingsolutions.com/2006-consumer-stats.htmhttp://www.directlendingsolutions.com/2006-consumer-stats.htm But again the figure I want is not present. So I don't think I'm able to refute the idea that a majority of U.S citizens have credit card debt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country / start a rebellion? It doesn't seem like there is much middle ground. Consent means, as much as I can tell, remaining in the community and following its laws. If I do that, I have consented to be governed, right? Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:32 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruled???! I don't think we elected a dictator. What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country or worked to overthrow our form of government. Do you imagine that all the people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things? Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country / start a rebellion? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
Ted Turner was asked recently on a CNN interview who was responsible for the financial crisis and he said All of us. We've been spending more than we make for a long time ... Basically, he's right. The flip side of offering easy credit and bad loans is that someone has to be there to accept it. The ethos of America for most of my lifetime has been have more, have more, have more. Almost everyone I know has been living, to some extent, beyond their means -- and when we're really honest with ourselves, we know it. I'm speaking of someone who has gotten himself into trouble more than once abusing credit. Easy credit is like any other addictive substance -- like oil or cocaine -- as there's a market for it, someone will supply it. Its not just this or that financial institution or governmetn practice that has to change, its our entire belief system about possessions, wealth, entitlement and so on. I'm not saying that government and corporate players don't have a lot of responsibility and shouldn't be held accountable for it, I'm just saying that taking responsibility begins at home. Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania) Let's look at the bigger picture. You won't get any argument from me that housing is subsidized in the United States via the tax code and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. So I'll just go ahead and acknowledge the general truth about your contention that the government interferes in the free market for housing. Unlike you, I don't have a problem on principle with such government activity. However, that belief is not principle is a sideshow to the matter at hand. Is the meltdown in sub-prime loans defensible by saying, The government encouraged us to do this? No. The financial industry is not a herd of sheep. Is the insanity of a market that bet there would be no significant housing market corrections in the next few years defensible by saying The government subsidized it. I don't think so. Anybody who plays in finance knows that corrections are like earthquakes -- unpredictable in specifics, but all too reliable. Is the moral abrogation in making predatory loans defensible by blaming government? No way. When we take unfair advantage of others, we are wrong, even if the victim was wrongly motivated by greed and even if those in authority wrongly encouraged us. Those who are quick to blame home buyers for accepting predatory loans should be at least as fast to blame the financiers who made them -- and far faster to demand restitution. Those people were conned; the victim of a con deserves to lose something and government is not obliged to rescue them beyond a reasonable social safety net. But government has a strong obligation to prosecute the swindlers and compel restitution to the maximum extent possible. As with virtually all con games, most of the money is gone. The government is faced with a very difficult problem, since we're talking about swindles that were apparently largely legal (failure to regulate) and on such a large scale that there is no common sense solution. Simply put, no government action, inaction or blunder excuses a swindle. If the government somehow led the mortgage industry down this path, the industry is no victim, it is neither blind nor vulnerable -- it did not have to follow. Anyone who imagines that on its own, the industry will accept culpability in the form of some sort of voluntary restitution, is dreaming. If government policy was wrong, it needs to change, but that will never be an excuse to take the con artists off the hook. Our government is our means of holding swindlers accountable; only the most extremist of anarchists would argue that free markets do so. Those who champion personal responsibility and government accountability seem strangely eager to excuse corporate misbehavior by pointing the finger at the victims (you shouldn't have taken that loan) and their legal protectors (the government encouraged me). Yes, the victims should have known better. Yes, the government blunders. But no, those issues do not remove responsibility from industry and the individuals who profited from the con game. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: rude and insulting
in a community, there is behaviour that is simply unacceptable. Ad hominem, falsehoods and abuse (particularly unprovoked) are among those. While I'm not fond of any of these behaviors and believe they should be discouraged, I can't see that anyone engaging in these behavior by e-mail chat can really hurt anyone. Its simple enough not to read or respond to messages from anyone you don't like, and personally, I find mysel beginning to ignore messages not only from those who are trolls but from those who frequently and constantly vent their anger at the trolls. If your'e concerned about community, consider the effect of everyone else on the list of having our inboxes constantly flooded with these arguments. I have seriously considered, in the last week, removing myself from the list because I'm tired of hearing all sides of this debate. If you don't like what someone's talking about, start another thread about a better topic and stop engaging them. I have even found that my junk mail filter can distinguish between different people on the discussion group. Hmmm I usually find that whenever someone else has the ability to make me mad over and over, it has more to do with me than it does with the other person. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:51 PM Subject: rude and insulting in a community, there is behaviour that is simply unacceptable. Ad hominem, falsehoods and abuse (particularly unprovoked) are among those. It is hard to accept trolling. It is best to start by explaining where the offender is outside the range of acceptable behaviour or agreed code of standards, once someone consistently refuses to adhere to those, telling them outright they're out of order is the next reasonable step, along with replying to their posts that stay within the spirit of discussion and calling out ones that don't. Moderation follows - personally I think banning is extreme, and in a community like this simply choosing to pass over emails from certain individuals is usually enough. Charlie. so far efforts at intervention do not seem to be working and may even be exacerbating the problem. if we ignore him our resident troll will probably just escalate his abuse even more, and at that point it could lead to ostracism. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
He's obviously wrong. I haven't been spending more than I make. I know a few other people, too. Well, you know more frugal people than I do. I think if you look at the sizse of credit card debt in the United States you will see that quite a few of us have been living beyond our means. I commend you, though, for your thrift. I'm trying to learn that virture myself. Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania) On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Turner was asked recently on a CNN interview who was responsible for the financial crisis and he said All of us. We've been spending more than we make for a long time ... He's obviously wrong. I haven't been spending more than I make. I know a few other people, too. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
Although I would like to see the government set a good example ... That would be nice. I don't think it's the respnosibility of the government to fix it either -- my whole point was that the responsbility starts with us. Maybe we should set a good example for the government. I'm a little surprised, since this is a David Brin discussion group, that no one has suggested that the best possible fix for government waste and courruption is greater transparency and accountability. Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania) On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, you know more frugal people than I do. I think if you look at the size of credit card debt in the United States you will see that quite a few of us have been living beyond our means. I commend you, though, for your thrift. I'm trying to learn that virture myself. I am aware of the growing debt of many Americans. I don't think it is a good thing, but I also don't think it is the responsibility of the government to somehow fix it -- that lies with each individual. Although I would like to see the government set a good example, by spending less itself, and by no longer actively encouraging profligate spending by the American consumer. Just say no to stimulus checks! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: One more bit for Veterans Day
As one of the comments says, Not all heroes have two legs Thanks for this, Ronn. I have worked for a group in the past trying to get a national war dog memorial and the DOD has steadfastly opposed it. There are memorials around the country, mostly created by veterans to remember the canines who served with them. The government doesn't consider war dogs to be personel, but equipment. We abandoned thousand of service dogs in Vietnam when we left. Recently, there has been some progress -- first President Clinton and then President Bush created policies to make it easier for military personel to adopt the dogs that served with them. Its funny when you think about it, dogs serve in our military, our police forces, they care for the sick and disabled, they work on farms, they are our companions and members of our family -- in fact, they've been a part of our civilization for about 15,000 years by the most convervative estimate. They helped build our civilization, and in every way that counts, they are true citizens. Maybe one day, that will be recognized legally. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:52 AM Subject: One more bit for Veterans Day As one of the comments says, Not all heroes have two legs . . . http://punditkitchen.com/2008/11/11/political-pictures-veterans-thank-you/http://punditkitchen.com/2008/11/11/political-pictures-veterans-thank-you/ . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: One more bit for Veterans Day
Only, they won't be allowed to marry in certain states. One commentator on NPR noted the irony of several states rejecting Gay marriage in the same election where Barack Obama became president. When Obama was born, quite a few states wouldn't have allowed his white mother and African father to be legally married. And the arguments against it would have been pretty much what we hear from anti-gay groups today. Olin - Original Message - From: Dave Landmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:08 PM Subject: Re: One more bit for Veterans Day On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Olin Elliott wrote: As one of the comments says, Not all heroes have two legs Thanks for this, Ronn. I have worked for a group in the past trying to get a national war dog memorial and the DOD has steadfastly opposed it. A very different look at the dogs of war. Its funny when you think about it, dogs serve in our military, our police forces, they care for the sick and disabled, they work on farms, they are our companions and members of our family -- in fact, they've been a part of our civilization for about 15,000 years by the most convervative estimate. They helped build our civilization, and in every way that counts, they are true citizens. Maybe one day, that will be recognized legally. Only, they won't be allowed to marry in certain states. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: more from the troll
of course, i could choose to be a renter instead, and pay off someone else's mortgage. double duh... But a lot of us made exactly that choice Jon -- we chose not to try and buy because we thought it was too risky and we weren't sure we'd be able to afford it in the future. Granted, if I have a choice (which I may not) I'd rather see my tax dollars go to home owners, event those who possibly made unwise choices, than to banks and financial institutions. But honestly, I'd rather not have to bail out either ... Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:55 PM Subject: more from the troll duh; it was the only way i could become a home owner... So you wanted to own a home, and you chose to borrow money to achieve your desire. I don't see where the force is coming in. okay, here we go again, troll. are you having fun? if i wanted to achieve the american dream i would be forced to borrow at usurious terms. here's how it works, banks borrow our money at low interest and turn around and loan it at whatever rate the market will bear, or the government will allow. now do you get it? duh... of course, i could choose to be a renter instead, and pay off someone else's mortgage. double duh... jon now who are you, really, and what tax bracket??? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Franklin Delano Bush
Good thing we have the war in Iraq! I'm sure you are both voting for McCain, then? The problem is that our economy has changed, and we no longer get the kind of war boost that we got during WWII. Then, we were a heavy industrial economy and the massive build up of production was labor intensive and created millions of new jobs and massive stimulus. Now, both the nature of our econmy and our military is totally different. We don't have the massive industrial base to crank out tanks and airplanes at the rate we did then, creating all those new jobs. And our military is no longer structured in that way, dependent on huge amounts of hardware. So we can run an ongoing war (two of them actually) for many years and not see an increase in our production or our employment. If anything, now the total opposite is true. The wars are simply a drag on our econmy, funneling huge amounts of borrowed money and preventing us from spending on vital needs at home. Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:21 AM Subject: Re: Franklin Delano Bush On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Dan M wrote: What is undisputed is that, as WWII started, the US rate dropped down to 9.9% in 1941, and dropped down below 2% from 43-45...as we were firmly in the war. I'd argue that these data tends to favor Keynesian analysis, since the war involved overwhelming government intervention in the economy, massive federal deficits, etc. Indeed, from a purely economic point of view this is wasteful government spending at its worth, spending billions upon billions on things that either blow themselves up or get blown up. Yet, it was the foundation of the US being the economic powerhouse that it was during the next 60 or so years. I have long used this as an argument for more, rather than less government Good thing we have the war in Iraq! I'm sure you are both voting for McCain, then? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Franklin Delano Bush
