I wonder how we are contributing towards the evolution of other animals. It seems that by keeping some animals in captivity as pets, they are not forced to adapt in order to survive. This may be a disadvantage, not that it matters incredibly in that they are, like us, essentially removed from nature. Though, maybe they are simply evolving in a different way. We keep other animals in captivity for food, and not only are we hindering their evolution, but we are also causing them harm by not treating them well. I do think that is a problem.
We could also be contributing to evolution in a positive way. We are helping/increasing the apes knowledge of tool-using and helping to increase their intelligence, which is a substantial benefit. It would be interesting to be able to leave this planet and see how the apes adapt and evolve.
02 May 2012
Boundary Pushing
Though we have removed ourselves from nature in many senses, I think it is important to recognize that we are within its confines and that it allows us and we need it to improve ourselves. Everything that we construct is natural in that we made it, and in that it was made from things that are natural. If something is made entirely of granite, then the structure itself is also granite. There are many ways that we can see that most of us are, in fact, not much better than nature. Most of us would not survive very well in the Amazon, for example. There are many threats there that we no longer have to, therefore, in general, no longer can deal with. Most of us have lost the knowledge of how to survive on our own because we are so dependent on our grocery stores for food, and dependent on our houses, built by others, for protection from animals.
To make a note here, I do think that eventually, while still working within nature, as we have no choice but to do so, we will be able to be much more free. I think that we will be able to better manipulate nature in time. As our technology increases, we are better equipped to manipulate nature allowing us to do more things. At one point, we could not travel faster than we can run, currently, however, we have created jets which can break the speed of sound - I think the fastest thing we've created is a space craft (NASA's New Horizons Craft) that travelled at 36,360mph. Eventually, I imagine, we'll be able to travel near the tachyons (slowest as the speed of light), or possibly even faster than that, which would still be in the confines of nature.
To make a note here, I do think that eventually, while still working within nature, as we have no choice but to do so, we will be able to be much more free. I think that we will be able to better manipulate nature in time. As our technology increases, we are better equipped to manipulate nature allowing us to do more things. At one point, we could not travel faster than we can run, currently, however, we have created jets which can break the speed of sound - I think the fastest thing we've created is a space craft (NASA's New Horizons Craft) that travelled at 36,360mph. Eventually, I imagine, we'll be able to travel near the tachyons (slowest as the speed of light), or possibly even faster than that, which would still be in the confines of nature.
Our Walls
We, humans, have essentially removed ourselves from the competition of nature. As such, I am not certain that we are continuing to evolve naturally. That's not to say that I think it is a bad thing, we are in control of technology which I think is better for evolution; nature can only give us so much non-immortal, largely inadequate things. So, it seems like it is best that we remove ourselves from nature; we no longer have to struggle in the same way that animals living day-to-day do.We have built our walls that protect us from nature, though we hardly have any natural predators anyway. These walls keep us safe and allow us to focus on other things. We get our food inside these walls, and we can focus on improving ourselves through technology. We are learning how to sustain ourselves while creating protection from threats, at least the threats that we don't make for ourselves.
30 April 2012
Ants
In response to Justine - full post here
Just for the record, I would like to point out an exaggeration. Ants can, at most, lift approximately fifty times their weight. The reason why human cannot do this can be explain as such: Mass increases as a cube of length, while muscle mass increases as the a square of length. This means that if a person were to grow 10 times taller, they would be 1,000 times heavier but only 100 times stronger. As such, more of the individual's muscles must work on holding up the heavier mass. Creature A, weighing 1 ounce, would have an easier time lifting 2 ounces (twice its weight), than a 100 pound creature would have lifting 200 lbs. Despite the proportion of 2:1 in both of these cases, the latter still has to lift less weight, as one hundred pounds is 1600 times heavier than one ounce.
