GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote: If that was the case, then why did Jesus talk about how he didn't come to bring peace to the world, but a sword? He wanted to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— your enemies will be the members of your own household."

Or what about when he said, "anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." How does that fit in with the golden rule?
-

Because if you are a follower of Christ, obviously one of your desires would be for someone to save your soul if it wasn't already saved. Thus trying to save souls is "as you would have them do unto you" - even if it isn't as they would have you do unto them.

These passages refer primarily to redefining "family" to be the members of the Christian denomination rather than your actual family. If your family refuses Christ, then you have to treat them as anyone else who has refused Christ. A similar thing exsists within Islam as the umma


I heard a sermon a while back claiming that he didn't actually mean hate, but rather that you must love God so much that the difference between how you feel about your family and how you feel about God is the same as mundane hate to love. I think this is spinning a bit too much, but I'm not a biblical scholar, just spent too much time in church.

sschaula wrote:One insane thing about it is breeding humans to be stupid. It's unethical. Remember the golden rule...would you want to be bred to be stupid? No? Then don't do it to others.

Specially bred drones wouldn't care that they are "stupid". One of David's criteria was that these people would be happy with their lot in life. Isn't happiness a major human goal? That's not the reason the idea doesn't work. It doesn't work because some tasks such as child rearing require intelligence and thought (as has been noted). As has also been noted - we already create mindless drones through what's known as education and cultural conditioning. They're just not happy mindless drones because of that small element of "thought" they possess.

Another is assuming that by setting up the genes for it, people would automatically become wise...or stupid if they were the drones. Indians have tried this with the whole caste system. Brahmins don't appear to me to be anything special. In fact, it seems that most of the "wise men" India produces don't come from Brahmin lineages.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. In fact, it's a rotten on. There's no equivalence between the religious/cultural caste system and genetically modified people. The former is a contrived sham.

Another is assuming that thinking and being physical oppose eachother. "The thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks." Is that a true statement?

Yes it is.

And I'm not even mentioning the idea that a person who has a mental condition (even if it's just a way to get out of working) is saying that people like him may end up kind of ruling the world. "It might turn out that we will have to polarize the human race..."

Humanity is already largely polarised. There is and always has been a ruling class.

This isn't simply a matter of David not thinking before he posts. It's a matter of him being kinda delusional. In my opinion.

Well, your objections don't indicate this. They don't even come close. I just tend to find such speculating fairly meaningless because the circumstances by which such scenarios might arise are not remotely in place. The only way that the world will ever become more amenable to wisdom would be via some unexpected side-effect of genetic manipulation - i.e. breeding for intelligence might produce an increasing number of people devoting themselves to wisdom. But if this happend we would likely immediately outlaw such breeding anyway. The degree of divergence from normal human perspectives that wisdom represents is something that I don't think is being fully taken into account. People still get near hysterical over something as simple as thinkers wanting to think rather than be employed. We can't even get past something as remedial as that.

Dan,

People still get near hysterical over something as simple as thinkers wanting to think rather than be employed. We can't even get past something as remedial as that.

This is true, but the all-people-must-work-for-money idea is just a paradigm. Paradigms get broken overnight all the time. And once they are broken, we are back to square one; it is as if they never existed.

In my work experience as a systems developer, I have had to do my part in breaking paradigms. People have to be led by the hand through this process, but all but the most backwards persons get through it.

Let me give you an example of a deeply-ingrained cultural paradigm that got broken in a few years: "Black folks are not people and have no rights". Most reasonable persons would have thought that it would take centuries to break that paradigm, but it did not.

Once you break a paradigm, you can move on to the next level to break the next. The path to human progress involves the breaking of many paradigms. Are you afraid to break them? I'm not.

.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Dan,

Regarding "useless exercise" - do I have to remind you how quickly not thinking can reduce a mind to mush?

Well, no, you certainly don't. But there's ways of engaging the mind and then there's ways of engaging the mind. A person could spend their entire life thinking up mind games and hypotheticals and never get past a single one of their delusions.

Dan Rowden wrote:

I get David's point about using such scenarios to challenge attachments, I just think there are better ways to do that.

Fine. Post it.

Everything said about real life, here and now, is an example of it.

Dan Rowden wrote:

what aspect of "genius" do you think could possibly be genetic?

A surprising number of things are turning out to be genetic. I'm willing to suspend judgment on the matter until sufficient evidence is in to make a determination with a higher degree of accuracy.

I'm happy to suspend judgement also, but to this point I see no indications that even suggest the existence of a wisdom gene. If it exists, it certainly is one that skips lots of generations.

