INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Anthropocentrism

Any topics that are primarily about humanism or other non-religious life stances fit in here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
robzed
Posts: 58
Joined: January 8th, 2009, 9:10 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#121 Post by robzed » February 6th, 2011, 10:30 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Radius wrote: and the internet was made to ride out nuclear war
do you like it?
That's false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Mi ... sign_goals
Radius wrote:
robzed wrote:We have no evidence that these enhanced beings will not make the problem worst rather than better?
then you didn't read the article: as of now, our destructive capacity cannot be topped for all practical intents and purposes
I did. I just don't agree.
Radius wrote:
robzed wrote:We have no evidence that intelligence can be increased greatly by any method
lol
But we don't do we. There might be a good reason why general intelligence has a limit, such as an information theory limit we haven't discovered yet. The science isn't there yet.

Radius wrote:
robzed wrote:We don't know what method will increase intelligence
appropriate configuration of neural anatomy and dynamics

let's not pretend there are no data about this already
'appropriate' - yeah, easy to say. But whilst there are avenues of investigation, that's a far cry from actually ENGINEERING such a solution. The science isn't there yet, let alone the engineering.

Radius wrote:
robzed wrote:We have no evidence that behaviours can be manipulated to make them more 'eco-friendly' / sustainable / 'virtuous'
personality traits can most certainly be linked to the brain
Sure. But again, we don't actually know the practical limits of manipulation or whether certain characteristics are impossible to have together, i.e. are not independent. The science isn't there yet, let alone the engineering.

Radius wrote:
robzed wrote:We have no evidence that we will be able to decide on what behaviours are more 'virtuous'
no ethical system doesn't have this issue

you might as well become a postmodernist
Thanks, but that was not my intention. I was simply pointing out what should know what we are to engineer before we do it. To do this will take time. In which time better solution might have been implemented to solve the problems in the argument.
Radius wrote:
robzed wrote:We have no evidence that these post humans won't be outperformed by normal humans because of these changes (e.g. a high focus on reason based logic by everyone beyond a certain level might be problematic in a universe with the high cost in obtaining them)
what
It is impossible to predict all the implications sort of changes we are talking about here will have.
With any advancement in any technology you always lose something. So what are you doing to lose? It's naïve to assume otherwise.
The question is, do the advancements you have suggested end up resulting in changes that end up being less well adapted?
This isn't a reason not to attempt what you suggest, but we must consider that the unknowns are likely to significantly delay progress towards this goal.

Radius wrote:
robzed wrote:There is no evidence we could significantly reduce energy use per person or globally without a collapse of civilisation
thanks for admitting how bad things are now
Well, if we ignore Africa and most of India, most things have never been better. I thought the problem was that we couldn't sustain this - there were difficult problems globally than the human race was poorly equipped to deal with?
Radius wrote: he's done fuck all
Obviously we are failing to communicate.

Our perspectives are different: you want to be a philosopher, I believe. They don't answer questions or make solutions. Usually they just generate more questions. Occasionally they point out things like falsification.

Scientists investigate and provide models that try to match how the world works.

I am, for the most part, an engineer. Engineers use science, maths and technology to make solutions such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.

You argument, as I stated it, is false. It's not the best method to solve the highlighted problems in the short term.
Radius wrote: and in any case, military research, as I've pointed out several times here, has had huge positive externalities on numerous occasions in the past: you are in fact using it right now
Military research is a double edged sword (if you pardon the pun). It has accelerated science in certain cases. But it's also lead to more people dying and stopped changes in society that might have been beneficial. Commercial enterprises have lead to more advancements in human ability overall. Very close to 100% of the Internet was developed by educational establishments and commercial enterprises.