Just for the record, I would like to point out an exaggeration. Ants can, at most, lift approximately fifty times their weight. The reason why human cannot do this can be explain as such: Mass increases as a cube of length, while muscle mass increases as the a square of length. This means that if a person were to grow 10 times taller, they would be 1,000 times heavier but only 100 times stronger. As such, more of the individual's muscles must work on holding up the heavier mass. Creature A, weighing 1 ounce, would have an easier time lifting 2 ounces (twice its weight), than a 100 pound creature would have lifting 200 lbs. Despite the proportion of 2:1 in both of these cases, the latter still has to lift less weight, as one hundred pounds is 1600 times heavier than one ounce.
26 April 2012
Taking the Reins
Are humans the end of natural evolution?
Humans are on a track to destroy themselves. Conversely, humanity is also on a track to improve their lives greatly. Humans have been using technology for a long time. Using technology, humans have greatly improved the human condition. As such, it seems like humanity is taking the reins of their own evolution. Can we still say that nature is controlling our evolution? I would say yes, I simply think it is a new kind of nature. Remembering that the universe is determined, we know that we can never escape nature. Additionally, we are within nature, as such, we need nature to improve ourselves; the materials to do so come from nature. I would, however, venture to say that humans have evolved enough to break free of the unguided, by-chance, evolution and have instead taken up a self-directed natural evolution.
The technology required to do so will certain create problems in that, as we discussed in class, humans have the potential to survive and the potential to destroy themselves.
Humans are on a track to destroy themselves. Conversely, humanity is also on a track to improve their lives greatly. Humans have been using technology for a long time. Using technology, humans have greatly improved the human condition. As such, it seems like humanity is taking the reins of their own evolution. Can we still say that nature is controlling our evolution? I would say yes, I simply think it is a new kind of nature. Remembering that the universe is determined, we know that we can never escape nature. Additionally, we are within nature, as such, we need nature to improve ourselves; the materials to do so come from nature. I would, however, venture to say that humans have evolved enough to break free of the unguided, by-chance, evolution and have instead taken up a self-directed natural evolution.
The technology required to do so will certain create problems in that, as we discussed in class, humans have the potential to survive and the potential to destroy themselves.
Helping Others
Related to my last post, what about the possibility of assistance coming from another species?
Imagine humans found a way off this planet, that is to say, before the sun becomes a red dwarf and swallows the earth, Surely we could consider them fit, largely due to their intellect and tool-using prowess, However, imagine then, that humans choose to bring along oysters and red pandas. Would this mean that if the sun swallowed the world, humans, oysters, and red pandas, would have been the most fit on earth? As with my last answer, I am not inclined to say that those animals are the most fit. This is another example of how circumstance unrelated to evolutionary adaptation could possibly influence the survival of a species.
Imagine humans found a way off this planet, that is to say, before the sun becomes a red dwarf and swallows the earth, Surely we could consider them fit, largely due to their intellect and tool-using prowess, However, imagine then, that humans choose to bring along oysters and red pandas. Would this mean that if the sun swallowed the world, humans, oysters, and red pandas, would have been the most fit on earth? As with my last answer, I am not inclined to say that those animals are the most fit. This is another example of how circumstance unrelated to evolutionary adaptation could possibly influence the survival of a species.
Circumstances
What other factors, if any, besides natural selection contribute to the survival of a species?
I would say that chance, or rather, the circumstance for one species at any given time, contributes heavily to the survival of a species. We said yesterday, I think, that dinosaurs were incredibly "fit"; that is, they survived for a very long time. I do think it is only slightly unfair to call the dinosaurs unfit due to the unfortunate circumstance of the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid. Granted, a prime example of fitness if the ability to adapt to change of circumstance or to have already adapted to survive most anything (i.e the cockroach), though we can hardly blame dinosaurs for not adapting to such a sudden and drastic change. Similarly, I think it would be unfair to, after a nuclear fallout, call most animals unfit for survival. The deep-sea life would likely remain unaffected by the fallout almost purely because of their distance away from the surface. Is this because they are the most fit? I am uncertain about this.