Your equating George W. Bush with FDR is spot-on (Franklin Delano Bush, October 20). Both presidents recklessly increased government's role in the economy This seems to me a pretty silly and a-historical comparison. The problems in the economy at the moment are not the fault of recklessly increased government intervention, but of the reckless de-regulation of industries and the stupid policy of allowing some private enterprises to become so large and control such a large percentage of the ecomony, without any effective oversight or regulation, that their success or failure effects the well being of everyone in the country. Any institution that is that large and has that much power to effect the well being of so many people is no longer a private concern. And when Roosevelt interceded in the economy, he did so with massive work and welfare programs aimed at protecting the weakest and most negatively impacted portions of society -- the poor. I haven't seen anything like that from Bush. Perhaps its not capitalism that deserves the blame for this, but it is certainly the case that the free-market fundamentalists have had their chance to put their policies into practice and see the results. Even Greenspan, the high priest of the free market and Laissez-faire policies, admits that there is a flaw in the way he thought the world worked. His recent testimony reminded me of the scene from Casablanca where Louie says I am shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling going on in here. Comparing Bush to FDR is a superficial, empty comparison. Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: Franklin Delano Bush Dear Editor: Your equating George W. Bush with FDR is spot-on (Franklin Delano Bush, October 20). Both presidents recklessly increased government's role in the economy - a move that proved (in FDR's case) and will prove (in Bush's case) to do nothing but saturate the economy with such uncertainty as to frighten away entrepreneurs and investors. But popular history will almost surely remember Bush, not as a second FDR, but as a second Herbert Hoover. The myth will be made that Bush was a staunch free-marketeer who was succeeded in the Oval Office by a charismatic saint whose hyperactive interventions saved the economy (even though precious little evidence of economic salvation will appear in the data). History will forget Bush's interventions just as it has forgotten Hoover's - as it has forgotten that Hoover signed the largest tariff hike in U.S. history; as it has forgotten that Hoover tried to create jobs by deporting hundreds of thousands of Mexicans; as it has forgotten that Hoover signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; as it has forgotten that, with the Revenue Act of 1932, Hoover raised the top marginal tax rate on personal incomes from 25 percent to 63 percent (in addition to raising the corporate-tax rate). History will repeat itself, blaming capitalism for a problem caused and intensified by government interventions. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same way a whirlpool is real? It means that seeing your skin as some kind of permanent continuous thing is a fallacy. The skin you had twenty years ago was real and the skin you have now is real, but they are not the same thing. It is only a linguistic convention and function of memory in the brain that make them seem that way. What is not real is the idea that there is something called my skin which is continuous through time despite constantly changing. The same thing with conciousness. Brain cells are a little less transitory (on the time scale of a human life) than skin cells, and the patterns laid down in our brains as memory endure (although anyone who has ever discussed their childhood with a sibling or parent, or even re-read an old diary, should know how changeable our memories really are -- they are constantly revised), but conciousness is a process, not a thing. Imagine if I said, my heart was beating twenty years ago and my heart is beating now, therefore there must be some thing calle d a heat-beat that is continuous through time. But of course a heart-beat is not a thing, it's the ongoing working of the heart, in the same way conciousness is the ongoing working of the brain. If the heart stops working, the heartbeat is gone. If the brain stops working -- and I'm as sure of this as I am of anything in the world -- conciousness stops. I see no reason why it should be any different than any other biological process. Over a long enough time span, everything is like the whirlpool -- a temporary form with no fixed, permanent substance. Buddha called it the coming into being and passing away of all things. Olin - Original Message - From: Mauro Diotallevimailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:08 PM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and appears to be a thing even though the matter in it changes every second. It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance. I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells. The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have now. Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same way a whirlpool is real? And I'm not asking this rhetorically; I really am interested in your take on this. -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the I that perceives is a purely physical phenomenon, and I'm much more convinced that there is indeed some form of mind/body duality and something analogous to a soul. The I that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of perception and memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, and modern science is showing him right. Olin - Original Message - From: Bruce Bostwickmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy On Oct 25, 2008, at 1:25 PM, William T Goodall wrote: http://tinyurl.com/6o9w33http://tinyurl.com/6o9w33 Creationists declare war over the brain • 22 October 2008 • From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. • Amanda Gefter YOU cannot overestimate, thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down. You're gonna hear a lot in the next calendar year about... how Darwin's explanation of how human intelligence arose is the only scientific way of doing it... I'm asking us as a world community to go out there and tell the scientific establishment, enough is enough! Materialism needs to start fading away and non-materialist causation needs to be understood as part of natural reality. His enthusiasm was met with much applause from the audience gathered at the UN's east Manhattan conference hall on 11 September for an international symposium called Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness. Earlier Mario Beauregard, a researcher in neuroscience at the University of Montreal, Canada, and co-author of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul, told the audience that the battle between maverick scientists like himself and those who believe the mind is what the brain does is a cultural war. Schwartz and Beauregard are part of a growing non-material neuroscience movement. They are attempting to resurrect Cartesian dualism - the idea that brain and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of things, material and immaterial - in the hope that it will make room in science both for supernatural forces and for a soul. The two have signed the Scientific dissent from Darwinism petition, spearheaded by the Seattle-basedDiscovery Institute, headquarters of the intelligent design movement. ID argues that biological life is too complex to have arisen through evolution. Old hats Maru Kind of a non-issue for me on the creation/evolution debate (to the extent that the creationists believe there is a debate :D ) since to me, the existence or non-existence of a soul does not by itself prove or disprove the entire remainder of the creationist assertion that all life was directly created by their God-image. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the I that perceives is a purely physical phenomenon, and I'm much more convinced that there is indeed some form of mind/body duality and something analogous to a soul. Awareness and cognition seem to me to argue in favor of that interpretation. What that soul consists of, and how it functions, and whether it survives after physical death, etc. etc. are mostly in the realm of religion, but to me, mind/body duality seems to be less firmly decided (or at least the significance of awareness and cognition seem to me to be grossly underestimated in the debate) than other aspects of human biology -- it's often discounted as fringe science and denigrated as a back door to creationism, but to me it seems to deserve taking a bit more seriously. Strictly my $.02, and admittedly, not really a scientific position as it is non- disprovable and irreproducible on some levels, but I don't consider it entirely ruled out. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and appears to be a thing even though the matter in it changes every second. It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance. It's probably the result of a feedback loop -- all creatures, even single celled ones, can to some extent recognise patterns in their environment. At some level of development sufficiently complex creatures begin to turn that pattern recognition ability on themselves -- they can recognize patterns in their own behavior. Its what makes higher learning possible. But that also means that you're feeding the output of the system back into the system. That, I think, is a very simple description of what we call conciousness. It doesn't require anyting mystical or immaterial to explain it. To re-introduce those things is simply to try to hang on to some illusion that there is something special about us -- that we are somehow transcendet of the material universe. We're no t. We're matter arranged in very compelx patterns that were themselves the product of evolution. Real, in the context of science, means that it has consequences. If you posit the existence of some immaterial thing -- call it soul or whatever -- then you have to say, these are the consequences we can expect if this thing exists and this is how -- at least in principle -- we can test those consequence. A real scientific theory has to be falsifiable. There has to be some evidence that, if it were found, would disprove the idea. And the problem with non-material, invisible, undetectable soul stuff is that no matter what we find out about the brain, the believer will just say that we haven't learned to detect it yet. But the real clincher is that we don't need it. It's not necessary to explain conciousness or anthying else about humans -- its only necessary to make us feel special, like believing we were the center of the universe made us feel special. - Original Message - From: Wayne Eddymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 8:07 PM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy - Original Message - From: Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:54 AM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy The I that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of perception and memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, ?and modern science is showing him right. Hi Olin, Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. If matter couldn't exist outside this universe, would that mean that matter is an illusion? Software can't run outside a computer, does that mean it's not real? What exactly does real mean? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Two Weeks To Go
how come the McCain that was delivering such good lines in the roast doesn't seem to be the same one that's running for President??). Charlie. Probably the same reason the funny, intelligent, passionate Al Gore who promotes An Inconvenient Truth isn't the same as the carboard robot who ran for President (and still almost beat Bush). If that guy had been on the ticket we wouldn't be in this mess now. As much as I disagree with McCain on just about everything, I really do believe that he's better than the people who are running his campaign. But of course, since he made the choice to let those people -- the same people who savaged him in 2000 when he was running against Bush -- control his campaign, the responsibility is his. He made a deal with the devil's of the right, who he had previously opposed. I think that'st the root of a lot of the ambiguity in his campaign though. Olin - Original Message - From: Charlie Bellmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:34 PM Subject: Re: Two Weeks To Go On 20/10/2008, at 4:24 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: But how amazing would it be if Obama does win? I'd have told you a year ago that there was no way in hell that an African American could compete for the presidency, let alone be the favorite with a few weeks to go. The unfortunate thing is that the country is so f**ked up now that it really will take a superman to have any appreciable success in one term. The good thing is that I think we get a lot of respect back from the other nations of the world just by electing him. And more so if it's an umambiguous landslide. Yes, you're absolutely right. Anyway, I just thought I should say that despite the lack of onlist chatter, some of us abroad are watching closely (I watched the first two debates in their entirety, and highlights of the third, and the roast from the dinner the other night - how come the McCain that was delivering such good lines in the roast doesn't seem to be the same one that's running for President??). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Monotonous posting
What will cause people to leave this list is trolls who have nothing better to do than exhibit their asperger's syndrome... jon Just for the record, I have Asperger's, and I don't act like a Troll (usually). Bad choice of aspersions there. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: 10/20/2008 3:28 PM Subject: Monotonous posting It's been very quiet here since the thought police manifesto. Obvious Maru what manifesto? oblivious maru... I don't think we've ever moderated anybody for frequent off-topic posting, but I'm growing increasingly concerned that many of your postings are a distraction and offensive to some who might otherwise participate. Others,including me, are just plain bored with it, since you haven't written anything new on the topic for a long, long time. I'm growing increasingly concerned that you are trying to use your position on the list to intimidate and silence those with whom you do not agree and that this behaviour could be offensive to some who might otherwise participate. I don't agree that Nick is threating of censorship, or that it would discourage posting if he did. What will cause people to leave this list is trolls who have nothing better to do than exhibit their asperger's syndrome... jon __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.comhttp://mail.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: monotonous posting
Maybe the posts have dropped off because people got so damn sick of your monotonous posts. Or maybe it was because each one of his monotonous posts elicit dozens of responses from people telling him how monotonous and irritating he is. I find everyone's responses to William, and the energy that goes into villainizing him to be much more annoying than anything he's posted. Perhaps if people just ignored his posts and used that time to post something interesting of their own, their would be something worthwhile going on here. Just a thought. Olin - Original Message - From: Dave Landmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:15 PM Subject: Re: monotonous posting William, Nick never threatened to censor you, however much you wish to interpret his email that way. He expressed concern that your posts were a distraction and offensive to some who might otherwise participate Seems he was right. Maybe the posts have dropped off because people got so damn sick of your monotonous posts. There wasn't anything interesting happening here, thanks to your monomania about religion, so they found more interesting things to do that listen to your repetitive drone. We all can observe that posts on this list have, subsequent to your ceaseless drivel, declined precipitously. Your Own Petard Maru Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Nick Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrotemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: You seem to be talking about an odd sort of consent. You will consent to do any new thing that the government decides to tell you to do, as long as it is not too many things. In case it is not clear, the examples I listed are new rules. I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus. Democracy doesn't seek consent, other than the consent to be governed by democratic means; it seeks consensus or lacking that, majority. I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Alberto Monteiro Hmmm ... I'm no expert on German History, so I'll take your word for it. Still, being elected by Parliament isn't quite the same as being selected by the electoral college, since the Parliament itself is presumably elected democratically, and the electoral college is not -- it is just a functional represenation of the various voting strengths of the states. And Bush in 2000 wasn't selected by the electoral college -- most independent audits have shown that Gore would have won Florida in a fair count, and thus would have carried the electoral vote. Bush was chosen, finally, by the Supreme Court. All this is nitpicking, though. My point was simply that being chosen by Democratic means does not mean that a leader is fit to rule, or that he has any respect for Democratic process. The consent to be governed should rest, not just on how the person was chosen, but on how they function once elected. That's why the drafters of the US Consititution were very determined to put pro visions for Impeachment into the process -- I suspect that it has been used less frequently than they invisioned. The idea that we have to continue to conesent to any government that is elected Democratically, no matter what it does, is not in keeping with America's founding principles. Olin - Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiromailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Olin Elliott wrote I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as they are elected by legal democratic means. Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the electoral college, and not by the people. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Storm watch
I hope and pray* that the dawn is finding all of you in the storm area well and that any damage is as light as possible . . . *Those who find that part offensive are free to disregard it. ;) . . . ronn! :) I think even the most staunchly atheist of us can understand praying in those circumstances. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:29 AM Subject: Re: Storm watch I hope and pray* that the dawn is finding all of you in the storm area well and that any damage is as light as possible . . . *Those who find that part offensive are free to disregard it. ;) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: R.A.H.'s answer to fan mail?