I'd also like to point out, again, I'm not against enhanced humans: we have been doing that in one form or another for thousands of years - and no more so in than in the last 200 years.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#122 Post by animist » February 6th, 2011, 10:38 am

Radius wrote: I don't see how the idea of improving yourself is egotistical

an egotist tends to think of themselves as perfect

but desiring to improve yourself and thinking you are perfect are contradictory attitudes

not that having such an unpleasant view is relevant to its merits: indeed, anyone who wants to see real improvements in the world must become fairly callous to see them through

and in any case, military research, as I've pointed out several times here, has had huge positive externalities on numerous occasions in the past: you are in fact using it right now
ok, improving yourself is not itself egotistical; you simply are an egotist, as your Latin quote indicates, and, re waste, could you be a bit less wasteful by writing normal sentences, rather than a few words each line? Re the military spinoffs, yes I know they exist, but improving yourself as a fighting unit is still not the most obvious way to save the world.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#123 Post by Radius » February 6th, 2011, 10:52 am

ok fair

but it was still military research
robzed wrote:I did. I just don't agree.
why
robzed wrote:But we don't do we. There might be a good reason why general intelligence has a limit, such as an information theory limit we haven't discovered yet. The science isn't there yet.
it might be limited somehow

but the average person, since there are people who are well above-average, is not near that limit
robzed wrote:'appropriate' - yeah, easy to say. But whilst there are avenues of investigation, that's a far cry from actually ENGINEERING such a solution. The science isn't there yet, let alone the engineering.
do you read this stuff? there are books about neural engineering now. I have several of them

also: the best way to predict the future is to invent it

if knowledge gaps are missing, roll up your sleeves

that is just what I intend to devote my career to
robzed wrote:Well, if we ignore Africa and most of India, most things have never been better.
lol

lolol
robzed wrote:Our perspectives are different: you want to be a philosopher, I believe. They don't answer questions or make solutions.
formal logic
robzed wrote:Scientists investigate and provide models that try to match how the world works.
way to patronize me

I understand science better than you understand philosophy

ps do you know that philosophers publish in neuroscience journals: yep it's true
robzed wrote:I am, for the most part, an engineer. Engineers use science, maths and technology to make solutions such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
I know a thing or two about engineering as well

and when I can plonk down more cash I'd like to take up microcontroller shit and set up a little cluster of PS3s (or similar GPU-equipped hardware) dedicated to protein folding

my new job is technical in nature as well
robzed wrote:You argument, as I stated it, is false. It's not the best method to solve the highlighted problems in the short term.
says you
robzed wrote:Military research is a double edged sword (if you pardon the pun). It has accelerated science in certain cases. But it's also lead to more people dying
yeah but there's too many of them

so?
animist wrote:ok, improving yourself is not itself egotistical; you simply are an egotist, as your Latin quote indicates
then so was Horace

I can live with that
animist wrote:and, re waste, could you be a bit less wasteful by writing normal sentences, rather than a few words each line?
nah
animist wrote:Re the military spinoffs, yes I know they exist, but improving yourself as a fighting unit is still not the most obvious way to save the world.
it's a good way to keep the shitflingers at bay when the time comes though

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#124 Post by animist » February 7th, 2011, 9:56 am

radius wrote:
animist wrote:ok, improving yourself is not itself egotistical; you simply are an egotist, as your Latin quote indicates
then so was Horace
well, so what?
animist wrote:and, re waste, could you be a bit less wasteful by writing normal sentences, rather than a few words each line?
nah
why not? Is the space you fill connected with your egotism?
animist wrote:Re the military spinoffs, yes I know they exist, but improving yourself as a fighting unit is still not the most obvious way to save the world.
it's a good way to keep the shitflingers at bay when the time comes though
what time? what shitflingers?

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#125 Post by Radius » February 7th, 2011, 5:56 pm

animist wrote:well, so what?
Horace was kind of cool
animist wrote:why not? Is the space you fill connected with your egotism?
this was a nice attempt to draw attention away from questions like "if China has enough freshwater for 650 million and there are twice that and counting, should those surplus people be there at all?"

however it didn't work

my egotism, or whatever it might be, has no bearing on the answer to these questions
animist wrote:what time? what shitflingers?
when technology is sufficiently advanced to be said to have caused a kind of "speciation" away from the human race

shitflingers ... people with rather primitive minds and ways of thinking

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#126 Post by thundril » February 7th, 2011, 6:15 pm

Radius wrote:"if China has enough freshwater for 650 million and there are twice that and counting, should those surplus people be there at all?"
I don't get it. If people don't get enough water we die. Very quickly. How come, if there's only enough water for 650 million, there's more than twice that many, and far from dying off they're actually increasing?
Does this mean your definition of 'enough' is a bit looser than mine?