I would say that chance, or rather, the circumstance for one species at any given time, contributes heavily to the survival of a species. We said yesterday, I think, that dinosaurs were incredibly "fit"; that is, they survived for a very long time. I do think it is only slightly unfair to call the dinosaurs unfit due to the unfortunate circumstance of the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid. Granted, a prime example of fitness if the ability to adapt to change of circumstance or to have already adapted to survive most anything (i.e the cockroach), though we can hardly blame dinosaurs for not adapting to such a sudden and drastic change. Similarly, I think it would be unfair to, after a nuclear fallout, call most animals unfit for survival. The deep-sea life would likely remain unaffected by the fallout almost purely because of their distance away from the surface. Is this because they are the most fit? I am uncertain about this.
25 April 2012
Seldom Deal In Absolutes
In response to Meghan - full post here
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" -Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm not calling you a Sith, I only used that quote because it's interesting and applies here. I would be cautious with absolutes. Remember that few things are absolutely black and white. As such, you ought not make such a sweeping generalization regarding human desires.
You said that no one wants to choose to be poor, and that no one wants to live paycheck to paycheck, and that everyone starts with a high goal. However, I think that, with a world population of over 7 billion people, you could find at least person who chose to be poor, at least one person who voluntarily lives paycheck to paycheck, and at least one person who started with a low goal or no goal at all.
It is likely the case that the majority of people do not choose poverty, or to live paycheck to paycheck - I am not sure about the high goals - so it would be fair to say that few people choose to do these things.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" -Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm not calling you a Sith, I only used that quote because it's interesting and applies here. I would be cautious with absolutes. Remember that few things are absolutely black and white. As such, you ought not make such a sweeping generalization regarding human desires.
You said that no one wants to choose to be poor, and that no one wants to live paycheck to paycheck, and that everyone starts with a high goal. However, I think that, with a world population of over 7 billion people, you could find at least person who chose to be poor, at least one person who voluntarily lives paycheck to paycheck, and at least one person who started with a low goal or no goal at all.
It is likely the case that the majority of people do not choose poverty, or to live paycheck to paycheck - I am not sure about the high goals - so it would be fair to say that few people choose to do these things.
21 April 2012
In response to Avery - full post here
You can often see that attitude on youtube; people can be fairly aggressive when dealing with music tastes. Some people will look up artists that they do not like just to talk about how any person who does like that artist is a terrible person and has no taste in good music. Meanwhile, those same people are downright offended when someone posts something negative about their favourite artists.
I saw a post recently which stated that any person who does not like My Chemical Romance should burn in hell. People cannot help it if alternative rock music doesn't fall as nicely onto their ears. Some people are more prone to certain kinds of music, and exposure as a child can have a heavy influence on the person's music tastes. Interestingly, people have been researching the relationship between personality and music interests, and I suspect that there is some correlation. I don't think that people can change this, though some exposure to these categories is good because maybe there will be a song or two that one does like in that genre.
You can often see that attitude on youtube; people can be fairly aggressive when dealing with music tastes. Some people will look up artists that they do not like just to talk about how any person who does like that artist is a terrible person and has no taste in good music. Meanwhile, those same people are downright offended when someone posts something negative about their favourite artists.
I saw a post recently which stated that any person who does not like My Chemical Romance should burn in hell. People cannot help it if alternative rock music doesn't fall as nicely onto their ears. Some people are more prone to certain kinds of music, and exposure as a child can have a heavy influence on the person's music tastes. Interestingly, people have been researching the relationship between personality and music interests, and I suspect that there is some correlation. I don't think that people can change this, though some exposure to these categories is good because maybe there will be a song or two that one does like in that genre.
Does radical freedom make a mockery of ethics?
I think that radical freedom does indeed make more of a mockery of ethics than determinism would. Objective and/or evolutionary morals could still fit nicely into determinism. However, radical freedom, if it were reality, would suggest that our morals are completely subjective and malleable depending on the values and whims of society.
