GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph wrote:And do you think violence will increase the chances of this taking place? One of the reasons America is able to put so much research and money into organizations like Nasa is because it has been relatively peaceful and calm within the country for so many decades, which lead to steady economic growth, and this is much different to the chaos in many other countries. Civil upheaval tends to slow down economic progress, and a country usually loses decades of growth because of its senseless destruction. Do you agree that economic stability, steady growth and peace are necessary conditions to further the cause of space exploration?

I think space exploration would be greatly increased if there was some impending need or use for it. Most Americans don't care either way. Most space exploration in America is probably to keep ahead of other countries and to explore the possibility of space defense. Imagine if the world was one universal peaceful happy land, there would be no need for any of this.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

WhorlyWhelk wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Are you perfect?

Only in the sense that we all are. I'm not aiming at any ideal though.

If we're all perfect, then why are you concerned about changing humanity (it's population and otherwise) with your will?

Because I'm not a fatalist.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Imagine if the world was one universal peaceful happy land, there would be no need for [space exploration].

wrong, maybe we realize a comet is going to destroy the earth in a thousand years or something, or the sun is going to blow up sooner than we thought, things like that would motivate us. We therefore can't take our chances with these and should continue space exploration.

Cory: Are you perfect?

WW: Only in the sense that we all are. I'm not aiming at any ideal though.

C: If we're all perfect, then why are you concerned about changing humanity (it's population and otherwise) with your will?

WW: Because I'm not a fatalist.

Then why do you say that you are not aiming at an ideal?

WW wrote:

Imagine if the world was one universal peaceful happy land, there would be no need for any of this.

Exactly, there would be no need to go to space, because if we solve all of our major problems here, then there isn’t a drastic need. That should be the goal really. Moreover, I think it is more intelligent to put most of our resources and research into solving many of the major problems here on earth instead of planning to make the great escape in search of another Utopia. That is what the British did with North America, and they just ended up reinventing what they had at home.

The necessary technology for space exploration will probably arise as a consequence of solving many of our problems here. And then when we leave for another planet, at least we will have an adequate understanding on what not to do if we ever discover a viable planet to expand.

Actually, now that I think about it, another problem with the whole space exploration idea is that another inhabitable planet most likely will have some sort of life forms living there and going through their own evolutionary cycle to a higher intelligence, so then one must ask the ethically question - As humans do we have the right to invade another planet and take over? How do we deal with a lower species evolutionary speaking that is going through their own growth?

Faust13 wrote:

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Imagine if the world was one universal peaceful happy land, there would be no need for [space exploration].

wrong, maybe we realize a comet is going to destroy the earth in a thousand years or something, or the sun is going to blow up sooner than we thought, things like that would motivate us. We therefore can't take our chances with these and should continue space exploration.

Danger and suffering will motivate us in this case.

If we could ignore all these future problems there would be no motivation in the herd for space exploration.

Actually, now that I think about it, another problem with the whole space exploration idea is that another inhabitable planet most likely will have some sort of life forms living there and going through their own evolutionary cycle to a higher intelligence, so then one must ask the ethically question - As humans do we have the right to invade another planet and take over? How do we deal with a lower species evolutionary speaking that is going through their own growth?

Don't you realize yet that there are no rights? ... And you claim to be enlightened or on your "path" to enlightenment.

WW wrote:

Don't you realize yet that there are no rights? ... And you claim to be enlightened or on your "path" to enlightenment.

Rights are a valuable illusion. They protect the individual from irrational humans who are controlled by violent thoughts. The creation of ‘human rights’ is based on common desires that every human shares – namely not to have their freedoms interfered with. It is an essential development in civilization. For instance in places like Pakistan, the tribal leaders there can run around and rape, steal, and plunder because their behavior is not restricted by human rights. There is no harsh penalty or shame for their actions so they continue to behave like animals.

Human rights is a necessary addition to western law because human beings aren’t strong enough to control themselves, they are controlled by violent and animalistic impulses. Enlightened beings have the self-awareness not to break human rights because they are naturally wise, but unconscious ones that are controlled by their animal brains need some harsh penalties to keep them in check.