Dan Rowden wrote:

That doesn't mean it won't be possible to modify people to be somewhat more disposed to wisdom, but there are consequences for that that no-one seems to be considering here...

I mentioned with the drones that turning down intelligence could turn up unwise compassion.

Well, yes, but how do we reach this point? Do you think the world, as it stands, will even countenance the creation of said drones? I don't. It would only be possible in a world that was wiser than this one. The question is, how do we get to that point?

The inverse is inferred in that turning up wisdom could turn down the types of compassion that are considered humane. For example, the planet is currently overpopulated. Uber-sage might decide that wise compassion means that the quantity of people the world is overpopulated by should be immediatly exterminated to help bring the planet back into balance.

Well, possibly, but even that approach wouldn't get rid of the mentality that put us there to begin with, so it would be a short term strategy only. But what I was thinking of is the responses that I and David and others have directly experienced from people with respect to our ideas. In short, it tends to be pretty damn hostile. I can think of lots of issues arising for this new breed of thinkers. I reckon extermination is something that they'd have to worry about.

Dan Rowden wrote:It's unrealistic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we don't live in a world where anyone gives a shit about wisdom.

True, but that wasn't what I was referring to as far as what would be realistic - I meant about the genetic engineering.

Technically, that won't be a problem. But remember we live in world where something as ethically benign and potentially useful as stem cell research can barely get a look in. Genetically engineering humans for greater intelligence would be a somewhat easy sell, I reckon. There are people who want that right now - albiet for egotistical reasons. But engineering drones to raise kids etc? I'd love to see the marketing spiel for that one.

As far as introducing the genetic engineering into the population - see my above post to Cory about re-engineering those with life-threatening mental conditions.

We'd have to get rid of the Churches first.

If you want to talk instead about re-engineering people to be more pre-disposed to be wise, perhaps some of the fetuses with mental conditions could, instead of being programmed to be drones, be programmed to be wise - and the wisdom itself would relieve the mental condition.

This assumes an ability to program wisdom. I don't see any evidence that that is possible. If a wisdom gene exists, it would be a latent one. I think a change of social custom and attitude would be more useful than genetic engineering.

If all you really want is realistic - all of this is probably useless.

My objection to these scenarios is that they fail to explain how the circumstances for them would even come to exist. It's all well and good to talk about the things that a wise(r) population might get up to, but how did we get there to begin with?

Like you said, nobody cares about wisdom - and even if we did every measure possible to save the planet today, much more damage than has already manifested has already been irreversably caused.

We certainly have caused a lot of damage to the place, some of it irreversible, but I'm not a doomsayer. I don't think humanity, per se, is under threat.

If you fire a gun at someone, even if you have all the regret in the world as the bullet travels to the person, once you have pulled the trigger, you can not undo what you have done.

Yes, but one day we'll genetically engineer people to instantly self-repair, so it won't matter it they get shot. I know this will happen; I saw it on TV.

Maybe some words of wisdom can be saved by preserving them in some kind of book with durable pages and put copies in safe places on the planet and shot into space for aliens to find.

Hmmm, risky. Just because they're aliens it doesn't mean they're more amenable to wisdom than we are. It might get us invaded and exterminated! Hard to say.

Maybe some of these words are being transmitted wirelessly in a sufficient way for an alien species to intercept them - that's a long shot,

It's possible, but those words have an awful lot of competition out there - from everything Bush says to "Everyone Loves Raymond" and Rap Music. I don't like our chances.

but about as likely that humans will survive another couple hundred years despite poor planning and a lack of desire to face up to reality.

Short of a asteroid or comet impact I'm sure we'll survive in some form or other.

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

People still get near hysterical over something as simple as thinkers wanting to think rather than be employed. We can't even get past something as remedial as that.

This is true, but the all-people-must-work-for-money idea is just a paradigm. Paradigms get broken overnight all the time. And once they are broken, we are back to square one; it is as if they never existed.

Yes, it's a paradigm, but one that seems to have lasted a hell of a long time, and also one that is deeply embedded in our psyche. It could change, but I don't see that happening overnight. The main problem is that it's not so much about "work" as it is about the perceived dangers that real thought represents for a society. It almost amounts to a culture freely encouraging it's own potential downfall. That would be an awesome thing, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

In my work experience as a systems developer, I have had to do my part in breaking paradigms. People have to be led by the hand through this process, but all but the most backwards persons get through it.

Ok, but this is really the paradigm of all paradigms we're talking about. It's hard to even get intelligent people to consider it.

Let me give you an example of a deeply-ingrained cultural paradigm that got broken in a few years: "Black folks are not people and have no rights". Most reasonable persons would have thought that it would take centuries to break that paradigm, but it did not.