If we can agree on a basic claim like "it is bad to be the agent through which harm is dealt." Once we agree on that we can determine what sort of things would be contained in that statement, and agree that we should work to prevent people from harming others, and since we acknowledge that a person is not responsible for making a choice, we can work to make even prisoners more happy. For an example of how this can work, please see this website on Norwegian Prisons <click here>. Additionally, we can acknowledge that our species does not evolve if we kill each other, and that, therefore, it would be best not to kill other people.
I think that radical freedom does indeed make more of a mockery of ethics than determinism would. Objective and/or evolutionary morals could still fit nicely into determinism. However, radical freedom, if it were reality, would suggest that our morals are completely subjective and malleable depending on the values and whims of society.
If we can agree on a basic claim like "it is bad to be the agent through which harm is dealt." Once we agree on that we can determine what sort of things would be contained in that statement, and agree that we should work to prevent people from harming others, and since we acknowledge that a person is not responsible for making a choice, we can work to make even prisoners more happy. For an example of how this can work, please see this website on Norwegian Prisons <click here>. Additionally, we can acknowledge that our species does not evolve if we kill each other, and that, therefore, it would be best not to kill other people.
Alignment
Given that our current society revolves around the idea that we have radical freedom, would it be appropriate to acknowledge that we don't have radical freedom?
I do not think that it is every bad to align our views with reality. I think that the universe is indeed determined, and that thereby we do not have free will. As such, our current society is operating under an incorrect view of reality. This causes us to treat people differently - in that we hold them responsible for things that they are not responsible. This feels right to us, likely because society has held that opinion for thousands of years, and as such many people are hesitant to leave it. Many people would suggest that acknowledging determinism makes a mockery of morals. I think, however, that this is something that we ought to work out. I cannot see a negative aspect of aligning our views with reality. Many philosophers of the past have made an effort to do so. even if the truth threatens to undermine our current view of reality, we ought to align it with reality to assure that we are appropriately dealing with our problems.
I do not think that it is every bad to align our views with reality. I think that the universe is indeed determined, and that thereby we do not have free will. As such, our current society is operating under an incorrect view of reality. This causes us to treat people differently - in that we hold them responsible for things that they are not responsible. This feels right to us, likely because society has held that opinion for thousands of years, and as such many people are hesitant to leave it. Many people would suggest that acknowledging determinism makes a mockery of morals. I think, however, that this is something that we ought to work out. I cannot see a negative aspect of aligning our views with reality. Many philosophers of the past have made an effort to do so. even if the truth threatens to undermine our current view of reality, we ought to align it with reality to assure that we are appropriately dealing with our problems.
18 April 2012
Pre-Determined Freedom
Do we have radical freedom and is that compatible with determined nature of the universe?
I am not of the opinion that we indeed have radical freedom. Freedom, as I understand it, is the ability to, after birth, imagine options and consciously choose one action provided that it is within the confines of the laws of nature. While I think that we certain have the ability to imagine options, I cannot agree that we have the ability make a choice independent of other forces. In an earlier chapter, and in a class past, we discussed determinism. I agree that the universe is completely determined and that thereby we have no power of choice. As such, cannot agree that we have radical freedom. We certain have a wider range of capabilities and have the ability to conceive of more choices that we could make. Though, I think that we were determined to have those thoughts and to act upon whatever choice it is that we act upon.
I am not of the opinion that we indeed have radical freedom. Freedom, as I understand it, is the ability to, after birth, imagine options and consciously choose one action provided that it is within the confines of the laws of nature. While I think that we certain have the ability to imagine options, I cannot agree that we have the ability make a choice independent of other forces. In an earlier chapter, and in a class past, we discussed determinism. I agree that the universe is completely determined and that thereby we have no power of choice. As such, cannot agree that we have radical freedom. We certain have a wider range of capabilities and have the ability to conceive of more choices that we could make. Though, I think that we were determined to have those thoughts and to act upon whatever choice it is that we act upon.