As you read the answers, try to imagine the questions. Since we've had the discussion, more than once, here about what constitutes science fiction, or good science fiction, I think RAH's definition (quoted in the form letter) is a fine one: Stories that would cease to exist is elements involving science or technology were omitted. Olin - Original Message - From: John Garciamailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:10 PM Subject: R.A.H.'s answer to fan mail? According to Kevin Kelly, Heinlein used a form letter to answer fan mail. Kelly reproduces it here: http://kk.org/ct2/2008/09/heinleins-fan-mail-solution.phphttp://kk.org/ct2/2008/09/heinleins-fan-mail-solution.php As you read the answers, try to imagine the questions. AMF Maru john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fun with the USA election
Also, it seems like the Nostradamists are too sleepy. I haven't seen any quatraine saying that Obama is the Anti-Christ (or McCain, or Palin). McCain and Palin won't meet the qaulifications for anti-Christ because they aren't popular world-wide. I've wondered why no one has floated the Obama as A.C. rumor though. There have surely been enough messiah jokes aobut him. Olin - Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiromailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 7:00 AM Subject: Fun with the USA election Surely our Writer has lost all creativity... Cain? Palin? This sounds like a joke. Obama-Biden as a contraction of Osama Bin Laden? Doesn't He have better names? Also, it seems like the Nostradamists are too sleepy. I haven't seen any quatraine saying that Obama is the Anti-Christ (or McCain, or Palin). Even Lula had some Nostradamus prophecies back in 2002! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
hopefully they will pass out and their dogs will attack them!~) jon Now, that's something I can pray for. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 1:11 PM Subject: Science and Ideals. So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night and mistreat their dogs? Olin hopefully they will pass out and their dogs will attack them!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night and mistreat their dogs? Olin - Original Message - From: Dan Mmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 4:44 PM Subject: RE: Science and Ideals. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 6:13 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. I'm trying to figure out what the two laws of god that Dan referred to in his reply to my last post. The only thing I found on the net is love god and love thy neighbor which I can't imagine is what he means. Can you help me out here Dan? Anyone? Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments that Jesus refers too. Earlier than Jesus, Eammial (sp) one of the founding rabbis of the Talmud has been quoted saying something very similar to what Jesus said as the second law about 100 years earlier. There's a story that goes with this, but my portable just crashed and I don't have time to write it now. If anyone is interested, I'll do it later. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world around us? What are the odds of it being like mathematics or not like mathematics? 50% given the measure of the tautology based in the logic of yes/no Say it is something more than mathematic logic, which drives the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals which drive human awareness Say it is innate potentials with development and growth curves Say that the innate potentials are hard wired but mixed based upon The helix or energy contained in the structure of the human genes This is either incredibly deep, beyond my ability to grasp, or its pure gibberish. The sentences don't even make sense to me. Olin - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. Andrew C wrote 9-4-08 Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding of the self as an individual is key to accepting others as individuals and enables true altruistic actions. (And yes, I am saying that very young children will only behave in a selfish way). And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens Develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject. Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world around us? What are the odds of it being like mathematics or not like mathematics? 50% given the measure of the tautology based in the logic of yes/no Say it is something more than mathematic logic, which drives the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals which drive human awareness Say it is innate potentials with development and growth curves Say that the innate potentials are hard wired but mixed based upon The helix or energy contained in the structure of the human genes Say the innate potentials are constantly seeking some evaluated formula Some rational to measure its measure of reason and only ideas serve the Conscience but attachment to these ideals leads to domestication i.e. Draw in the creature like the process of domesticating the wild animal The constant luring with food or any other act which the wild attach pleasure Or completion serve to bring basic drives of the innate potentials into Harmony with the environment---thus cause the engine to afford a new motion Say that ethics or any other thesis is only the written records of man’s Beliefs or directions recording the new motions which men tribes followed Willing acceptance of himself i.e. the ideas of others of himself Then you have simply a truth as revealed of him as he wishes other To see him an willingly become the domesticate of the visual commune seeker This become the more than mathematical evaluation of 50% beast and 50% human with reason as a purely mathematical system would yield Such a human machine would provide something more than an alien who is hard wired to a binary computer or some tautology based in yes / no Ethics is then termed more than good and bad; right and wrong; ect. It may be akin to those ideas, which seek itself in others and find peace knowing Of the shared existence which begins with the human’s first pull on this mothers Breast this is beyond the binary codes and bars on the spectrometer which that same Mind repels as alien communication across the galaxies. -- Original message from Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a valid basis? Because it's grounded in Y? And Y in Z? And ... Mathematics, as has been pointed out, is grounded on axioms that cannot themselves be proven or reduced to anything else. Kurt Goedel showed that any mathematical system powerful enough to explain basic mathematics must contain certai propositions that we know to be true, but which cannot be proven within the system. I don't think this is an exact analogy, but it does show that not everything has to be grounded -- it stops somewhere as it does with axioms ... Olin - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:28 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote: So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the naturalistic fallacy is just that, a fallacy. But, if we don't go that route, then where does one ground basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse? Why do they need to be 'grounded'? Doesn't that just lead to an infinite regress? If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a valid basis? Because it's grounded in Y? And Y in Z? And ... Saying 'God did it' is just as useless a non-answer for ethics as it is for the origin of the universe. Bumper Sticker Philosophy Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
The question 'where do our ethical ideas come from' has the answer 'our nature as social mammals'. The question 'how do we tell good from bad' does not have the answer 'our nature as social mammals'. Category Mistake Maru I'm not sure this is true, although I'll admit I don't have the answersto the questions it raises. If our ethical ideas come from our nature as social animals -- and I do believe that's true, even to the degree that we share ethics to a large degree with other social animals -- for instance birds who mate for life, the intricate social systems of wolf packs and primates, or the amazing civility of dogs toward other dogs (just go to a dog park sometime and observe for a while the rules by which dogs interact, and how 99% of the time even a group of strange dogs who have never met before recognize and behave by those rules) -- if all of that comes from our nature as social animals, then where else can the ability to tell right from wrong come from? Those of us who do not believe in a transcendent power, a revealed ethical system, can't argue from authority or tradition. The real danger here is that we can easily descend into total relativsm, which is essentially no ethic al system at all. I think we all believe that there are some things which are write and wrong absolutely (or every nearly so), but explaining that belief is more difficult. If our ethical ideas are a product f evolution and our social nature, and if the only way we can tell good from bad is by nature of our eithical ideas, then if follows that it all arises out of evolution. The question is how? Stephen Pinker, Daniell Dennett and other writers have done some very provocative work on this and related qestions. One explanation would be that our ethical sense is an emergent property of our species specific reasoning skills which are themselves probably a product of lanague. The ability to make analogies, to reason about long-term consequences, to imagine the effect of our behavior on others, and to abstract general propositions from specific circumstances all create a new level of ethical concerns. Ethics seems to be a little like mathematics, in the sense that there may be certain axioms that we have to start with, which cannot in themselves be proven. Since there are an infinite number of these possible axioms, we are left with the question of how to choose between them. Perhaps it comes down to something like the pragmatic test that William James and others suggested: the cash value of ideas. If I hold such-and-such an ethical principle, and I draw out all the logical conclusions from that principle, what kind of world would I be living in? This approach has had mixed success of course. I think there's also an analogy to language. Noam Chomsky pointed out a long time ago that certain aspects of lanague are hardwired into the human brain, they develop normally in any child exposed to language in a critical period. He noted that many of the patterns found in laugages around the world are not inherntly logical -- and that it is possible to create far more logical, rational language -- Esperanto is an example -- but humans have a hard time learning these languages, because the are not human languages, not in keeping with the intricate grammar structured in our heads by evoltuion. I suspect that the same thing is true of a lot of our idealistic ethical systems -- and the systems I hold most precious, democracy, the open society, etc. almost certainly fall into this category -- they do not come naturally to us, and in a sense we must re-learn them over and over again, and we must make a concious effort to translate from our natural ethical language into these systems, because on a basic level we may never really learn to think in them. Maybe out descendents will, if these systems turn out to have survival value. These are all scientific questions though. If the answers don't come form there, where will they come from? Olin - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:56 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On 1 Sep 2008, at 04:17, Dan M wrote: That all sounds reasonable to me. But, if one also Googles Social Darwinism, one finds numerous references that list a number of folks who believed in it, including a number who clearly spent more than 10 minutes thinking about ethics. Now, I don't think they thought all that well, but it's not what I consider a straw man because it is a view that was (and is) held by many. It's not a view held by anyone on this list, so who are you arguing with? Hence strawman. Indeed, I know that I've argued strongly with list members against evolutionary ethics while you were on the list. So, folks I'm trying to
Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
So you're a strict vegan? No Wisecracks About 26 Light Years Maru I'm a vegetarian, became one some years ago when I just ran out of excuses. Because I like it didn't' seem like enough reason to keep supporting the industry that produces our meat in this age. I'm working toward veganism, and along the way supporting small local dairies that use organic methods and produce on a smaller, more humane scale. Its not perfect, but I feel much better about the impact I have now. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin) At 11:54 PM Saturday 8/30/2008, Olin Elliott wrote: When pro-life advocates start defending all life I'll take them seriously. Olin So you're a strict vegan? No Wisecracks About 26 Light Years Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honest terminology
McCain just said on whatever Sunday morning show he's being interviewed on right now that those who have lost their sense of humor ought to turn off their computers and go outside and get a breath of fresh air. So does that mean he intends Sarah Palin as a joke? Olin - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 8:13 AM Subject: Re: Honest terminology On 31 Aug 2008, at 15:29, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: McCain just said on whatever Sunday morning show he's being interviewed on right now that those who have lost their sense of humor ought to turn off their computers and go outside and get a breath of fresh air. Everybody knows the proper way to indicate humour, sarcasm, irony and so forth is through the appropriate emoticons ;-) Running gag Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Due to a typographical error the entire arctic deployment had been issued Turkish pastries as headwear. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
Certainly there are didactic, righteous, dogmatists leftists, Olin, but when they get emotional they don't usually deliberately lie. Michael Moore uses context to advance his arguments, but his premise is usually spot on. Here in Los Angeles, KPFK is extremely biased. The leftist media often ignores, or even justifies tactics used by Palestinian freedom fighters, and when they fire missiles from the Golan Heights (after Israel ended that occupation) they blame Israel because they retaliate.. Jon I'm definatley not trying to defend the right wing crazies -- I only hope that the decline in Bush's popularity has diminished their credibility with a lot of Americans -- it would be nice if he would take them down with him. McCain has an uneasy relationship with those people -- they've been his enemies in the past, and now he needs them to have a chance at winning. It will be interesting to see how well they can get along, even for the duration of the campaign. I guess it just goes back to how you think about things. A lot of people talk as if being reasonable and rational is the human default -- and things like dogmatism, fantaticism and irrationality are only aberrations -- but I don't think that's true. I think being irrational, emotional, factional and ideological is closer to the human norm, and that real rationality is rare and always has been -- because it is hard work and goes against our grain. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Sore losers at the presnet moment, I agree with you. But the history of the left has more than its share of dogmatism, irrationality, and craziness. Try suggesting on most college campus that things like, say, the relative aptitudes of men and women in different fields in an empiracal question and should be studied scientifically. You will be shouted down by leftist, progressive feminists. The response will be just as emotional and non-rational. There's a strong ant-sciene bias in modern American liberalism, resistance to ideas about the inheritance of temerpment or personality, the primacy of biology over culture, etc. etc. The right has just been more blantant, more vocal and more ludicrous in their attacks on science, but they don't have a monopoly on it. Olin Certainly there are didactic, righteous, dogmatists leftists, Olin, but when they get emotional they don't usually deliberately lie. Michael Moore uses context to advance his arguments, but his premise is usually spot on. Here in Los Angeles, KPFK is extremely biased. The leftist media often ignores, or even justifies tactics used by Palestinian freedom fighters, and when they fire missiles from the Golan Heights (after Israel ended that occupation) they blame Israel because they retaliate.. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