It took a hell of a lot longer than it should have, and you could argue that it did take centuries. When did the slave trade start in the US for example? Some would argue it hasn't been entirely broken even now. But I get the point.

Once you break a paradigm, you can move on to the next level to break the next. The path to human progress involves the breaking of many paradigms. Are you afraid to break them? I'm not.

Paradigm breaking has to start with a point or an argument of some kind. What point would we make to break the "work"/"thinkers are dangerous" one?

Who thinks thinkers are dangerous? I don't think that's the problem, the problem is someone getting more than everybody else. The argument is that if everyone has to work except for this one guy just because he doesn't feel like it, then that's unfair because nobody feels like working yet they have to.

Matt Gregory wrote:Who thinks thinkers are dangerous?

Um, do I have to name names?

I don't think that's the problem, the problem is someone getting more than everybody else. The argument is that if everyone has to work except for this one guy just because he doesn't feel like it, then that's unfair because nobody feels like working yet they have to.

Yes, that's the "work ethic" dimension of the problem, but that is still only part of it. Even if we could convince people that thinkers are actually working in their own way, we still have to get past the consequences of their thought.

Dan,

Yes, it's a paradigm, but one that seems to have lasted a hell of a long time, and also one that is deeply embedded in our psyche.

This is true of all paradigms. There's nothing special about this one.

It could change, but I don't see that happening overnight.

It often takes just one person to get that change going. It just has to be a highly motivated person with a leader personality.

Ok, but this is really the paradigm of all paradigms we're talking about. It's hard to even get intelligent people to consider it.

Bull shit. You just haven't sold the idea properly.

I know! Get a celebrity to get on tv and explain it to people. People listen to celebs.

It took a hell of a lot longer than it should have, and you could argue that it did take centuries.

Not really. The real progress happened very quickly -- in less than a generation. The fact that the paradigm had been in place for centuries adds more to my point.

Some would argue it hasn't been entirely broken even now.

Oh, believe me, it's broken. Even the most racist of racists won't argue that blacks are not persons.

Paradigm breaking has to start with a point or an argument of some kind. What point would we make to break the "work"/"thinkers are dangerous" one?

At least now you seem to be asking the right question.

.

Sher,

Yes, it's a paradigm, but one that seems to have lasted a hell of a long time, and also one that is deeply embedded in our psyche.

This is true of all paradigms. There's nothing special about this one.

Apart from Ancient Greece, to some extent, I can't think of any time or any culture where this paradigm wasn't in place. It's a powerful one.

It could change, but I don't see that happening overnight.

It often takes just one person to get that change going. It just has to be a highly motivated person with a leader personality.

Well, possibly, but that doesn't explain how he'd go about it.

Ok, but this is really the paradigm of all paradigms we're talking about. It's hard to even get intelligent people to consider it.

Bull shit. You just haven't sold the idea properly.

I know! Get a celebrity to get on tv and explain it to people. People listen to celebs.

Hmm, Paris Hilton selling thought to the masses. I have to say I'm skeptical. But then, it may actually work. We do live in a very odd world.

It took a hell of a lot longer than it should have, and you could argue that it did take centuries.

Not really. The real progress happened very quickly -- in less than a generation. The fact that the paradigm had been in place for centuries adds more to my point.

I don't see the change for American blacks as happening in a single generation. They were still fighting very serious prejudice as recently as the 70's.

Some would argue it hasn't been entirely broken even now.

Oh, believe me, it's broken. Even the most racist of racists won't argue that blacks are not persons.

That might be so, but it might only be so because it's probably against the law now to say shit like that. Hard to know what people are really thinking. Anyway, it's obviously true that Oprah, at least, is not a person.

Paradigm breaking has to start with a point or an argument of some kind. What point would we make to break the "work"/"thinkers are dangerous" one?

At least now you seem to be asking the right question.

Ok, so, got any ideas?

Dan,

Specially bred drones wouldn't care that they are "stupid". One of David's criteria was that these people would be happy with their lot in life. Isn't happiness a major human goal?

You wouldn't care about being stupid if I were to give you a lobotomy. You would be happy with your lot in life, and isn't that a major human goal?

See how that line of thinking doesn't work?

I don't think that's a very good analogy. In fact, it's a rotten on. There's no equivalence between the religious/cultural caste system and genetically modified people. The former is a contrived sham.

I disagree that there's no equilvalence. However, I do agree that it's a contrived sham.

Quote:
Another is assuming that thinking and being physical oppose eachother. "The thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks." Is that a true statement?

Yes it is.

I disagree. But, if it is true then all of the "wise men" will die of diseases because the human body needs to move in order to remain healthy.