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#127 Post by Radius » February 7th, 2011, 6:24 pm

thundril wrote:
Radius wrote:"if China has enough freshwater for 650 million and there are twice that and counting, should those surplus people be there at all?"
I don't get it. If people don't get enough water we die. Very quickly. How come, if there's only enough water for 650 million, there's more than twice that many, and far from dying off they're actually increasing?
Does this mean your definition of 'enough' is a bit looser than mine?
no

there is enough water for sustainable use in China for 650 million

however they can buy a little time by depleting water tables, wrecking up the environment, looting water from other countries perhaps, running energy intensive desal plants, etc.

pay for it later (with interest) I guess

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#128 Post by thundril » February 7th, 2011, 7:10 pm

Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:
Radius wrote:"if China has enough freshwater for 650 million and there are twice that and counting, should those surplus people be there at all?"
I don't get it. If people don't get enough water we die. Very quickly. How come, if there's only enough water for 650 million, there's more than twice that many, and far from dying off they're actually increasing?
Does this mean your definition of 'enough' is a bit looser than mine?
no

there is enough water for sustainable use in China for 650 million

however they can buy a little time by depleting water tables, wrecking up the environment, looting water from other countries perhaps, running energy intensive desal plants, etc.

pay for it later (with interest) I guess
OK. Thanks for clarifying what you mean by 'enough' in your post . I'm just trying to get the relationship between that measure, (enough) and the (to me quite sinister) concept of 'surplus people'.
You question whether those people 'should' be there. I can't see how this question can be asked, let alone answered, except by supposing at least the possibility that people who do not have 'enough' (however defined) do not have a right to exist?

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#129 Post by Radius » February 7th, 2011, 8:27 pm

human rights do not override physics or ecology

we are subject to a carrying capacity

this should not be controversial

how many times do I have to say this

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#130 Post by Nick » February 7th, 2011, 8:37 pm

Radius wrote:human rights do not override physics or ecology

we are subject to a carrying capacity

this should not be controversial

how many times do I have to say this
So how great would a universe be, what would the benefit be, without any humans in it? You clearly think there are too many stupid humans around.



Well, like Captain Oates, that's jolly noble of you.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#131 Post by Radius » February 7th, 2011, 8:52 pm

Nick wrote:So how great would a universe be, what would the benefit be, without any humans in it?
well, see here:

http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakeplern ... &NewsID=98

there are probably countless habitable planets in the Universe

and, I would imagine, at least one civilization far, far more advanced than we

and we could attain that level of civilization ... if we decided to take the appropriate measures

such an effort would involve immense sacrifice

the key to making the right decisions is to view human affairs from the perspective of Ganymede

that way, all the extraneous bullshit gets filtered out
Nick wrote:You clearly think there are too many stupid humans around.
I do

and why shouldn't I think this?
Nick wrote:Well, like Captain Oates, that's jolly noble of you.
this has nothing to do with whether we are subject to a carrying capacity ... or?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#132 Post by animist » February 7th, 2011, 9:04 pm

Radius wrote:such an effort would involve immense sacrifice
well why not make it and set an example?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#133 Post by animist » February 7th, 2011, 9:07 pm

Radius wrote:"if China has enough freshwater for 650 million and there are twice that and counting, should those surplus people be there at all?"
odd that you have chosen the one country which has ruthlessly tried to limit its population to castigate for its surplus people (yes, people)? You are being a bit unfair, especially (not your fault) as you live in the most wasteful country in the world

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#134 Post by Radius » February 7th, 2011, 9:15 pm

animist wrote:
Radius wrote:such an effort would involve immense sacrifice
well why not make it and set an example?
yeah

I have, for instance, reduced meat consumption to a low level and plan on going entirely vegan when it is more feasible for me to do so

and I don't have a car in a city (and country) that is not very pedestrian-friendly

I'd like to take up my own efficient hydroponic crop growing eventually

oh are you encouraging me to commit suicide?