The environmental groups are going to go after Palin hard. She has supported drilling in sensitive wildlife areas and she allowed (even sanctioned) the use of airplanes to slaughter wolves in Alaska last year. See this, which came out yesterday from Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defendersactionfund.org/http://www.defendersactionfund.org/ Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:47 AM Subject: Sarah Palin William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
On 30/08/2008 Charlie Bell wrote: ...there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Since you mention Peter Singer, he makes an interesting point. The people who are most concerned about the life of a foetus, which has little if any sentience, are generally unconcerned about the life of other creatures with much greater degrees of sentience. Chimpanzees and gorillas are at least the intellectual equals of small children or seriously disabled humans, and yet somehow that counts for nothing in most people's moral equation. (A lot of people are sentimental about animals, but when push comes to shove, very few people really stand behind the idea that animals have rights). Koko the gorilla reputedly scores between 70 and 90 on human IQ tests (which puts her dangerously close to our President) and even if that is an exaggerated claim, she is obviously a sensitive creature, capable of loving and mourning for lost loved ones (including her pet cat and her long time mate). I had the opportunity to meet Washoe the Chimpanzee on a tour of the Chimpanzee Human Comm unication Institue before her death this past year, and looking into her face left me no doubt that she was a person, and one of great dignity and wisdom as well. Even Border Collies have been shown to have linguistic understanding equal to that of young children, and probably much more independent judgement. Without falling back on religion and mystical concepts souls I don't see how there is any rational definition of person that includes human beings and doesn't include a lot of non-human animals as well. And of course, all these defenses of human dignity by religious believers are pretty recent historically -- it wasn't all that long ago that the churches were finding ways to justify the extermination of native peoples and slavery by arguing about whether different groups of people had souls. Abraham Lincoln countered those kinds of arguments by noting, early in his career, that he wasn't sure if black were people were the intellectual equals of whites or not, but that it didn't have any effect on his view of slavery, because it was wrong and cruel either way. Jeremy Bentham put it like this: The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but rather, Can they suffer? When pro-life advocates start defending all life I'll take them seriously. Olin - Original Message - From: Charlie Bellmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Sarah Palin On 31/08/2008, at 8:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. There is no atheist-based ideology, and what you've written here is frankly offensive crap. Atheism means one thing and one thing only - that I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus either, and there's no aSantaist ideology. Morals and ethics may have much grounding in religion, but they're not exclusively the preserve of religion (why else are the least religious western democracies the safest, healthiest and best educated?). What you've done here is confused atheist with arsehole. As to the second part: there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Framing the very hard choice to terminate a Down's pregnancy detected during the first trimester of pregnancy as equivalent to hunting and gassing people with Down's is sickening. It's not the same thing, neither is it a slippery slope. If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this list is enough. If you're genuinely making this comparison and skirting Godwin in the process, then please take another look at what you've written and how dangerous it is to equate atheism with Lysenkoism and Nazism. The non-religious are one of the last outgroups, and are increasingly overtly discriminated against, and framing things the way you have is actually a step in the direction you're warning against. Charlie. ___
Re: Sore losers
Jon Louis Mann wrote: nationalism is an aberration that is found in many countries, and to be abhorred. it is especially repugnant in nations where their citizens actually believe they are better than other nations Nationalism is not an aberrantion -- it is one of the human constants. Almost every tribal group ever examined had a word for themselves that basically meant People or true people and some equivalent to the Greek workd barbarian which meant not us. If you think about it in evolutionary terms, it makes perfect sense. 99% of our evolutionary history was spent in small, isloated bands, as hunter-gatherers, in a world where humans were not the dominant species. Danger was everywhere. Survival of the individual depended on suvirival of the group. Anything from outside the groups was suspect, dangerous, to be feared. Chimpanzees show a lot of the same behaviors, even patrolling the boundaries of their terriortories, attacking the members of other groups, and, as Jane Goodall pointed out, having all out wars between groups. So when you point to one country, or one group, or one nationality, or whatever, and say They're the nationalistic ones, they're the evil ones , they're the aberration, you're really just engaging in the same behavior you calim to be derriding: Us-and-them. Even more importantly, you are avoiding responsibility for something that is really a common trait we all share by projecting it on them. We all have these tendencies, and the only answer to them is reason, not emotion and name calling and the generation of more fear and hate. As Dr. Brin points out, the kinds of open, responsive systems that we have developed in the past few centuries, are the only antidote we know to the universal condition of tyrrany, exploitation, war and tribalism. And we have to use our reason to set up these systems despire the fact that it goes against millions of years of evolutionary history (just like I have to use my reason not to gorge myself on high-fat foods at every possibility, even though my genes tell me it has survivial value -- for my distant ancestors it did, and the ones who stocked up on fat and calories when they could surivived and passed the craving on to me -- it today's world, though, it will kill me) ... Judging from some of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should all go back and read some of the stuff Dr. Brin has written about the addictive qualities of self-righteous indignation? Olin - Original Message - From: Pat Mathewsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:21 AM Subject: RE: Sore losers Nationalism is just another step in the ladder of Me and Not-Me, Family and Not-Family, Tribe and Not-Tribe.And what is the next step after nationalism? Judging from history and what I see around me, something very similar to Citizen and Not-Citizen. A Citizen being defined as anyone of any national or racial origin or original condition who is willing to learn the language, obey the laws, and behave according to the values of the - let's be truthful here - Empire.http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Sore losers Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:28:15 -0700 On Aug 27, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: nationalism is an aberration that is found in many countries, and tobe abhorred. it is especially repugnant in nations where their citizens actually believe they are better than other nations (likesome french, saudi, israeli, japanese citizens, etc.). I think that nationalism is not an aberration at all. I would be willing to guess that it is a larger form of xenophobia, which I would be further willing to guess conferred evolutionary advantages: kill off the other guys and your genes live on. The other guys can be other guys in the tribe (to hell with you guys, I am going to be the one whose genes live on in this tribe), other tribes (to hell with those guys, we are going to be the ones...) and so forth. We e ven had a racist dog when I was a kid. He was raised by my family of white people in a neighborhood of mostly white people, so when black kids from the projects walked by, who were different, he went nuts. Then again, dogs are remarkable at picking up subtle clues in the behavior of their human companions, and my dad was quite a racist. The dog may have known that black people were bad because he saw his master tense up when they were around. Different is Dangerous Maru Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___
Dogs (was: Sore Losers)
We even had a racist dog when I was a kid. He was raised by my family of white people in a neighborhood of mostly white people, so when black kids from the projects walked by, who were different, he went nuts. Then again, dogs are remarkable at picking up subtle clues in the behavior of their human companions, and my dad was quite a racist. The dog may have known that black people were bad because he saw his master tense up when they were around. I have a dog who was basically feral the first year of her life, living on the streets, and even though she's quite civilized now, she hates homeless people. This dog who loves all human beings, used to growl and get tense whenever she saw someone who was obvioulsy homeless (or looked like they were). She's gotten better now, but she still is obviously uncomfortable with them. Most of the homeless people with dogs that I know treat them very well, often taking better care of the dog than of themselves, but I can only guess what experiences Lulubelle (our dog) had to make her so leary of homeless people Olin - Original Message - From: Dave Landmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:28 PM Subject: Re: Sore losers On Aug 27, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: nationalism is an aberration that is found in many countries, and to be abhorred. it is especially repugnant in nations where their citizens actually believe they are better than other nations (like some french, saudi, israeli, japanese citizens, etc.). I think that nationalism is not an aberration at all. I would be willing to guess that it is a larger form of xenophobia, which I would be further willing to guess conferred evolutionary advantages: kill off the other guys and your genes live on. The other guys can be other guys in the tribe (to hell with you guys, I am going to be the one whose genes live on in this tribe), other tribes (to hell with those guys, we are going to be the ones...) and so forth. We even had a racist dog when I was a kid. He was raised by my family of white people in a neighborhood of mostly white people, so when black kids from the projects walked by, who were different, he went nuts. Then again, dogs are remarkable at picking up subtle clues in the behavior of their human companions, and my dad was quite a racist. The dog may have known that black people were bad because he saw his master tense up when they were around. Different is Dangerous Maru Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
aren't you being self righteous about not being self righteous, olin? if intolerance of intolerance is being self righteous, then i pleasd guilty, too. jon of course I'm being self-righteous -- notice that I was very careful to use inclusive language throughout what I wrote, even noting that we should all go back and read Dr. Brin's article. I'm one of the worst -- only in the last half-decade or so of my life have I learned to (usually) avoid taking a verbal sledgehammer to anyone I disagree with. Socrates said that if he was the wiesest man in Athens, it was only because he knew that he didn't know anything. None of us is going to eliminate these tendencies (short of genetic modification). I'd bet that even the Dalia Llama (if you don't like Buddhists please insert the religious or secular saint of your choice) would admit that he hasn't elmintated those traits. Its like a computer that goes back to its default settings every time you turn it off. The best we can do is try to always be aware of it and allow for it -- and we won't even succeed at that a lot of the time, which is why feedback, mutual criticism and transpa rency are so important. And we have to set these systems up -- both in the public sector and our own lives -- during the times when we're relatively sane, because once we're into our self-righteousness and our indignation and all that other stuff, we're not going to want to be corrected. Just look around the world today, at all the groups pointing weapons (physical and intellectual) at each other, and all the damage we're doing to the world because we're sure that we're right and we're most imporant -- and its not just one country or one political party, although I'll admit some are worse than others. I believe it's the single most imporatant issue we face. We either deal with it -- we either adapt to the new conditions our species faces -- or we die. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 1:21 PM Subject: Sore losers Jon Louis Mann wrote: nationalism is an aberration found in many countries, and to be abhorred. it is especially repugnant in nations where their citizens actually believe they are better than other nations... Nationalism is not an aberration -- it is one of the human constants. Almost every tribal group ever examined had a word for themselves that basically meant People or true people and some equivalent to the Greek word barbarian which meant not us. If you think about it in evolutionary terms, it makes perfect sense. 99% of our evolutionary history was spent in small, isloated bands, as hunter-gatherers, in a world where humans were not the dominant species. Danger was everywhere. Survival of the individual depended on suvirival of the group. Anything from outside the groups was suspect, dangerous, to be feared. Chimpanzees show a lot of the same behaviors, even patrolling the boundaries of their terriortories, attacking the members of other groups, and, as Jane Goodall pointed out, having all out wars between groups. So when you point to one country, or one group, or one nationality, or whatever, and say They're the nationalistic ones, they're the evil ones, they're the aberration, you're really just engaging in the same behavior you claim to be derriding: Us-and-them. Even more importantly, you are avoiding responsibility for something that is a common trait we all share by projecting it on them. We all have these tendencies, and the only answer to them is reason, not emotion, name calling and the generation of more fear and hate. As Dr. Brin points out, the kinds of open, responsive systems that we have developed in the past few centuries, are the only antidote we know to the universal condition of tyrrany, exploitation, war and tribalism. And we have to use our reason to set up these systems despire the fact that it goes against millions of years of evolutionary history (just like I have to use my reason not to gorge myself on high-fat foods at every possibility, even though my genes tell me it has survivial value -- for my distant ancestors it did, and the ones who stocked up on fat and calories when they could surivived and passed the craving on to me -- it today's world, though, it will kill me) ... Judging from some of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should all go back and read some of the stuff Dr. Brin has written about the addictive qualities of self-righteous indignation? Olin aren't you being self righteous about not being self righteous, olin? if intolerance of intolerance is being self righteous, then i pleasd guilty, too. jon
Re: Sore losers