But I suppose in this fantasy scenario, that could also be genetically altered.

Humanity is already largely polarised. There is and always has been a ruling class.

So? I was saying that it doesn't look good when a person diagnosed with a mental condition is saying, "my kind will one day rule the world". More power to you, though, if it happens. :)

Well, your objections don't indicate this. They don't even come close.

I think they do, but whatever. Your opinion.

I just tend to find such speculating fairly meaningless because the circumstances by which such scenarios might arise are not remotely in place. The only way that the world will ever become more amenable to wisdom would be via some unexpected side-effect of genetic manipulation - i.e. breeding for intelligence might produce an increasing number of people devoting themselves to wisdom. But if this happend we would likely immediately outlaw such breeding anyway. The degree of divergence from normal human perspectives that wisdom represents is something that I don't think is being fully taken into account. People still get near hysterical over something as simple as thinkers wanting to think rather than be employed. We can't even get past something as remedial as that.

I think others have mentioned this to you before me: people don't get worked up that thinkers want to think. They get worked up that the thinkers are getting to be lazy and do whatever they want, while others have to work for it.

Tell everyone you're moving to a deserted island to think and live off the land. No one will care. You aren't sucking money out of their paychecks, then. They will probably say, "Good idea!"

I guess living off the land would be too much work for you, though?

Dan,

Well, possibly, but that doesn't explain how he'd go about it.

You want me to do all the work for you? :) IMO, this is a question that is best tackled as a team.

I've seen people making changes that other people thought were impossible to make. Don't tell me it can't be done.

Hmm, Paris Hilton selling thought to the masses.

There are much smarter and more respected celebrities than PH, and you know it.

That might be so, but it might only be so because it's probably against the law now to say shit like that.

That's exactly my point. The change has been deeply imbedded in our legal systems. That's what happens when a paradigm breaks.

Hard to know what people are really thinking.

Racists can think what they want, but their power is gone.

The goal of breaking this paradigm does not include getting 100% of all people to agree that thinkers are cooler than Paris Hilton. That is not at all needed.

Anyway, it's obviously true that Oprah, at least, is not a person.

What do you have against Oprah? I happen to think she's cool. I love what she's doing with her money in South Africa.

Scott,

Specially bred drones wouldn't care that they are "stupid". One of David's criteria was that these people would be happy with their lot in life. Isn't happiness a major human goal?

You wouldn't care about being stupid if I were to give you a lobotomy. You would be happy with your lot in life, and isn't that a major human goal? See how that line of thinking doesn't work?

Nope. I don't see that it [your version] really constitutes a line of thinking at all. I have a currently non-lobotomised nature (yeah, spare me the witty retort!). Lobotomising me would be a violent and unethical thing to do. That's not the same thing as genetically engineering a being that is a drone by it's very nature. I don't happen to think the drone idea works in any practical way, but I don't find it unethical.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. In fact, it's a rotten on. There's no equivalence between the religious/cultural caste system and genetically modified people. The former is a contrived sham.

I disagree that there's no equilvalence. However, I do agree that it's a contrived sham.

The genetic engineering would be real. The results would be real. The beliefs and cultural mores underpinning the caste system have no reality. There is no equivalence other than in the fact of there being a "class" system. But we have that everywhere right now. Are you a commie or something?

Another is assuming that thinking and being physical oppose eachother. "The thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks." Is that a true statement?

Yes it is.

I disagree. But, if it is true then all of the "wise men" will die of diseases because the human body needs to move in order to remain healthy.

What has movement got to do with anything? Excuse my candour but what sort of absurdly cartoonish picture of a wise person do you have in mind? Some guy in a turban sitting in the lotus position the whole time? Good God, tell me it isn't so!

But I suppose in this fantasy scenario, that could also be genetically altered.

There's exactly zero reason for it to be. Wise people exercise. They don't go to the gym and try and look like Arni but they still recognise the importance of a functioning body.

Humanity is already largely polarised. There is and always has been a ruling class.

So? I was saying that it doesn't look good when a person diagnosed with a mental condition is saying, "my kind will one day rule the world". More power to you, though, if it happens. :)

Well, that's really just a cheap ad hominem as you know that David has no such mental illness.

I just tend to find such speculating fairly meaningless because the circumstances by which such scenarios might arise are not remotely in place. The only way that the world will ever become more amenable to wisdom would be via some unexpected side-effect of genetic manipulation - i.e. breeding for intelligence might produce an increasing number of people devoting themselves to wisdom. But if this happend we would likely immediately outlaw such breeding anyway. The degree of divergence from normal human perspectives that wisdom represents is something that I don't think is being fully taken into account. People still get near hysterical over something as simple as thinkers wanting to think rather than be employed. We can't even get past something as remedial as that.

