New Proposal for the Secret of Life

[LHX]

I disagree, I think it came out fine.  I for one agree with you as far as the colonization part is concerned.  I believe the space program does have potentials for solving problems here on Earth.  But, I agree that approaching it from the basis of finding a place to escape to because we are screwing up Earth is pretty poor. 

"The Martian Chronicles" FTW

earth is approaching the space race like a athlete that needs to shoot up before he takes the field in order to get himself to perform


ass-backwards

[Jenne]

I sorta disagree there.

I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).

And I wasn't talking about an exaggerated sense of self-importance...just an innate ability to think of self and self-survival first.

[Jenne]

For example, think about worker bees--their sole living mechanism is to perform a set of tasks, and if they can't, they die, leave or both the one place that birthed them.

Humans are not innately built to do this, I believe.   Socialization for humans is TAUGHT, first and foremost, to a large degree.

[LHX]

I sorta disagree there.

I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).

that sounds kind of sensational

something significant for the future?
other than apocalypse?

[LHX]

For example, think about worker bees--their sole living mechanism that we have documented is to perform a set of tasks, and if they can't, they die, leave or both the one place that birthed them.

fixed

Humans are not innately built to do this, I believe.   Socialization for humans is TAUGHT, first and foremost, to a large degree.

yes

humans are known to perpetuate their traditions


as aimless and self-destructive as they have become

[Jenne]

I sorta disagree there.

I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).

that sounds kind of sensational

something significant for the future?
other than apocalypse?

 No, come on, world leaders, people who led significant political movements, musicians, etc.

The creators (even if they created "evil" or chaos) of some of the knowledge base and experiential data that what we are doing NOW is built on.  What whole institutions get paid millions to teach.  *shrug*  THAT still has value, imho.  THAT still has significance.  

If it doesn't, a shitload of our compatriots on this board are in engaging in a horrid waste of their time.

[Jenne]

For example, think about worker bees--their sole living mechanism that we have documented is to perform a set of tasks, and if they can't, they die, leave or both the one place that birthed them.

fixed

Humans are not innately built to do this, I believe. Socialization for humans is TAUGHT, first and foremost, to a large degree.

yes

humans are known to perpetuate their traditions


as aimless and self-destructive as they have become

aw, so NOT the same thing.

[Jenne]

And we've always been aimless and self-destructive.

No evolution there. 

[B_M_W]

no need to apologize!  *didn't start the thread*

I already know your stance on this, BMW, as I've read your positions on anthropocentrism before.  Doesn't shock or surprise me, and I think I share quite a few views with you.  In fact, I saw someone on a talk show last night speaking about being speciesist, and I believe all humans tend to fall into this category, more or less.

We really, actually, have no choice.  *shrug*  I believe that was built or adapted into our survival mechanism in the end.

Was it Peter Singer? On the Colbert report? Cause I heard that he was on there. In actuallity, hes a speciesist too, because he only recognizes inherent worth (intrinsic value) in organisms that have the ability to feel. Everything else is only good in so far as it aids sentient life in survival to him.

And yeah, all humans are speciesist to some extent. All species other than humans are speciesist, really. But, if theres anything good about human minds, maybe its to break down the barriers, to remove this oh so binding idio- and anthropo-centrism. And in many ways I believe it is pertinate to our future survival to do so, a moral imperative, even.

I disagree, I think it came out fine.  I for one agree with you as far as the colonization part is concerned.  I believe the space program does have potentials for solving problems here on Earth.  But, I agree that approaching it from the basis of finding a place to escape to because we are screwing up Earth is pretty poor. 

"The Martian Chronicles" FTW

I would go further and say Ray Bradbury FTW.

it wasnt built in - it was a post-manufacture installation

a child doesnt spontaneously develop a exaggerated sense of self-importance

it is a trait that had a beginning and had been perpetuated


and fitting it into the original post - it looks like it is something that bursts (on a personal and societal scale)



thats sort of like a anti-survival mechanism

Wasn't built in? LHX, man, have you ever SEEN how a baby acts? ALL of its actions are out of self importance. Its only later in their lives that they are able to expand that sense of self to other people, and beyond. But otherwise we all start out as selfish, winey little fucks.

[LHX]

I sorta disagree there.

I think I have too much experiential and historical precedent in those who went against the societal grain to fight for something completely unattainable and somehow not only succeeded but also became a forefather or mother of something significant for the future of humanity (whatever the fuck that may be).

that sounds kind of sensational

something significant for the future?
other than apocalypse?

  No, come on, world leaders, people who led significant political movements, musicians, etc.

The creators (even if they created "evil" or chaos) of some of the knowledge base and experiential data that what we are doing NOW is built on.  What whole institutions get paid millions to teach.  *shrug*  THAT still has value, imho.  THAT still has significance. 

If it doesn't, a shitload of our compatriots on this board are in engaging in a horrid waste of their time.

it might have significance, but not in the realm of comparison

as in - thank goodness A happened instead of B


it has significance by virtue of the fact that it happened - plain and simple


the original post suggests that something was distorted - separated

now we witness it coming back together


so these things that happened in the past - they are siginificant as landmarks perhaps
but not significant as pivotal events


what seems significant is the snowball building momentum - the "way it looks" and "what we call it" seems to be little more than decoration - scenery on the side of the road (one of the reasons why we can agree on so little when it comes to history and 'what happened' - the dates, faces and names are of approximately zero significance)

[LHX]

And we've always been aimless and self-destructive.

No evolution there. 

1. as far as we can remember (which isnt very far)
2. we havent always been able to notice it
3. where did the trait of pretending to have an aim and ignoring signals of our destructive traits come into the picture?

[LHX]

Wasn't built in? LHX, man, have you ever SEEN how a baby acts? ALL of its actions are out of self importance.

lol
precisely yo

there is no exaggeration there, and the baby doesnt represent it as being something other than what it is

there is no exaggerated sense of self-importance

Its only later in their lives that they are able to expand that sense of self to other people, and beyond. But otherwise we all start out as selfish, winey little fucks.

we still are selfish

but we also learn to be afraid of things that dont exist and desire things that cannot be obtained

thats where our selfishness gets messy
thats where we start interrupting each other

[Jenne]

LHX, I'm not sure I disagree with what you're saying here...so I'll leave what I said and come back to it later.

[Jenne]

BMW--yes, it was Peter Singer on the Colbert Report.  I had heard about the speciesist thing before, and in fact I think I've seen Singer himself elsewhere, but it was good to hear his theories.

[Jenne]

And we've always been aimless and self-destructive.

No evolution there.

1. as far as we can remember (which isnt very far)
2. we havent always been able to notice it
3. where did the trait of pretending to have an aim and ignoring signals of our destructive traits come into the picture?

1.  so?

2.  so?

3.  who says it wasn't always there, latent?