I don't believe i was being sanctimonious, olin, by saying that nationalism is abhorrent. i was simply stating my opinion. i will maintain that the didactic, righteous, dogmatists tend to come from the emotional right wing religious fanatics (many of whom believe in creationism and reject global warming) rather than the more rational leftist secular progressive, pragmatists. jon at the presnet moment, I agree with you. But the history of the left has more than its share of dogmatism, irrationality, and craziness. Try suggesting on most college campus that things like, say, the relative aptitudes of men and women in different fields in an empiracal question and should be studied scientifically. You will be shouted down by leftist, progressive feminists. The response will be just as emotional and non-rational. There's a strong ant-sciene bias in modern American liberalism, resistance to ideas about the inheritance of temerpment or personality, the primacy of biology over culture, etc. etc. The right has just been more blantant, more vocal and more ludicrous in their attacks on science, but they don't have a monopoly on it. Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:58 PM Subject: Sore losers of course I'm being self-righteous -- notice that I was very careful to use inclusive language throughout what I wrote, even noting that we should all go back and read Dr. Brin's article. I'm one of the worst -- only in the last half-decade or so of my life have I learned to (usually) avoid taking a verbal sledgehammer to anyone I disagree with. Socrates said that if he was the wiesest man in Athens, it was only because he knew that he didn't know anything. None of us is going to eliminate these tendencies (short of genetic modification). I'd bet that even the Dalia Llama (if you don't like Buddhists please insert the religious or secular saint of your choice) would admit that he hasn't elmintated those traits. Its like a computer that goes back to its default settings every time you turn it off. The best we can do is try to always be aware of it and allow for it -- and we won't even succeed at that a lot of the time, which is why feedback, mutual criticism and transpa rency are so important. And we have to set these systems up -- both in the public sector and our own lives -- during the times when we're relatively sane, because once we're into our self-righteousness and our indignation and all that other stuff, we're not going to want to be corrected. Just look around the world today, at all the groups pointing weapons (physical and intellectual) at each other, and all the damage we're doing to the world because we're sure that we're right and we're most imporant -- and its not just one country or one political party, although I'll admit some are worse than others. I believe it's the single most imporatant issue we face. We either deal with it -- we either adapt to the new conditions our species faces -- or we die. Olin I don't believe i was being sanctimonious, olin, by saying that nationalism is abhorrent. i was simply stating my opinion. i will maintain that the didactic, righteous, dogmatists tend to come from the emotional right wing religious fanatics (many of whom believe in creationism and reject global warming) rather than the more rational leftist secular progressive, pragmatists. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McCain Positions
(I'm 45, born the same week Kennedy was shot) ObSF: And the week _Doctor Who_ premiered Thanks, Ronn. I never knew that. That's an anniversary worth celebrating. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:13 AM Subject: Re: McCain Positions At 05:16 PM Monday 8/25/2008, Olin Elliott wrote: (I'm 45, born the same week Kennedy was shot) ObSF: And the week _Doctor Who_ premiered . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Vernor Vinge in the New York Times
There's an interesting interview/review of Rainbow's End in the NY Times today. Olin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26tier.html?scp=1sq=technology%20that%20outthinks%20usst=csehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26tier.html?scp=1sq=technology%20that%20outthinks%20usst=cse - Original Message - From: Julia Thompsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:17 AM Subject: Re: McCain Positions On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 05:16 PM Monday 8/25/2008, Olin Elliott wrote: (I'm 45, born the same week Kennedy was shot) ObSF: And the week _Doctor Who_ premiered . . . And the week C. S. Lewis died. Heck, he died on the *day* Kennedy was shot. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
Because if you assign 3 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 point for bronze, then the crybaby yanks lost to china, and that is unacceptable to the American chauvinist, patriotic, jingoist, dogmatic, nationalistic media. Americans can not accept that they are on their way down, and no longer first in everything. They whine because they can't prove the Chinese gymnists lied about their age. Who cares what age they are; that is an arbitrary rule that should be eliminated. I bow down to the Chinese volleyball girls, and all the other champions that dominated this Olympics. If it wasn't for Phelps (aided by American society's peculiar syndrome of ADHD) America would have done even more poorly. Jon I was going to respond to this in detail, but decided not to. I just wonder, if William has posted something with the same tone about a religious group, how many people would be all over him right now. The irony is, that I probably agree with some of what you're saying, but as an American I find the tone offensive. - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:27 PM Subject: Sore losers So why are the Americans counting total medals instead of golds for the Olympics? And why the innuendo about Usain Bolt as long as he's clean? And the manufactured fuss about miming during the opening ceremony when everybody does it during these kind of events (the Australians admitted they did it at Sydney). And the 'not real sports' jibes about table tennis, rhythmic gymnastics and others? Beach Volleyball Rules Maru William T Goodall Because if you assign 3 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 point for bronze, then the crybaby yanks lost to china, and that is unacceptable to the American chauvinist, patriotic, jingoist, dogmatic, nationalistic media. Americans can not accept that they are on their way down, and no longer first in everything. They whine because they can't prove the Chinese gymnists lied about their age. Who cares what age they are; that is an arbitrary rule that should be eliminated. I bow down to the Chinese volleyball girls, and all the other champions that dominated this Olympics. If it wasn't for Phelps (aided by American society's peculiar syndrome of ADHD) America would have done even more poorly. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: What's in the works?
My choice for President depends on which candidate I think will address all the issues facing the USA consistent with my values, not whether or not he has a cool Facebook page. Its not whether or not he has a cool Facebbook page -- its whether he can understand the massive changes in socieity being wrought by computers and the internet, whether he is going to be a President who honors science and tries to learn from it, rather than supressing it out of ideologicial and religious prejudice like the one we have now, whether he is equipped to deal with a world bound ever tighter by communicantions, by enemies who have mastered the idea of loose networks bound by technology and of spreading their world view via the web. Whether he looks outward toward the future rather than backwards, and whether he can address, for instance, the kinds of issues of privacy, freedom and the impact of technology that Dr. Brin addresses. That's why its important that he know how to use a computer. Comparing it to a cool facebook page is the kind of trivial analysis the media usually does. Olin - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 6:49 AM Subject: Re: Brin: What's in the works? On 25 Aug 2008, at 14:25, John Garcia wrote: McCain doesn't know how to use a computer. So? What does that have to do with being President? It means he's completely out of touch with reality. My choice for President depends on which candidate I think will address all the issues facing the USA consistent with my values, not whether or not he has a cool Facebook page. Wouldn't he have to understand the issues first? Dinosaur Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: What's in the works?
I am not sure how Obama will support the scientific community other than getting out of the business of trying to make scientific reports match political agendas. I suspect his economic social and foreign policy initiatives to get us back on track will force science budgets to the back burner. One of the most promising things I've heard during this campaign was in a question session that Obama did with reporters after a speech somewhere in the midwest (I think). He has been a supporter of corn based fuels, and he was asked about new studies that show that the processes may not be so environmentally friendly after all. Obama's answer was, if the science shows us there's a problem, we need to change our policy. Wow. That alone is almost enough to get my support. Olin - Original Message - From: John Garciamailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Brin: What's in the works? On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Chris Frandsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, if you look to at what Jimmy Carter tried to tell us before his last failed election run against Reagan and compare it to where we are today you might reconsider his position in history. A friend Andrew Bacevich addresses some of this in his new book, The Limits of Power.(shameless plug for Skip) You might want to watch the discussion on Bill Moyer's Journal http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html I totally agree with Olin's comments. I am not sure how Obama will support the scientific community other than getting out of the business of trying to make scientific reports match political agendas. I suspect his economic social and foreign policy initiatives to get us back on track will force science budgets to the back burner. Chris Frandsen Remember Remember 4 November! snippage I do remember Jimmy Carter, even voted for him in 1976 and 1980. Also watched what Andrew Bacevich had to say on Bill Moyers (Brian Lehrer on WNYC also interviewed him. You can download it here: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2008/08/20http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2008/08/20) Carter was correct when he said that we were living beyond our means. Too bad we didn't want to hear it. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McCain Positions
On the face of it, none of this sounds horrendous. As with any promise, the real deal is whether or not he can or will deliver. YMMV. It's all just a matter of trust. Exactly. And even if I did trust John McCain personally (which I don't), I wouldn't trust the Republican machinery that comes with him. Where does it say in there that he's gong to take the EPA and other regulatory agencies out of the hands of the people they're supposed to be regulating? And where does it say he's going to disavow the medieval world view of the Fundamentalist leaders he's been cozying up to? - Original Message - From: John Garciamailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:34 AM Subject: McCain Positions While I wait for a vendor to call me, I thought I'd post some McCain campaign stuff about science and the internet, taken from his website. What do you all think? *John McCain Would Place A Priority On Science And Technology Experience.*As President, John McCain will be committed to bringing talented men and women of science into the federal government. He will strive to ensure that Administration appointees across the government have adequate experience and understanding of science, technology and innovation in order to better serve the American people. *John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms. *John McCain will focus on policies that leave consumers free to access the content they choose; free to use the applications and services they choose; free to attach devices they choose, if they do not harm the network; and free to chose among broadband service providers. *John McCain Would Ensure That The Federal Government Led By Example.*Government can advance Americans' access to high speed Internet services by using it to better serve the people. Government services should be available online and government can better serve the American people by operating more efficiently through the use of technology, including videoconferencing and collaborative networks. For over a decade, John McCain has supported placing more government information online for the benefit of all of the American people. Since 2001, he has called for an Office of Electronic Government to set a strategic vision for implementation of electronic government *John McCain Would Support The Federal Government As An Innovator.* John McCain as president would push for a renewed emphasis on innovation through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) where industry and government enter into public/private projects, sharing in the cost, benefiting from solving real problems, accelerating the application of technology in the government. This way the government is a leader of the technology revolution and not simply a beneficiary. On the face of it, none of this sounds horrendous. As with any promise, the real deal is whether or not he can or will deliver. YMMV. It's all just a matter of trust. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McCain Positions
Actually, I didn't write that. I'm not sure who did. Free/fair trade, though important, I grant, is not usually an issue I get worked up about. Not sure who wrote the paragraph you qutoed, Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 1:50 PM Subject: McCain Positions Olin wrote: One thing that I have not seen mentioned yet about the candidates is that McCain has a dramatically better voting record on free trade (one of few points of near universal agreement among economists is that subsidies and trade barriers are harmful): are you suggesting that free trade is fair trade? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McCain Positions
I don't trust McCain, I don't trust Republican machinery, I don't trust Obama, and I don't trust Democrat's machinery. I do not trust politicians. Do you? Yes, I do trust some politicians -- and more to the point I trust some more than others. The cynical position that all politicians are bad or untrustworthy is no more reasonable than any other blanket indictment of a group. I think the record of administrations in my lifetime (I'm 45, born the same week Kennedy was shot) is pretty clear -- Democrats have proven themselves more responsible and trustworthy than Republicans by orders of magnitude. Not only on Democratic issues like civil rights and the environment (my number one issue) but also on what are supposed to be conservative issues like fiscal responsibility. Clinton was by far the most fiscally responsible president of my lifetime. And yes, I trusted Bill Clinton on the big issues -- not on everything certainly, not on his personal life for instance, and I recognize the faults of both Clintons, through I have enormous respect for both of them -- but I think its telling that Clinton got impeached in large part be cause he had enough respect for the rule of law to testify under oath for a deposition. He lied, true, but he lied about a question that never should have been within the scope of the investigation in the first place. The Bush gang won't go anywhere near an oath -- they avoid them like vampires avoid garlic. I trust the Democratic party several orders of magnitude more than I trust the Republicans, and I don't think that's just ideology -- I think it's the only valid empirical conclusion from the experience of the last forty years. Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:25 PM Subject: Re: McCain Positions Olin wrote: And even if I did trust John McCain personally (which I don't), I wouldn't trust the Republican machinery that comes with him. I don't trust McCain, I don't trust Republican machinery, I don't trust Obama, and I don't trust Democrat's machinery. I do not trust politicians. Do you? I am generally in favor of politicians who demonstrate a record of less government spending and smaller government. Unfortunately, libertarians do not seem able to win many elections. I guess it has something to do with being difficult to win an election without pandering to special interests. I have not decided whether I will vote for McCain or Obama (I will not vote 3rd party since I do not want to waste my vote). One thing that I have not seen mentioned yet about the candidates is that McCain has a dramatically better voting record on free trade (one of few points of near universal agreement among economists is that subsidies and trade barriers are harmful): http://www.freetrade.org/congress?senator=84http://www.freetrade.org/congress?senator=84 http://www.freetrade.org/congress?senator=75http://www.freetrade.org/congress?senator=75 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conference Made for David
Hi, Chris, Glad you mentioned that conference, and specifically the Kurzweil link, because I've been meaning to ask people what they think of him. I'm reading one of his older books The Age of Spiritual Machines (you've just got to love that title), and while I find myself very interested in his big ideas, I'm irritated and distracted that he seems very casual, sometimes even sloppy, about facts quoted in his argument. If I manage to spot several factual errors pertaining to subjects that I know about, it makes it much harder for me to trust him about the topics I'm less familiar with. I do love that site though, lots of fascinating stuff there. Olin - Original Message - From: Chris Frandsenmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 2:39 PM Subject: Conference Made for David David, Looks like you missed a great vacation trip here. http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=9269m=22309http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=9269m=22309 Have a great day! Chris Frandsen ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: What's in the works?