Think about the space exploration dilemma this way: an alien species arrives on our planet today, and they have superior weapons. And they claim that they are at a higher intelligence, so they tell us not to resist because they are going to destroy us, and replicate their species on our planet, do you think this is a moral thing for them to do?

So do humans have an intrinsic right to this planet over another intelligent species? It seems to me that we do, considering that you wouldn’t go into your neighbor’s house, and kick him out onto the street as a means to sleep in his bed and eat his food. It seems to me that enlightened Intelligence has the politeness and care to respect personal private boundaries.

Moreover, just by the fact that we as humans live here on earth, and we presently occupy this space, then this gives us the 'right' or 'entitlement' to stay here, and not be forced out by intruders.

This phenomenon could make the 'space exploration idea' rather problematic in some circumstances because any planet that is viable like our own could have their own intelligent life going through similar causal growths into higher states of rationality...

Ryan,

Rights are a valuable illusion. They protect the individual from irrational humans who are controlled by violent thoughts.

Rights can't protect people; they seek to unleash punishment when people do certain things. Most rational people realize that these rights are in fact illusions and are willing to overshoot them to the extent that they aren't likely to get caught.

The creation of ‘human rights’ is based on common desires that every human shares – namely not to have their freedoms interfered with.

These rights are based on the desires that THE HERD shares, such as wanting to be free from suffering....

It is an essential development in civilization. For instance in places like Pakistan, the tribal leaders there can run around and rape, steal, and plunder because their behavior is not restricted by human rights.

What is wrong with this? It goes against your desires to be free from suffering...? Don't worry you aren't living in Pakistan -- or were you planning to move there?

There is no harsh penalty or shame for their actions so they continue to behave like animals.

How do animals behave? I would say they are not rational. Is doing things like stealing, lying, killing, raping, etc necessarily irrational? Nope.

Human rights is a necessary addition to western law because human beings aren’t strong enough to control themselves, they are controlled by violent and animalistic impulses.

I agree they are necessary for a group of people to live together. Society wants to subdue and tame every individual. Society wants to control them and use them for it's own needs.

Enlightened beings have the self-awareness not to break human rights because they are naturally wise, but unconscious ones that are controlled by their animal brains need some harsh penalties to keep them in check.

So being naturally wise necessitates that you don't break human rights.... but if you do break human rights you cannot be naturally wise and then you are deemed "unconscious" and to have "animal brains." HAHA!

Think about the space exploration dilemma this way: an alien species arrives on our planet today, and they have superior weapons. And they claim that they are at a higher intelligence, so they tell us not to resist because they are going to destroy us, and replicate their species on our planet, do you think this is a moral thing for them to do?

If they want to do it they can. Humanity is looking quite pathetic right now so perhaps it is for the best. There is no such thing as morality. I wouldn't like them to kill me but I won't go babbling on about how "immoral" they are.

So do humans have an intrinsic right to this planet over another intelligent species? It seems to me that we do, considering that you wouldn’t go into your neighbor’s house, and kick him out onto the street as a means to sleep in his bed and eat his food.

Are you suggesting there is some higher intergalactic society that will punish the aliens for invading us? If there was nobody to stop me why wouldn't I go into my neighbor's house and steal his food? You are being irrational and going by your moral emotional whims.

It seems to me that enlightened Intelligence has the politeness and care to respect personal private boundaries.

And I thought enlightened beings knew that boundaries don't exist....

Moreover, just by the fact that we as humans live here on earth, and we presently occupy this space, then this gives us the 'right' or 'entitlement' to stay here, and not be forced out by intruders.

By what -- American law? Or did God tell your parents that and they vehemently pass it on to you? Good luck convincing the aliens.

Human rights is a necessary addition to western law because human beings aren’t strong enough to control themselves, they are controlled by violent and animalistic impulses. Enlightened beings have the self-awareness not to break human rights because they are naturally wise, but unconscious ones that are controlled by their animal brains need some harsh penalties to keep them in check.

Ryan, what does ‘naturally wise’ mean?

Think about the space exploration dilemma this way: an alien species arrives on our planet today, and they have superior weapons. And they claim that they are at a higher intelligence, so they tell us not to resist because they are going to destroy us, and replicate their species on our planet, do you think this is a moral thing for them to do?