I think others have mentioned this to you before me: people don't get worked up that thinkers want to think. They get worked up that the thinkers are getting to be lazy and do whatever they want, while others have to work for it.

Same thing. Only a non-thinker thinks thinking is lazy or other than "work".

Tell everyone you're moving to a deserted island to think and live off the land. No one will care. You aren't sucking money out of their paychecks, then. They will probably say, "Good idea!"

Yeah, exactly, they would want the fruits of my thoughtful labours but not want to pay for it or support it. Bastards! How selfish!!

I guess living off the land would be too much work for you, though?

It would be totally impractical given my goals. Work isn't the issue.

Dan,

Nope. I don't see that it [your version] really constitutes a line of thinking at all.

Your opinion.

I have a currently non-lobotomised nature (yeah, spare me the witty retort!). Lobotomising me would be a violent and unethical thing to do.

It doesn't have to be violent. I could put you under and do it surgically, rather than shoving a metal rod into your eye socket. So lets say I were to do it that way...that takes care of the worries that it'd be violent. What makes it unethical?

That's not the same thing as genetically engineering a being that is a drone by it's very nature.

It's not the same exact thing, since the drone wasn't living as a non drone before. But other than that it's exactly the same.

I don't happen to think the drone idea works in any practical way, but I don't find it unethical.

Well hopefully for the sake of would be drones everywhere, you will be remembered for saying that.

The genetic engineering would be real. The results would be real. The beliefs and cultural mores underpinning the caste system have no reality. There is no equivalence other than in the fact of there being a "class" system.

The brahmin are raised to be wise. It's exactly the same, except that it was done by selective breeding and a caste system, and not in a test tube.

But we have that everywhere right now. Are you a commie or something?

There's no caste system everywhere. It only seems that way when you don't work for your money. I'm not a commie or something. :)

What has movement got to do with anything? Excuse my candour but what sort of absurdly cartoonish picture of a wise person do you have in mind? Some guy in a turban sitting in the lotus position the whole time? Good God, tell me it isn't so!

My absurdly cartoonish picture of a wise man is someone who doesn't consider genetically altering people. No, they wouldn't wear a turban and sit in the lotus position. I haven't found too many wise yogis.

Anyway, I got the impression that you and David felt that physical exertion would hinder your thinking. But I guess it's something else about working that does.

Well, that's really just a cheap ad hominem as you know that David has no such mental illness.

Yes it is a cheap ad hominem, but not many people care about making logical fallacies. I do think David has the mental illness.

Same thing. Only a non-thinker thinks thinking is lazy or other than "work".

It's not that "non-thinkers" think that thinking is lazy, or something other than "work". Many consider philosophy to be beyond them. It's just that they think that it's bullshit when they have to work to pay rent and get food, and that some others can just decide not to, and live off of the government's checks, causing them to have to pay more taxes.

Is that not bullshit? Are you a commie or something?

Yeah, exactly, they would want the fruits of my thoughtful labours but not want to pay for it or support it. Bastards! How selfish!!

I realize you're kind of joking, but actually they don't give a fuck about what you come up with. They can do fine on their own.

It would be totally impractical given my goals. Work isn't the issue.

If you went to a deserted island, and the only way to survive was to live off of the land, that would be too impractical given your goals?

Scott,

There's no caste system everywhere. It only seems that way when you don't work for your money.

[That was a personal punch, but I'm going to let it slide for now.]

You have got to be kidding. There are more working poor than there are unemployed poor. And I fail to see how the working poor are better off than the non-working.

Social classes clearly exist, in spite of all our efforts to pretend they don't.

I've heard people say "Well, at least he has a job". But being a slave with a 'job' is even more humiliating to me than to be unemployed. At least the latter has some freedom.

.

Shah,

You have got to be kidding. There are more working poor than there are unemployed poor. And I fail to see how the working poor are better off than the non-working.

As do I. No, I'm not kidding.

Social classes clearly exist, in spite of all our efforts to pretend they don't.

Yes, social classes exist (I'm not trying to avoid that point or cover it up). That's democracy for you. The opposite of communism, where all people work many different types of jobs, some working much harder and requiring much more skill than others, and everyone still being in the same social class and having the same amount of money. I like it more the way it is now. I prefer freedom.

Social classes aren't the same thing as a caste system. People aren't necessarily born into being poor for the rest of their lives. They have the ability to move up in social classes. We are truly free to get all the money we desire. It just takes the know how and the willingness to work for it.

I've heard people say "Well, at least he has a job". But being a slave with a 'job' is even more humiliating to me than to be unemployed. At least the latter has some freedom.