Now I'm curious - what's so wrong about McCain (beyond his killing of McAbel)? Well, I'm not sure if you meant that as a serious question -- but for starters, how about the fact that McCain has shown himself to be a shallow, venal, opportunistic political hack who is willing to cozy up the very people who viciously attacked him and impugned his war record and patriotism in 2000, just because it's now convenient to have them do that to his enemies instead of him? How about the fact that he has sold out virtually every position he ever staked out as a Republican maverick now that its more convenient for him to get the support? The man who once attacked right-wing religious leaders liked Pat Roberson and James Dobson as agents of intolerance and a threat to the democratic process has now, apparently, drunk the kool-aid and become their born-again buddy. This is a man who makes jokes to reporters about women being raped by apes and liking it. Everything that once seemed virtuous and admirable about John McCain was either a lie, or something he was w illing to jettison when he got the chance to be embraced by his Party. If elected, his most important contribution will be keeping in place the same political machinery that has been trashing our democracy for the past eight years. (Has anyone noticed that every Democratic president brings, for the most part, a totally new administration into office, with a few experienced people getting re-hired, but the Republicans have been recycling the same thugs into different positions since the Nixon/Ford adminstrations? The guy at the top changes, but the faces around him seem familiar -- its sort of like one of those horror movie franchises where you think you've gotten rid of the monster but it keeps coming back for the sequal.) I'm sorry if I stepped on your joke by taking the question seriously but I'm scared to death that a lot of the ostriches out there (to borrow David Brin's term) are just buying the whole war hero, political maverick, okay-for-a-Republican schtick. But what do I know? I thought (twice) that George Bush was unelectable - Original Message - From: Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiromailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:42 PM Subject: Re: Brin: What's in the works? David Brin wrote: But of course I am distracted by the elections, hoping we'll at last save America and civilization from a criminal gang. (What we're seeing -- including the outright and direct theft of half a trillion dollars -- goes far beyond regular issues of mere left or right.) Now I'm curious - what's so wrong about McCain (beyond his killing of McAbel)? Alberto Monteiro PS: one guy is named Cain, the other is named Hussein... definitely, the writer of this story ran out of names... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Greg Bear
Is City at the End of Time part of the Eon series? I somehow missed Eon years ago when I was first reading heavily in science fiction, and I'm reading it now. I'm thinking that I probably enjoy it more now -- or at least appreciate it -- than I would have in my 20's. Olin - Original Message - From: Julia Thompsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Greg Bear On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, John Williams wrote: After seeing several messages with Greg Bear as subject, I am wondering if anyone has read his new book, City at the End of Time. Are there any guidelines on discussing books here without giving away too much (I'm new here, by the way)? Giving warning about spoilers has generally been the done thing. You warn: SPOILERS AHEAD and then give a bunch of lines with *something* there, so various mail programs don't decide, Hey, that's just white space, we should compress it! One thing that works fairly well is: S P O I L E R S P A C E S P O I L E R S P A C E And it's generally a good idea to do that for anything only out in hardcover, or something that's been out in paperback for less than 2 months. (Some folks can't necessarily get the books from the library and can't afford hardcover copies of all the nifty stuff we could potentially discuss here, so waiting until the paperback has been out long enough for folks to get their hands on it and read it is a generally courteous thing.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Apology (was Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion))
The list has now been dominated by this discusion for much longer than seems reasonable. It is much more distracting than William's posts. - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:05 AM Subject: Re: Apology (was Re: Off-topic.,monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion)) On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrotemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ronn! Blankenship wrote: If they are indeed _silent_, what makes you think they agree with you? He's a mind reader. Doesn't believe in religion, but does believe in telepathy. :-) The Amazing William Maru LOL! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion)
By that description, 99% of the postings are off topic. Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:12 AM Subject: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion) William, This is not a discussion list about religion. I don't think we've ever moderated anybody for frequent off-topic posting, but I'm growing increasingly concerned that many of your postings are a distraction and offensive to some who might otherwise participate. Others,including me, are just plain bored with it, since you haven't written anything new on the topic for a long, long time. As a reminder, here is the list description: This list is a community of people who are interested in the writings of David Brin and his fellow Killer Bees -- Gregory Benford, Greg Bear... and recently inducted members Stephen Baxter and Vernor Vinge. These authors represent the portion of the science fiction genre that takes science seriously, emphasizing careful thought experiments about plausible tomorrows. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:47 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrotemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gOpmWyOXR5j94s1rzxyBpDv886JQhttp://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gOpmWyOXR5j94s1rzxyBpDv886JQ Toddler 'starved to death by cult' ... Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sanity prevails
Biology: God's Living Creation--New Edition Truly nonevolutionary in philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study. Begins with the familiar, tangible things of nature with special emphasis on the structure and function; and concludes with God's amazing design at the cellular and chemical level. [...] What?!! No text book that corrects those awful heresies about the earth being round and revolving around the Sun? But doesn't the Bible speak of the for corners of the Earth? And didn't Joshua make the Sun stand still in the sky? Don't we have to take those things literally? I mean, isn't it all the literal word of God. I'm shocked that they aren't refuting those evil Compernican Heresies. Olin - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:15 AM Subject: Re: Sanity prevails On 16 Aug 2008, at 17:29, Bruce Bostwick wrote: One of the articles I saw on this mentioned that at least one of the textbooks in question (the one quoted as saying if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong) was published by Bob Jones University. Those would definitely seem to be the same guys. It's worth noting that the entire *curriculum* taught by fundamentalist-based schools and homeschooling systems (most of them use the same curriculum, in most cases either A Beka or PACE) is considered so substandard by accredited university standards that most fundamentalist Christian school courses aren't accepted for credit in accredited universities. This is a widespread enough problem that there is a whole parallel economy of fundamentalist-affiliated universities like Regent, Bob Jones, Liberty, and others, and even alternate track *accreditation* for those universities (since their *own* courses are often not accepted for transfer to mainstream universities, likewise for the reason that most of them are so appallingly substandard as to not be worth the paper they're printed on), just to provide a secondary education for the kids unfortunate enough to have been dragged through a fundamentalist K12 program. It's a huge problem, and is very much underreported in this country. From the A Beka Book website: World History and Cultures in Christian Perspective This well-researched text stands on the conviction that God is the Creator of the world and the Controller of history. The text builds a solid foundation of ancient history, tracing man's history back to the Garden of Eden. It gives a fine presentation of neglected Asian and African cultures in a unique ancient-to-modern style, helping the students to recognize other peoples and cultures. An in-depth study of the Greco-Roman culture lays the groundwork for an exciting section on medieval history. The last section brings the student to the very doorstep of current history and vividly depicts world events in light of God's master plan. Since man's actions are a product of his thoughts, the history of ideas is emphasized, rather than only political events and economic conditions. Students are given a Christian perspective on language, chronology, prehistoric times, art, music, revolutionism, evolutionism, socialism, Communism, humanism, liberalism, and much more. Colorful maps, time lines, illustrations, and photographs help to make the study of history both interesting and rewarding. [...] Science of the Physical Creation Atmosphere, weather, oceanography, earthquakes, volcanoes, rocks, and fossils are just some of the earth-science topics of this outstanding text. The geology section includes a good refutation of the principle of uniformity and other ideas of evolutionary philosophers. Basic concepts of chemistry are presented in a simple and yet accurate manner, and physics concepts are applied to lasers, computers, and other electronic devices. [...] Biology: God's Living Creation--New Edition Truly nonevolutionary in philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study. Begins with the familiar, tangible things of nature with special emphasis on the structure and function; and concludes with God's amazing design at the cellular and chemical level. Ties abstract concepts to concrete examples through clear, easy-to- read explanations. Lays a firm foundation for future studies in chemistry, physics, and other fields while teaching students the Christian perspective of science. With the academic knowledge gained in the text, students will also find a greater appreciation for God's physical creation and an increased interest in science. Lists key concepts at the head of each chapter, Includes pronunciation helps, key-words in bold, vivid photographs, and full-color diagrams.