OK, I though about it. And no, when one is of a higher intelligence, he ends up on the top of the food chain. I think I know of one such higher intelligence. And why should a higher intelligence necessarily extend its morality, considering they have one, to a lesser one? Do we?

So do humans have an intrinsic right to this planet over another intelligent species? It seems to me that we do, considering…

But why would any other intelligent species consider our rights? As if they are the members of the UN.

Moreover, just by the fact that we as humans live here on earth, and we presently occupy this space, then this gives us the 'right' or 'entitlement' to stay here, and not be forced out by intruders.

Really? Lets first think on why we force other species out of extinction, and may be that will justify our removal by other species.

WhorlyWhelk,

These rights are based on the desires that THE HERD shares, such as wanting to be free from suffering....

Do you not think that minimizing humanities suffering through wise discriminations is an intelligent way to live? I would say that most of the herd do not do this in many ways, and this is why they suffer when they don't have to.

What is wrong with this?

Pakistan should be laying the foundations for humanity to go beyond the animal brain. The western law system, which includes the notions of human rights is an effective way to ease humans away from their addiction to ‘exciting’ fantasy and barbarity.

Is doing things like stealing, lying, killing, raping, etc necessarily irrational? Nope.

They are irrational to the degree that their behavior is motivated by emotion. And this seems to be the norm in much of the poverty-stricken countries such as Pakistan.

Society wants to subdue and tame every individual.

There is no society, there are only individuals, and yes I think it is perfectly logical for individuals to not want their homes broken into, their food stolen, and their heads beaten in. You’re desire to glorify a more primitive way of life is not adding up to a logical argument.

So being naturally wise necessitates that you don't break human rights.... but if you do break human rights you cannot be naturally wise and then you are deemed "unconscious" and to have "animal brains." HAHA!

Do you realize that all ones action is determined by causes, and if those causes are emotional, then yes you are unconscious, and irrational. For instance: your fantasy to form a tribe and steal food from farmers is not rational if you examine the maturity of the emotional gratification you were deriving off the idea, you will see what I mean.

There is no such thing as morality.

You fantasize about killing humans on mass because you want to prevent the destruction of the planet, and this is a moral view. To deny morality contradicts your own thoughts. You need to rethink your foundational conclusions because your doubts are contradicting your entire perspective.

If there was nobody to stop me why wouldn't I go into my neighbor's house and steal his food? You are being irrational and going by your moral emotional whims.

If you cannot discern for yourself that there are absolute truths, and that there is a clear distinction between right and wrong behavior, then your prospects as a philosopher as fairly limited.

A philosopher’s entire conscience is founded on the idea that suffering is undesirable, and humans should be educated in a way that makes them more intelligent, rational, and therefore they will suffer less. And in the meantime, promoting a healthy environment such as western civilization is absolutely paramount to foster the sort of consciousness growth that is needed.

And I thought enlightened beings knew that boundaries don't exist....

The word boundary is used in a totally different context.

Good luck convincing the aliens.

If they have a clear definite conscience, then no convincing would be necessary, as we would meet us friends and discuss and compare the intellectual achievements of each species.

A rational individual is able to suspend the importance of his animalistic needs such as the desire to self-replicate, the desire to expand, the desire to increase personal security and territory, in favor of more intelligent interests.

Ryan,

Do you not think that minimizing humanities suffering through wise discriminations is an intelligent way to live? I would say that most of the herd do not do this in many ways, and this is why they suffer when they don't have to.

No doubt the herd is stupid (and this is why they shouldn't be in charge!).

Pakistan should be laying the foundations for humanity to go beyond the animal brain. The western law system, which includes the notions of human rights is an effective way to ease humans away from their addiction to ‘exciting’ fantasy and barbarity.

We disagree on wanting to tame humans. Would you like the U.S. government to go into Pakistan next to set up democracy?

WW: Is doing things like stealing, lying, killing, raping, etc necessarily irrational? Nope.

RR: They are irrational to the degree that their behavior is motivated by emotion. And this seems to be the norm in much of the poverty-stricken countries such as Pakistan.

Is it never rational to go with your emotions?