I agree with you.

Social classes clearly exist, in spite of all our efforts to pretend they don't.

And they always will. Heirarchies of power are necessary for structure to exist and no things exist without structures where higher levels consisting of fewer but more powerful units, "constrain" lower levels consisting on many units with less effective power. By "effective" power I mean the power to influence outside of one's level.

Things of a lower level "Blacks in America" for example, do not move up a level, until they can be accommodated in the higher levels, they do so by becoming more like the higher levels and less like the lower levels.

Utopia is a pipe dream and would only mean one thing - death of the species.

Scott,

No, I'm not kidding.

Ok. Then please clarify what you meant by this:

There's no caste system everywhere. It only seems that way when you don't work for your money.

I thought you were saying that Dan perceives castes because he doesn't work for money, implying the working poor don't perceive them.

Social classes aren't the same thing as a caste system.

Technically no, but in reality, they have the same effect.

Just so you know, our society has other ways of keeping the masses away from the elite. All you have to do is charge a high price at the door and that will keep them out. Did you ever wonder why four and five star hotels would rather have like 80% vacancy than lower their rates? Classism is why.

People who are in the lower classes are not treated the same as those in the higher classes, nor do they get the same breaks in life. Please spare me the poor-people-should-pull-themselves-up-by-their-own-bootstraps capitalist crap. Capitalism wouldn't even work if all the masses miraculously pulled themselves up. Who is going to hold the bottom of the pyramid, when everyone is on top?

.

Ok. Then please clarify what you meant by this:

Quote:
There's no caste system everywhere. It only seems that way when you don't work for your money.

I thought you were saying that Dan perceives castes because he doesn't work for money, implying the working poor don't perceive them.

A building looks gigantic when you're at ground level. I'm sure the working poor percieve it all as an equivalent to a caste system as well.

Technically no, but in reality, they have the same effect.

Wrong.

Just so you know, our society has other ways of keeping the masses away from the elite. All you have to do is charge a high price at the door and that will keep them out. Did you ever wonder why four and five star hotels would rather have like 80% vacancy than lower their rates? Classism is why.

Have you ever been in a four or five star hotel? They're not for the elite by the way. If you've stayed at one, then you can understand why they wouldn't want a smelly alcoholic off the street in there. A hotel like that provides comfort. A smelly alcoholic off the street provides a sense of fear.

Generally, if you have the money and don't look like you'll create problems, you get in. Why should a business lower its rates just because you can't afford it?

People who are in the lower classes are not treated the same as those in the higher classes, nor do they get the same breaks in life.

I agree with you.

Please spare me the poor-people-should-pull-themselves-up-by-their-own-bootstraps capitalist crap. Capitalism wouldn't even work if all the masses miraculously pulled themselves up. Who is going to hold the bottom of the pyramid, when everyone is on top?

If every poor person pulled themselves up, there obviously wouldn't be a pyramid. Spare me the whining. You could become rich if you knew how and tried.

Why should a business lower its rates just because you can't afford it?

You totally misunderstood my point. I don't think they should lower their rates so I can afford them. They could consider lowering their rates because having well over half of all rooms empty at any given time doesn't make a whole lot of business sense. Not until you consider that the high-class customers would not want to share a hotel with middle-class people.

Spare me the whining. You could become rich if you knew how and tried.

Ok, so your position is that all poor people could become rich?

I'm not whining, btw. I'm being realistic.

.

Scott,

I have a currently non-lobotomised nature (yeah, spare me the witty retort!). Lobotomising me would be a violent and unethical thing to do.

It doesn't have to be violent. I could put you under and do it surgically, rather than shoving a metal rod into your eye socket.

That's makes it painless, not non-violent.

So lets say I were to do it that way...that takes care of the worries that it'd be violent. What makes it unethical?

It doesn't change anything. Forcibly lobotomising a normal, intelligent person, even under anesethsia, is an act of violence and one in which I can see no benefit at all. It is not even remotely similar to genetically designing a drone. You are reaching beyond your capacity in your attempt to make a point.

That's not the same thing as genetically engineering a being that is a drone by it's very nature.

It's not the same exact thing, since the drone wasn't living as a non drone before. But other than that it's exactly the same.

No, it's not even close to the same thing and you know it. In the drone scenario, nothing is being taken away.

I don't happen to think the drone idea works in any practical way, but I don't find it unethical.

Well hopefully for the sake of would be drones everywhere, you will be remembered for saying that.

We will have robots, not drones. But even then, we will have to face the issue of their sentience and whether it is ethical for us to deny sentience to them (assuming we can - Christ, now I'm doing it!).