Re: Sanity prevails
And yet, if _we_ are right (i.e., Evolution rulez), then _we_ are mad, because it seems that believing in nonsense is a reproductive advantage... Survival of the craziest Maru Alberto Monteiro No, it means that it had an advantage in the past, not that it still has survival value now. In our evolutionary past, belonging to a small, xenophobic group that shut out outsiders and was run by tough authoritarian leaders probably did have survival value and the groups who distrusted the world and set themselves off from it prospered. The closed belief system served to keep them unified in the face of outside threats, and prompted obedience in a world where taking time out to think too much might have been fatal. But that isn't true anymore, and that same behavior, hardwired into the genes, can be maladaptive in today's world. Just like a taste for high-fat food was beneficial when we were hunter gatherers and that kind of food was scarce -- you ate as much of it as you could because who knew when you would see it again, and the calories would keep you alive. But in a world with a McDonald's on every corner that same taste, that kept our ancestors alive can kill us. These kinds of insular, tribal belief systems, that create tight little pockets of delusional thinking and cut their believers off from the outside world, are the same thing. In an increasingly interconnected and crowded world they do not have survival value. They make these people a threat to themselves and everyone around them. - Original Message - From: Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiromailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Sanity prevails William T Goodall quoted: World History and Cultures in Christian Perspective This well-researched text stands on the conviction that God is the Creator of the world and the Controller of history. (...) and concluded: These people are mad Maru And yet, if _we_ are right (i.e., Evolution rulez), then _we_ are mad, because it seems that believing in nonsense is a reproductive advantage... Survival of the craziest Maru Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sanity prevails
(08-12) 17:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution. Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking Aren't these the same folks who scream that Gays and Lesbians who ask for basic civil rights are seeking sepcial treatment? Why do Fundamentalism and hypocrisy so often seem to go together? Olin - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin-Lmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 7:01 AM Subject: Sanity prevails http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/BAQT129NMG.DTLtype=printablehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/BAQT129NMG.DTLtype=printable (08-12) 17:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution. Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero's rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools, attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students. Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations. What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a religious exemption from regular admissions standards. The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution. But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as Chemistry for Christian Schools and Biology: God's Living Creation, or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution. UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said. For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations. Another rejected text, Biology for Christian Schools, declares on the first page that if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, Otero said. He also said the Christian schools presented no evidence that the university's decisions were motivated by hostility to religion. UC attorney Christopher Patti said Tuesday that the judge assessed the review process accurately. We evaluate the courses to see whether they prepare these kids to come to college at UC, he said. There was no evidence that these students were in fact denied the ability to come to the university.
Re: Religion kills
then why are you so angry? jon I'm not angry. What makes you think that? Mildly irritated Maru I can't speak for William, but as a non-believer myself, I find a lot to be angry about in the relationship between society and religion. Personally, I am sick and tried of hearing atheistic used as a synonym for evil, I'm sick of hearing political candidates of both sides pander to a small minority of fundamentalist believers when surveys consistently show that the second largest religious affiliation in the United States (after the combined Christian denominations) are those who consider themselves non-religious or secular. Where are our candidates? Where are the politicians that speak for us? Secular voters, if organized, would be larger block than Jewish voters, or any of the other non-Christian religions combined -- but when was the last time you saw a representative of atheists or agnostics included in some politicians ecumenical service? And can you imagine any candidate for national office in the US saying openly that they don't believe in god? And yet, Chri stian groups constantly present themselves as an oppressed minority battling against the evils of secularism. I'm very very tired of hearing politicians talk about their faith -- as if unquestioning, unsupported belief in anything was something to be proud of. The greatest sins in history -- and certainly almost all the crimes of the Bush administration, from Guantanamo to the war on science and the deliberate suppression of global warming information -- are the crimes of men who believe so totally in a certain point of view that facts are not only unnecessary, not only irrelevant, but an evil that must be suppressed. Anything that we believe in unquestioningly -- and we all have some of these -- is a liability, not a virtue. I'm tired of people telling me that evolution is an open question or that there is no real evidence to support it. I'm tired of living in a country where, in the first decade of the 21st century we have a major party (at least one -- Democrats do n't have much more courage here) where every single candidate will openly avow that he doesn't believe in evolution. Who cares? You might not believe in gravity either, but step off a ten story building and see how much good your belief does you. I'm tired of being told that I have to be tolerant of beliefs that, in any other context, we would label delusional and maybe outright insane. (Last year an Orca whale trapped in Puget Sound here in Seattle died because scientists couldn't get close enough to it to rescue it, because local Indians were convinced it was the re-incarnation of their ancient Chief and blocked all the scientists attempts. We have to respect that because it is their culture and their religion? It could just as easily have been fundamentalist Christians convinced that the whale was an instrument of Satan, or that it once housed Jonah, or whatever. Its still insane thinking.) Finally, I'm tired of being told that America is a Christian country and th at the Founding Fathers were Christian heroes when I know that most of them couldn't get elected today to save their lives. They'd be further out on the fringe than Dennis Kucinich. Thomas Jefferson was working on a version of the Bible that eliminated all references to miracles or the supernatural while living in the White House. And the founding fathers deliberately left all mention of god out of the constitution because they intended to set up a secular government, founded on the idea of reason and rationality. Like I said, I can't speak for William, but I can understand how a non-believer can be very angry about a lot of things going on in the world, and though I hope we all try not to, I can understand how someone can become so disillusioned that they start to tar all believers with the same brush. From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:07 PM Subject: Re: Religion kills On 4 Aug 2008, at 20:49, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i have to wonder why you are so angry; what did religion do to you? jon Nothing yet - and I'd like to keep it that way. Best Defence Maru William T Goodall then why are you so angry? jon I'm not angry. What makes you think that? Mildly irritated Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___
Re: The First Event
What's wrong with saying I don't know and continuing to explore. Olin - Original Message - From: Wayne Eddymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:59 PM Subject: The First Event I'd love to hear everyones thoughts on the original impossible event that created everything. Whether it be; mass being created in the Big Bang from nothing, God appearing from nowhere,. branes forming out over nowhere and later colliding to cause the big bang, or the original multiverse 100 universes removed from ours coming into existance for no reason. Seems to me that something impossible happened at least once in the history of everything. Regards, Wayne ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The First Event
Acutally, quantum mechanics suggests that it is totally possible that a purple ball could pop into existence in your kitchen at any moment. It is, however, highly, highly improbable -- so improbable that it is almost totally unlikely to occur in the life span of the universe. I'm not sure where the logical fallacy against something being created from nothing comes from -- physics allows for particles to be created essentially out of nothing in a number of circumstances, as long as certain balances, like the net charge and so on are preserved. And is that really any more difficult to swallow than an omnipotent, all powerful being who has existed for all time (where did he -- she, it, etc. -- come from?). I don't know that you, Wayne, are aguing for a religious position, or just looking at the question from all angles, but it seems odd to me when anyone with religious beliefs about creation, etc. starts dealing in logic. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. -- J.B.S. Haldane - Original Message - From: Wayne Eddymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 2:43 PM Subject: Re: The First Event - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: The First Event On 4 Aug 2008, at 21:59, Wayne Eddy wrote: Seems to me that something impossible happened at least once in the history of everything. If it happened it wasn't impossible. But logically, that means that it is possible something (Say a purple ball) could be created from nothing in your kitchen tomorrow. Logic Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion kills
I wish I was going to World Con, but I'm not. (I have some political issues with Denver, but that's another story and not the reason I'm not going -- I just can't get away at the right time). Too bad you're leaving tomorrow though. Have fun at the convention, though. - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:13 PM Subject: Religion kills I can't speak for William, but as a non-believer myself, I find a lot to be angry about in the relationship between society and religion. Personally, I am sick and tried of hearing atheistic used as a synonym for evil, I'm sick of hearing political candidates of both sides pander to a small minority of fundamentalist believers when surveys consistently show that the second largest religious affiliation in the United States (after the combined Christian denominations) are those who consider themselves non-religious or secular. Where are our candidates? Where are the politicians that speak for us? Secular voters, if organized, would be larger block than Jewish voters, or any of the other non-Christian religions combined -- but when was the last time you saw a representative of atheists or agnostics included in some politicians ecumenical service? And can you imagine any candidate for national office in the US saying openly that they don't believe in god? And yet, Christian groups constantly present themselves as an oppressed minority battling against the evils of secularism. I'm very very tired of hearing politicians talk about their faith -- as if unquestioning, unsupported belief in anything was something to be proud of. The greatest sins in history -- and certainly almost all the crimes of the Bush administration, from Guantanamo to the war on science and the deliberate suppression of global warming information -- are the crimes of men who believe so totally in a certain point of view that facts are not only unnecessary, not only irrelevant, but an evil that must be suppressed. Anything that we believe in unquestioningly -- and we all have some of these -- is a liability, not a virtue. I'm tired of people telling me that evolution is an open question or that there is no real evidence to support it. I'm tired of living in a country where, in the first decade of the 21st century we have a major party (at least one -- Democrats don't have much more courage here) where every single candidate will openly avow that he doesn't believe in evolution. Who cares? You might not believe in gravity either, but step off a ten story building and see how much good your belief does you. I'm tired of being told that I have to be tolerant of beliefs that, in any other context, we would label delusional and maybe outright insane. (Last year an Orca whale trapped in Puget Sound here in Seattle died because scientists couldn't get close enough to it to rescue it, because local Indians were convinced it was the re-incarnation of their ancient Chief and blocked all the scientists attempts. We have to respect that because it is their culture and their religion? It could just as easily have been fundamentalist Christians convinced that the whale was an instrument of Satan, or that it once housed Jonah, or whatever. Its still insane thinking.) Finally, I'm tired of being told that America is a Christian country and that the Founding Fathers were Christian heroes when I know that most of them couldn't get elected today to save their lives. They'd be further out on the fringe than Dennis Kucinich. Thomas Jefferson was working on a version of the Bible that eliminated all references to miracles or the supernatural while living in the White House. The founding fathers deliberately left all mention of god out of the constitution because they intended to set up a secular government, founded on the idea of reason and rationality. Like I said, I can't speak for William, but I can understand how a non-believer can be very angry about a lot of things going on in the world, and though I hope we all try not to, I can understand how someone can become so disillusioned that they start to tar all believers with the same brush. brilliant olin. i guess what taught me tolerance was when i fell in love with a christian girl who exemplified the better side of her faith. i still harbor a lot of hatred toward the moral majority, but i don't let them affect how i run for office. i have lost eight elections, but i will NEVER pander to religion. i have even made speeches denouncing corruption in church and state, and identified myself as a neo-marxist revisionist. i am in seattle right now visiting a friend who is waiting for
Alastair Reynolds
Has anyone here read Alastair Reynolds -- Revelation Space, Chasm City, Redemption Ark. I've been reading his books for the past few months and really loving them, but he doesn't seem to be that well known among science fiction readers I've chatted with since I started. I'm also reading A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. Just thought I'd bring up some books, since that is sort of what drew me here in the first place. Olin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion kills