There is no society, there are only individuals, and yes I think it is perfectly logical for individuals to not want their homes broken into, their food stolen, and their heads beaten in. You’re desire to glorify a more primitive way of life is not adding up to a logical argument.

It is perfectly normal to desire this. To have someone else protect you is what weak, lazy, pathetic, unintelligent people need -- AKA the herd.

Do you realize that all ones action is determined by causes, and if those causes are emotional, then yes you are unconscious, and irrational. For instance: your fantasy to form a tribe and steal food from farmers is not rational if you examine the maturity of the emotional gratification you were deriving off the idea, you will see what I mean.

I see stealing as a rational way to get food without working too much. Only bad criminals would let emotions control their crime and they would get caught easily.

You fantasize about killing humans on mass because you want to prevent the destruction of the planet, and this is a moral view. To deny morality contradicts your own thoughts. You need to rethink your foundational conclusions because your doubts are contradicting your entire perspective.

If arbitrarily valuing the survival of the planet at some point counts as morality then I suppose I am moral. However I have created this morality myself and can change it myself. It is not some set of rules that society or God handed me.

WW: If there was nobody to stop me why wouldn't I go into my neighbor's house and steal his food? You are being irrational and going by your moral emotional whims.

RR: If you cannot discern for yourself that there are absolute truths, and that there is a clear distinction between right and wrong behavior, then your prospects as a philosopher as fairly limited.

I don't want to be a philosopher in your opinion if you believe in "a clear distinction between right and wrong behavior"! ;-) As for absolute truths I am not yet decided.

A philosopher’s entire conscience is founded on the idea that suffering is undesirable, and humans should be educated in a way that makes them more intelligent, rational, and therefore they will suffer less. And in the meantime, promoting a healthy environment such as western civilization is absolutely paramount to foster the sort of consciousness growth that is needed.

You have some serious misconceptions dude. Perhaps that's what a Buddhist's foundations are....

WW,

Would you like the U.S. government to go into Pakistan next to set up democracy?

No, as seen in Iraq, military action is too bloody, but economic and political pressure can sometimes be effective in speeding up internal revolutions and change. An open criticism of human rights violations can also provoke change from within.

Is it never rational to go with your emotions?

Sometimes, if you are around a group of humans that you don’t especially relate to, a slight disdain may cause you to leave their company, but this doesn’t mean you murder them all when they’re sleeping.

To have someone else protect you is what weak, lazy, pathetic, unintelligent people need.

Human rights protection is needed in countries where there are still irrational attached humans that are lost in their own illusions and fantasies, and that is why most of the world needs a western style law system. Can you not see that the current structure in the west is a necessary stage of development? It is of a much higher order than lets say China, Russia or Iran.

I see stealing as a rational way to get food without working too much.

There are much easier, less risky ways to obtain free food, like lets say the local food bank.

However I have created this morality myself and can change it myself.

I don’t think you have created it yourself, it was a knee jerk response upon feeling contempt for acts of ignorance. God hasn’t handed me my views, I have considered what is the best environment for genius, and what is the best environment for minimizing humanities suffering, as I think these are two intelligent considerations.

I don't want to be a philosopher in your opinion if you believe in "a clear distinction between right and wrong behavior"!

Do you mind if I cut your throat tonight with a rusty blade then?


Sapius,

And why should a higher intelligence necessarily extend its morality, considering they have one, to a lesser one? Do we?

Yes, we extend our morality to inferiors to the degree that we don’t form groups and murder them. I haven’t heard of any enlightened men resorted to this sort of barbarity to promote their cause of wisdom.

But why would any other intelligent species consider our rights?

I think they would respect other people’s physical well-being, even if they are unconscious, in the same way that wise sages have consideration for all sentient beings, and addresses each one differently depending on their maturity.

Really? Lets first think on why we force other species out of extinction, and may be that will justify our removal by other species

.

30 species disappear a day regardless of human activity, so to come to such a conclusion, you need to determine with certainty that humans are a lost cause as far as preserving nature is concerned, but I don’t think you can make this judgment.

An invading species would have to come to such a conclusion, but it wouldn’t be intelligent. And they would have to use that conclusion to justify genocide of an entire species, and then they would have to actually go through with that decision collectively.