The genetic engineering would be real. The results would be real. The beliefs and cultural mores underpinning the caste system have no reality. There is no equivalence other than in the fact of there being a "class" system.

The brahmin are raised to be wise. It's exactly the same, except that it was done by selective breeding and a caste system, and not in a test tube.

Honestly, Scott, you can't possibly believe this argument. If genuinely "wise" people could simply be "raised" in this way, we wouldn't need genetic engineering, now, would we?

But we have that everywhere right now. Are you a commie or something?

There's no caste system everywhere. It only seems that way when you don't work for your money. I'm not a commie or something. :)

Sher dealt adequately with this point.

What has movement got to do with anything? Excuse my candour but what sort of absurdly cartoonish picture of a wise person do you have in mind? Some guy in a turban sitting in the lotus position the whole time? Good God, tell me it isn't so!

My absurdly cartoonish picture of a wise man is someone who doesn't consider genetically altering people.

Designing and altering are not the same thing.

No, they wouldn't wear a turban and sit in the lotus position. I haven't found too many wise yogis.

No, me neither.

Anyway, I got the impression that you and David felt that physical exertion would hinder your thinking.

It would if one was attached to it for egotistical purposes. The degree of exercise required to keep the body funtioning reasonably is not that great. I happen to have always done my best thinking when walking.

But I guess it's something else about working that does.

Yes, that would be deluded values.

Well, that's really just a cheap ad hominem as you know that David has no such mental illness.

Yes it is a cheap ad hominem, but not many people care about making logical fallacies. I do think David has the mental illness.

The way certain illnesses are defined, any wise person would necessarily fit the definition. It's just that the definitions are constructed by the insane.

Same thing. Only a non-thinker thinks thinking is lazy or other than "work".

It's not that "non-thinkers" think that thinking is lazy, or something other than "work". Many consider philosophy to be beyond them.

That's a result of their non-thinking and their deluded values.

It's just that they think that it's bullshit when they have to work to pay rent and get food, and that some others can just decide not to, and live off of the government's checks, causing them to have to pay more taxes.

They need to grow up and get a clue about how an economy works.

Yeah, exactly, they would want the fruits of my thoughtful labours but not want to pay for it or support it. Bastards! How selfish!!

I realize you're kind of joking, but actually they don't give a fuck about what you come up with. They can do fine on their own.

Yeah, I know. And I don't care that they don't care. Generally speaking, we're all pretty carefree.....

It would be totally impractical given my goals. Work isn't the issue.

If you went to a deserted island, and the only way to survive was to live off of the land, that would be too impractical given your goals?

I'd rather go to a desserted island where all they had was mudcake.

It's just that they think that it's bullshit when they have to work to pay rent and get food, and that some others can just decide not to, and live off of the government's checks, causing them to have to pay more taxes.

Is that not bullshit? Are you a commie or something?

Do you think this idea is only as old as communism?

Quality of living wise, there is almost no difference between a person living his life off of welfare checks and a free, slave-owning citizen in ancient Rome. Neither needs to concern himself with working, and both has enough money to support himself easily. There is inequality in any system.

Welfare is the easiest and most logical way to gain freedom from work. The only other method is hoarding enough wealth that there is no more reason to work -- but I believe that method harms a lot more people, and backfires more frequently.

Someone who lives off of welfare checks is less of a burden on average working folk than, say, Paris Hilton.

Shah,

You totally misunderstood my point. I don't think they should lower their rates so I can afford them. They could consider lowering their rates because having well over half of all rooms empty at any given time doesn't make a whole lot of business sense. Not until you consider that the high-class customers would not want to share a hotel with middle-class people.

There are other hotels to stay at. Supply and demand. There are rich people that want to feel safe and comfortable. They want things to be to their standard of living. Should there be no business which allows them that? The hotel makes up for the lack of money coming in by charging more. They don't need to use all of their rooms.

Also think about this: the less use, the less wear. It's a good investment to own a 5 star hotel.

I really don't see what your point is with the hotel example. Maybe if 5 star hotels were the only hotels in the world, I could understand.

Ok, so your position is that all poor people could become rich?

Yes of course. I'm sure there will always be someone thinking of a way to make more than them, though.

I'm not whining, btw. I'm being realistic.

I disagree.

Dan,

That's makes it painless, not non-violent.

Haha...what a joke. What is violence to you? What if you had a heart attack, and needed defibrillation...is that violent too? Are invasive procedures violent? Are you afraid of needles?

It doesn't change anything. Forcibly lobotomising a normal, intelligent person, even under anesethsia, is an act of violence and one in which I can see no benefit at all.