Betrand Russell (I'm fairly sure it was him) used to call himself A Teacup Athiest. He said he couldn't prove, beyond any doubt, that there wasn't a pink teacup orbiting the sun, but he didn't think that meant that the likelihood of it existing was on equal footing with its not existing. I sometimes tell people I'm a tooth fairy agnostic (a phrase I stole, from Richard Dawkins I think). Basically, I can't prove to someone who really believes that the tooth fairy definitely doesn't exist. But it just doesn't seem very likely, does it? - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 4:50 PM Subject: Religion kills By atheists and in the name of atheism aren't the same thing. It's about, as was mentioned a few posts back, ideology. When beliefs get in the way of reason. And in that sense, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Spain under the Inquisition, Maoist China, and the Balkan conflicts are all the same thing. It's ideology. Atheism is not an ideology, it's just a position of non-belief in gods. The one problem is that a large proportion of humanity seem to be wired for religion, so if one decides they don't believe in God, there's some room for other dangerous nonsense to fill the gap. In Russia, that was Marx-Leninism and Lysenkoism, and very similar in China. Charlie. i sit corrected, in the name of atheism. as a devout atheist i believe there ain't no gawd, but i can't prove it, so i take it on faith. i believe the universe is cyclical and the big bang occurs when all the galaxies in the universe are sucked into super black holes which are then sucked into a super duper black hole at the center of this universe, which then explodes it reaches critical mass, so that the process of expansion, contraction and the heat death of the universe starts all over, again. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Louisiana passes first antievolution academic freedom law
What's really scary about this is that rejecting evolution requires rejecting the entire framework of modern science, as well as a body of evidence that is overwhelming in scope. It requires a kind of intellectual dishonesty -- or at the very least willful ignorance -- that almost has to be called pathological. If they want to teach religion in school lets have religion courses that teach all the world's religions in depth. But of course, that's not what this is about. Its about indoctrination. Olin - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin-Lmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Louisiana passes first antievolution academic freedom law http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.htmlhttp://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.html Louisiana passes first antievolution academic freedom law By John Timmer | Published: June 27, 2008 - 02:13PM CT As we noted last month, a number of states have been considering laws that, under the guise of academic freedom, single out evolution for special criticism. Most of them haven't made it out of the state legislatures, and one that did was promptly vetoed. But the last of these bills under consideration, the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), was enacted by the signature of Governor Bobby Jindal yesterday. The bill would allow local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories, allowing poorly-informed board members to stick their communities with Dover-sized legal fees. The text of the LSEA suggests that it's intended to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories. Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. Oddly, the last item on the list is not the subject of any scientific theory; the remainder are notable for being topics that are the focus of frequent political controversies rather than scientific ones. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Debunking bullshit is a thankless task. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pernicious superstitious garbage
Jesus on a dinosaur. Now that's funny. - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin-Lmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:36 AM Subject: Pernicious superstitious garbage http://i27.tinypic.com/2h6yet5.jpghttp://i27.tinypic.com/2h6yet5.jpg Ho ho Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Debunking bullshit is a thankless task. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A videogame that will make William happy
I'm sure that artistry goes into making them, I just don't see the artistry in palying them. The same argument could be applied to making as opposed to watching tv. - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:30 AM Subject: Re: A videogame that will make William happy On 6 Jun 2008, at 17:04, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 6/6/08, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Jun 2008, at 15:43, Olin Elliott wrote: I don't like computer games. Waste of time Maru. More of a waste of time than watching television? Computer games are a kind of amateur sports for people who aren't good at sports. I believe they even adjust their difficulty automatically to suit the player, presenting a gratifying illusion of challenge and success. Spoken like someone who isn't any good at computer games. ;-) Wouldn't I have to play them to find out how good I am? Which I don't. The best television is an art form. I don't need to justify art do I? Culture Maru The best computer games are art as well. I'm sure artistry goes into making them. I just don't see it in playing them. I've even heard people talk about the artistic beauty of a perfectly executed pick and roll in basketball. *Anything* can be done as an art form. I think that's stretching a bit far. Hyperbole Maru The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
The bogus criticism is just part of the process. It is only by opening ourselves, our institutions and our leaders to the full range of criticism -- the overwhelming majority of which will always be useless or worse than useless -- that we can insure that the critical small percentage of necessary criticism gets through. No one said it was going to be neat or pretty or fun. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:53 PM Subject: CITOKATE One problem with this philosophy is that these days I see a lot of criticism directed toward what the critic considers error which is not necessarily considered erroneous by others (Not thinking of any examples on the list, but thinking of the world at large. Politics is an obvious fruitful source of examples . . . ) I'm Okay, You're A Moron Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: CITOKATE
I agree. I often don't participate in conversation threads online (including on this forum) for precisely that reason, because they seem to degenerate too easily into name calling and other nastiness. I like having a moderated forum, but the problem is always how to draw the line between moderation and censorship. At the extremes its easy (usually) -- the totally whacko responses are generally obvious. But the closer we edge in toward the center the more dificult it becomes to tell crazy criticism from truly valuable criticism, and I always have to aware of my own biases and anxieties. Is this criticism really crazy or does it just make me uncomfortable for personal or ideological reasons? Am I rejecting it for legitimate reasons or am I just protecting my belief system? It is never an easy line to draw and I think we have to err always on the side of letting in more criticism, not less. As much as I hate it - Original Message - From: Pat Mathewsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:55 AM Subject: RE: CITOKATE Some of the criticism I get on a forum supposedly dedicated to intellectual analysis of a theoretical book has so often degenerated into name calling that they set up a special Flame Wars thread just for that. Did it work? No. So be prepared to filter out a lot of Fascist! Well, you're a Liberal, so of COURSE you hate America!!, not to mention sexual innuendo etc. I think most criticism needs an On Topic moderator. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica
I have to admit that I don't get the Battlestar Galactica craze. I have tried diligently to watch it and though I recognize the quality of the storylines -- I think it is written just about as well as any drama currently on television -- and characterizations, it doesn't grab me. I think there are two reason for that, primarily. One, I'm really just tired of the cold, calculating machines seeking to wipe out flawed-but-noble humanity theme. It seems to be everywhere in mass market sci-fi, from BSG to the Sarah Connor Chronicles. They even turned Isaac Asimov's wonderfully smart robot stories into an excuse for Will smith to shoot up evil robots. I think it's a failure of imagination, taking the most common track about the future of man's relationship to technology. Second, I just don't see that BSG, while it might be good drama, is good science fiction. Sure, it has a science fiction background, other planets, set on a space ship, etc. but that that doesn't make it sc ience fiction. If I re-write the plot of a western to give the cowboys ray guns instead of six-shooters, its still a western. Star Wars is still a fantasy no matter how many jumps to hyperspace the Millennium Falcon makes. Most of BSG's plotlines could be set in totally different locales -- it wouldn't matter for instance if the Cylons were any evil empire anywhere in history, you could still tell basically the same stories about the fleeing refugees. What BSG lacks, and what defines science fiction for me, are ideas -- new and challenging ideas about science, society, humanity, aliens -- etc. etc. etc. The society on the Galactica looks pretty much like 20th century society on Earth. BSG may be a very well written and produced tv drama, but it just doesn't seem like good science fiction to me. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica
I'm mostly willing to agree with everything you said, except the part about there being few challenging ideas in science fiction. I thnk the best writers in the field are consistently engaged with interesting and challenging ideas. Otherwise I don't think I'd stay interested. I've almost stopped reading fantasy despite the fact that there are enormously talented writers working in the genre for pretty much that reason -- it constantly re-works the same themes in the same way. It is backwards looking and not forward looking. (I'm aware that there are exceptions to this.) I know its not very productive arguing over either definitions of genre or matters of taste -- I did after all admit that BSG was very well written and usually well acted. I don't think it has nearly the resonance of a Phillip K. Dick novel, or of Blade Runner. I probably did oversimplify the machine-human motif in BSG -- casual viewers usually see much less than true fans. The Dickian themes of the n ature of reality and identity certainly could be explored without the Cylons or any science fiction elements at all, for that matter. Shakespeare was doing it centuries ago, noir writers like Cornell Woolrich -- and directors like Hitchcock -- were doing it in the forties and fifties and even a novel like The Bourne Identity (not the grossly simplified movie version) grapple with those ideas. Albeit in very different ways. I agree that 2001 appears dated, but I would maintain that the ideas in 2001 and its sequels, and other Clarke novels, continue to be challenging and engaging. Anyway, I hate it when someone criticizes my favorite shows, so I guess I should have known better. - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Battlestar Galactica On 9 Apr 2008, at 01:22, Olin Elliott wrote: I have to admit that I don't get the Battlestar Galactica craze. I have tried diligently to watch it and though I recognize the quality of the storylines -- I think it is written just about as well as any drama currently on television -- and characterizations, it doesn't grab me. I think there are two reason for that, primarily. One, I'm really just tired of the cold, calculating machines seeking to wipe out flawed-but-noble humanity theme. BSG is more ambiguous than that. In this version the Cylons were created as slaves who then rebelled. They also have religion which is not machinelike at all. It's more like Philip K Dick, or even the movie version Blade Runner. It seems to be everywhere in mass market sci-fi, from BSG to the Sarah Connor Chronicles. They even turned Isaac Asimov's wonderfully smart robot stories into an excuse for Will smith to shoot up evil robots. I think it's a failure of imagination, taking the most common track about the future of man's relationship to technology. Second, I just don't see that BSG, while it might be good drama, is good science fiction. Sure, it has a science fiction background, other planets, set on a space ship, etc. but that that doesn't make it sc ience fiction. It makes it some kind of science fiction. Not hard sf perhaps but that has always been a very small niche in the sf field. If I re-write the plot of a western to give the cowboys ray guns instead of six-shooters, its still a western. It's a space opera actually :) Star Wars is still a fantasy no matter how many jumps to hyperspace the Millennium Falcon makes. Most of BSG's plotlines could be set in totally different locales -- it wouldn't matter for instance if the Cylons were any evil empire anywhere in history, you could still tell basically the same stories about the fleeing refugees. The fleeing refugees aren't really the point of the story. That's just to add tension and drive things along. The story is about the nature of reality and identity and Dickian themes like that. Those are stories that can't be told without the artificial Cylon race to contrast with the humans. What BSG lacks, and what defines science fiction for me, are ideas -- new and challenging ideas about science, society, humanity, aliens -- etc. etc. etc. I've been reading sf for forty years and there are very few new and challenging ideas in sf. Most ideas have been recycled many many times in slight variations and permutations. The society on the Galactica looks pretty much like 20th century society on Earth. Most societies in SF do, apart from whatever 'what if' is driving the story. Imagining a complete, consistent, plausible world is a bit much to ask for a story! Silly costumes and humanoid aliens with a few latex bumps aren't science fiction either
Re: Weekly Chat Reminder
I have tried several times to join the weekly chat, but despite following all your instructions and trying every approach I could think of, I can't seem to get it to work. - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: Weekly Chat Reminder As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.htmlhttp://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Washoe is gone
I just found out today that Washoe the Chimpanzee died. I got to see her just last year when I visited the Chimpanzee Human Communication Center which is in Ellensburg Washington, not far from where I live in Seattle. She and her family made a great impression on me. I thought fans of the Uplift novels would understand how important she is and share my sadness. http://www.friendsofwashoe.org/http://www.friendsofwashoe.org/ Olin Elliott ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Financial waste in Iraq
Wow. I looked at the story you sited. Not only does it rely on shaky local sources, but it is horribly written. I can't believe that was posted by a legitimate news service. It looks like the worst kind of sloppy blog writing. Notice that it makes no mention of even trying to get verification from outside the local area, and it holds up the specter of gun confiscation and makes Charleton Heston look heroic. I mean local news is always bad, sensational, fear monering -- but honestly the story about the government doesn't scare me nearly as much as the idea that most americans may be getting their view of the world from sources like this one. Olin - Original Message - From: Jim Sharkeymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:20 AM Subject: Brin: Financial waste in Iraq Rolling Stone has a long article on wasteful spending and outright thievery by civilian contractors in Iraq: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindlehttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle I know it's not exactly news that people are swindling the government. It's the government's complicity in it as detailed in the article that's truly disgusting. There's also a story floating around that clergy are being trained to quell dissent in the case of martial law. This one sounds like some crazy left-wing conspiracy nut went off his meds, but it was reported on KLSA-TV in Louisiana, so it's not like it's just on some random blog out in the Internet wilderness: http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987 I dunno. It sounds crazy. But a plausible kind of crazy, which is maybe the craziest thing of all: The Administration has done enough shady shit to make this sort of thing sound like it might happen. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.comhttp://www.excite.com/ The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