14 April 2012
Response to Andrew
In response to Andrew - full post here
Well, I think that this sort of augmented human is very close in the future. I think that sooner, rather than later, prosthetic limbs and other artificial body parts will be available more readily.
I also think that this is very likely to cause a bad situation. I think it is vital that we move towards socialism before that sort of crazy unfairness settles in. If it did, the middle and poor classes would be at a distinct disadvantage, given that they won't have the same abilities and potential as the more technologically augmented humans. Society needs to change before technology reaches a certain point on the horizon. If society does not change, the world and its people will be in a really bad place. I think the situation is more precarious than many people give it credit for.
Well, I think that this sort of augmented human is very close in the future. I think that sooner, rather than later, prosthetic limbs and other artificial body parts will be available more readily.
I also think that this is very likely to cause a bad situation. I think it is vital that we move towards socialism before that sort of crazy unfairness settles in. If it did, the middle and poor classes would be at a distinct disadvantage, given that they won't have the same abilities and potential as the more technologically augmented humans. Society needs to change before technology reaches a certain point on the horizon. If society does not change, the world and its people will be in a really bad place. I think the situation is more precarious than many people give it credit for.
How could we use technology in conjunction with socialism to liberate people from the need to work?
Technology, I think, could be very used useful in the effort to liberate people from work. We could certain use more technology now in order to prevent people from having to do certain jobs that nobody would want to do. Clean toilets and basic janitorial work could certainly be done by robots. As technology increases, I think, robots will be able to complete more jobs. With socialism, people don't have to worry about losing their jobs to robots because they will still receive all the necessities of life until they are able to contribute to society in a different way. I think that if Karl Marx were alive today, he likely would have supported this idea of using technology to our advantage.
The In-Between Point
There are many problems with capitalism and I used to think that capitalism was the bane of human existence. I have since come around to see ourselves in a position that closely resembles a half-way point between good and bad. It seems much worse that systems of the past because our ability to cause harm to ourselves is greater than it was before. There are many more negative aspects of our society than there were before, it seems reasonable to want to go back to a safer time when we valued different traditions. Capitalism, it seems, is responsible for motivating people to go to war and to create nuclear bombs and guns, and the nature of capitalism combined with industrialism has created an environmental mess which past society would have never considered. There are ways to improve ourselves and we ought to embrace that, we cannot stand idly by because we are aware that there are negatives in capitalism. This is not a place to rest, we have to move forward; we must strive for a better society. As with progress away from the previous stages of human history, we can certainly get rid of many of the problems that we have now. Diseases used to run rampant, and they no longer do. The streets used to stink, they no longer do. Transportation used to leave the majority of travellers dead, that is no longer the case. We can usually address most of our problems as we progress.
How does the American Public Education system portray Karl Marx?
I think that overall, the American public education system portrays Karl Marx in a very negative light. They portray his ideas is the same negative light. The history books used in public schools try to suggest that Russian and China, after having adopted the titles of socialist and communist tried to practice, and succeeded at practising communism. The American media portrays dictatorship (a failed attempt (if it could even be called an attempt) at communism) as successful communism. This is completely untrue and is highly unfair to those who support socialism. In addition to having confused socialism or communism with dictatorship, the American media also portrays socialism as the equivalent to communism. Of course, I cannot simply blame the American media, it is, after all, up to the people to decide what they believe and to research information on their own.
I think that overall, the American public education system portrays Karl Marx in a very negative light. They portray his ideas is the same negative light. The history books used in public schools try to suggest that Russian and China, after having adopted the titles of socialist and communist tried to practice, and succeeded at practising communism. The American media portrays dictatorship (a failed attempt (if it could even be called an attempt) at communism) as successful communism. This is completely untrue and is highly unfair to those who support socialism. In addition to having confused socialism or communism with dictatorship, the American media also portrays socialism as the equivalent to communism. Of course, I cannot simply blame the American media, it is, after all, up to the people to decide what they believe and to research information on their own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)