well if I live sustainably my consumptive habits won't be much of an issue

but I would be willing to sacrifice other, less discreet people to this end
animist wrote:odd that you have chosen the one country which has ruthlessly tried to limit its population to castigate for its surplus people (yes, people)? You are being a bit unfair, especially (not your fault) as you live in the most wasteful country in the world
I hate Americans too

but think of how much worse things would be in the PRC and for the world at large if they had not even tried to limit the population

ps I imagine like the UAE or something would the most wasteful on a per capita basis

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#135 Post by animist » February 7th, 2011, 9:23 pm

Radius wrote:
animist wrote:
Radius wrote:such an effort would involve immense sacrifice
well why not make it and set an example?
yeah

I have, for instance, reduced meat consumption to a low level and plan on going entirely vegan when it is more feasible for me to do so

and I don't have a car in a city (and country) that is not very pedestrian-friendly

I'd like to take up my own efficient hydroponic crop growing eventually

oh are you encouraging me to commit suicide?

well if I live sustainably my consumptive habits won't be much of an issue

but I would be willing to sacrifice other, less discreet people to this end
animist wrote:odd that you have chosen the one country which has ruthlessly tried to limit its population to castigate for its surplus people (yes, people)? You are being a bit unfair, especially (not your fault) as you live in the most wasteful country in the world
I hate Americans too

but think of how much worse things would be in the PRC and for the world at large if they had not even tried to limit the population

ps I imagine like the UAE or something would the most wasteful on a per capita basis
well said and good for you! tho' the Chinese effort has led to lots of people with dependent elders.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#136 Post by Radius » February 7th, 2011, 9:27 pm

that's a relatively inconsequential issue

User avatar
Cain Cocteau
Posts: 17
Joined: June 28th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#137 Post by Cain Cocteau » July 2nd, 2011, 8:04 am

we are born with no particular higher person. Your nature is to live, with the help of the (meat puppet) parents .the goal is to become comfortable with your surroundings and live. Life is the purpose. We have established the capability of language, etc, as tools that make life easier, then we learned it can make life more interesting. thus we invent. all of these have positives and negatives and you choose to avoid one over the other.We continue learning and creating and passing and failing until we die. our body should be put into the earth . as gross as it sounds, we are biodegradable , when we return to the earth we have "STOPPED" ( then i have this theory about atoms, if you want to hear it just ask.

During all of this existence, we find , or offer another information. Some of it seems real . some "not so much. christianty is a belief. a philosophy of life. Warped, it has been clearly fanatical and badly translated.
I do not believe in the christian god, no more than I believe in Ala . some of what I have read can partain to me, but not possess me.

I read from many good books and learn, How I came to Humanist , which is a language of philosophical concept, not a religion.
I like to say I am existential secular spiritual humanist. there is a spiritual side that isnt supernatural. That idea was hard to swallow for a long time. but I am working with it now. I like to conceptualize my spiritual side is my goals for myself, the celebration is a celebration of self. Its a marker of where I have come and how far I have improved or change.

there is no one "right" answer to "what is a humanist" and all of them I have seen are valid.
In our search for one of the principles for life, pleasure . we hope to contimue that to make our time here a fun thing to do.
one day we may well understand the history of the organic thing called human came to be, but I sometimes think most of what we use for debate about it, is wrong.
One thing I choose in my search for happiness is the belief that humans can do this game of life , with real and powerful realities and continue striving to keep that going. this forum in an information tool that helps me learn more..it makes me better...so maybe we as humanists think that we can make this life happy by sharing .
sorry to have rambled but thanks

LOVE YOUR FACE!
A mirror should take time to reflect before throwing back images

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#138 Post by Radius » July 3rd, 2011, 12:17 am

Cain Cocteau wrote:One thing I choose in my search for happiness is the belief that humans can do this game of life , with real and powerful realities and continue striving to keep that going.
well I don't know about that

and my opinion is based on psychological studies

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#139 Post by animist » July 5th, 2011, 9:01 pm

Radius wrote:that's a relatively inconsequential issue
ah, you're back, soon you'll be Circumference! I meant to say that it is not an inconsequential issue if you are a single young Chinese person expected to look after your grandparents

Post Reply