The drone would be more intelligent than you were to make him. What's the benefit? Well you said the drone would be happier, so that's my answer to you as well.

It is not even remotely similar to genetically designing a drone. You are reaching beyond your capacity in your attempt to make a point.

Perhaps you should stop being "wise" and start thinking. It's exactly the same, except the drone wasn't technically "alive" before hand. But he was going to be alive...he just wasn't manifest yet.

I really don't think I'm reaching. I really think you're being way too slippery about this, Dan. Anyway, there's no point in continuing to argue this. You will obviously continue denying it...so whatever.

No, it's not even close to the same thing and you know it. In the drone scenario, nothing is being taken away.

The drone's future life of having some intelligence is taken away.

We will have robots, not drones. But even then, we will have to face the issue of their sentience and whether it is ethical for us to deny sentience to them (assuming we can - Christ, now I'm doing it!).

I don't think anyone believes robots have feelings or awareness. I think you're reaching too far there, Dan.

Honestly, Scott, you can't possibly believe this argument. If genuinely "wise" people could simply be "raised" in this way, we wouldn't need genetic engineering, now, would we?

Do you understand anything about genetics? Genetics is what selective breeding is all about. You find the traits you want, put them together, repeat with the next batch, repeat, etc. Same effect in the end.

Anyway, if you truly believe that changing a genome would make a person wise, I think you need to go...um...learn something. The most you can do is create someone favorable to wisdom...the actual wisdom would depend on their experiences.

Sher dealt adequately with this point.

If you believe so...

Designing and altering are not the same thing.

Do you believe a person doesn't exist before they're born? Don't you realize this goes against the theory of causality?

I guess we can pick and choose when and where we apply our little truths.

It would if one was attached to it for egotistical purposes. The degree of exercise required to keep the body funtioning reasonably is not that great. I happen to have always done my best thinking when walking.

Good...I applaud your wisdom on this point.

Yes, that would be deluded values.

Is it true that it's impossible to have a job, and have undeluded values?

The way certain illnesses are defined, any wise person would necessarily fit the definition. It's just that the definitions are constructed by the insane.

Wrong. They're constructed by sane people who aren't necessarily philosophical. I disagree that any wise person would fit the definition. If I agreed with you, I hope that I would reconsider what I define as a wise person.

That's a result of their non-thinking and their deluded values.

So? Why are you avoiding the point?

They need to grow up and get a clue about how an economy works.

Apparently an economy works by handing money to people who don't deserve any.

Yeah, I know. And I don't care that they don't care. Generally speaking, we're all pretty carefree.....

Way to avoid any responsibility on the issue. Way to slip through the cracks of our discussion, seemingly unscathed.

If no one else sees your character and degree of wisdom, at least I do.

I'd rather go to a desserted island where all they had was mudcake.

:) Thanks for wasting my time.

Trevor,

Do you think this idea is only as old as communism?

No I wasn't assuming that. If you look back, you'll see that I was using one of Dan's little quips against him.

Quality of living wise, there is almost no difference between a person living his life off of welfare checks and a free, slave-owning citizen in ancient Rome. Neither needs to concern himself with working, and both has enough money to support himself easily. There is inequality in any system.

Welfare is the easiest and most logical way to gain freedom from work. The only other method is hoarding enough wealth that there is no more reason to work -- but I believe that method harms a lot more people, and backfires more frequently.

It's hard to make it by if you are wreckless with your money, or if you don't earn enough at your job. That being said, it's a PIECE OF CAKE to make it by, at least where I live, in Wisconsin USA. Our economy isn't so great here...the hardest part is finding a job in the first place, but with dedication it's easily done.

I consider it irresponsible to live off of welfare. It's like saying "fuck you" to your neighbor.

Just because something is easy, that doesn't make it right.

Someone who lives off of welfare checks is less of a burden on average working folk than, say, Paris Hilton.

Wrong, although that was kind of funny.

If working folk could keep their paychecks instead of being taxed on nearly 1/3 of it, they could easily get by. I realize not all of that goes to those on welfare, but a lot of it goes out to a lot of stupid shit. People on welfare is just one more portion I'd rather not spare.

Let me give you an example of a paycheck (just off the top of my head) I got for 2 weeks once:

Earned 300.
Paid 235.

Thanks, guys. Things would be much more comfortable with that extra 65. Maybe then I could afford rent as well as groceries.

sschaula wrote:I don't think anyone believes robots have feelings or awareness. I think you're reaching too far there, Dan.

Perhaps not today's robots, but what about once robots and computers get advanced enogh to do anything a human brain can do - but more accuratly? What would be the essential difference between a human brain and a robot's computer brain that would make the robot lacking in conciousness?
.