Tormod Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by: Tim_Louhow are people considered as "physically handicapped", a nail being deformed? missing a finger? missing an arm? missing both hands??? come on, we are not PERFECT. and no body is. Excellent point. And like Irish says, it becomes a question of drawing lines. Who decides what perfection is? If globalization (what this thread was all about) comes down to an evolutionary survival of the fittest thing, then I think we should also remember a couple of interesting things. Like how long has Western "Civilization" existed? How long has the Chinese culture existed? Is one of them "better" or more "adapted" than the other? Which one is likely to survive the longest? Granted, there was a revolution in China not long ago. But the US is less than 250 years old as a nation. The foundations of Europe may be found perhaps 2,500 years ago but that is still a lot less than the Chinese, not to mention the Egyptian culture. Is it good for "mankind" that the Spaniards killed off the natives when they "discovered" and looted America? Is it an evolutionary advantage to build higher chimneys so that the pollution is blown to some distant country? Is it a natural law that a company should be allowed to exploit the resources of the world because a self-made person owns it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by: Tim_Loucome on, we are not PERFECT. and no body is.OK. I have a few extra pounds! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyesNot surprising that Hawking is mentioned and Mozart is not though.We were leaving that honor for you Irish! Good job! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Evolution relates to species, not cultural groups or tribal differences. If technology allows the planet to be populated with "weaker" humans, the chances are greater that we will not survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteEvolution relates to species, not cultural groups or tribal differences. Yes, I agree. The term "evolution" in it's strict sense. However, social evolution is a real issue. Social differences could be advantageous to the evolution of species. If technology allows the planet to be populated with "weaker" humans, the chances are greater that we will not survive. How would you define "weaker" in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 If technology allows the planet to be populated with "weaker" humans, the chances are greater that we will not survive. WOW! That sounds very elitest to me. I echo Tormod's request that you define "weaker". What are the classifications to be considered 'weaker' instead of 'stronger'. I think you will run into the same wall that we've rammed in the 'Intelligence' thread. "Strong" and "Weak" are about as subjective as "Smart" and "dumb" - most of it depends on the individual that is defining the word. There is really no way to determine what is 'strong' or 'weak', as there is no true and objective way to determine 'smart' and 'dumb'. I also disagree that evolution relates only to species. The word in itself does not preclude its use in a different situation. To imply that the current use of 'evolution', as relating to a cultural group changing over the oucrse of time, is incorrect is , well, wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 This is an issue that requires some objectivity or arguing about it is just rhetoric. In the first place, wealth is relative, so much so that when you consider the King Louis IV was the richest man in the world at the time he lived, and he didn't even have indoor plumbing, or that a somewhat romaticized race of Polynesians who had no belongings whatsoever, were blissfully happy, it makes you wonder how to define wealth. My thesis is that is has to do with status seeking within context. It makes no sense to judge other people based on our own standards. How one uses or abuses status is another matter. That's why there are courts of law. Within any culture, the terms of "right" and "wrong" are usually pretty clear. Based on Law, whoever doesn't abide by the rules should be outcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteMy thesis is that is has to do with status seeking within context. It makes no sense to judge other people based on our own standards. What other ruberic do we have? How one uses or abuses status is another matter. That's why there are courts of law. Within any culture, the terms of "right" and "wrong" are usually pretty clear. Based on Law, whoever doesn't abide by the rules should be outcast.I would argue that laws are not always, perhaps not even usually, reasonable, clear or known. And that those that fight against the more oppressive and immoral of them should not be the outcasts, but the heros. Thomas Jefferson for one agreed. "I have ever held it," wrote Jefferson, "that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. For what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 Linda, first you said:If technology allows the planet to be populated with "weaker" humans, the chances are greater that we will not survive. Now you say:It makes no sense to judge other people based on our own standards. Then what standards would you use to argue for your first position that there are "weaker" humans (which are somehow related to "technology")? No offense - I am curious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 Nature determines who is "weaker" based on survival. Then we go about indescriminately rearranging things just because we can. People who would not be alive except for medical technology are rescued at often outrageous expense. The intention is not just to relieve suffering, which would be humane, but to expand our base of knowledge. Social welfare is another way our society countervenes the natural course of things, which leads to our inner cities (in the US) being populated with underpriveleged children, homeless men and drug dealers The motivation is probably guilt. But this is getting into another topic. Mind you, I prefer libertarian socialist, policies as explained best by Noam Chomsky. Linda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 Originally posted by: Freethinker I would argue that laws are not always, perhaps not even usually, reasonable, clear or known. And that those that fight against the more oppressive and immoral of them should not be the outcasts, but the heros. The majority of people in a society ore well aware of the rules. Many are written, but most are learned by living in the culture. If you drive on the wrong side of the road, then you should be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 "Nature determines who is "weaker" based on survival" well, i bet most of us cannot survive if being put in some forest with bears and lions.the way we survive, is based on each other.... so, the handicape, seniors, children, are all capable of surviving....those who cant, are dead already... "People who would not be alive except for medical technology are rescued at often outrageous expense"a line has to be drawn again. i wouldnt be alive if nobody take care of me during a bad cold...so, how serious an illness should be considered as "weaker"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 You missed the point. Nature is objective. One of its survival tactics is parental care and protection within a tribe but not of those who drag down the others. Nature draws the line when it allows the stragglers to be left behind. You can't save everyone. For example, typically only one pup in a letter of wild dogs will survive to adulthood. This is not to be confused with morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteNature determines who is "weaker" based on survival. Then we go about indescriminately rearranging things just because we can. You mentioned that nature is objective. I'd say you can rule out nature because it is not a player in the evolutionary game, it is rather the stage on which the game is played. "Nature" is not objective, nor biased, because it is not an entity. The same goes for technology. Technology has no feelings, nor any sense of purpose. Technology is whatever tools and skills a society has developed to aid it for its own survival. Humanity is "natural", too. Anything we do is natural. We are not gods. So we cannot rearrange things. If a society decides that it is important to take care of the sick and diseased because it is important to the individuals around it, then that is a trait of that society. Perhaps we could argue that having the technology and funds to cure diseases and care for the disabled is an evolutionary strength. The intention is not just to relieve suffering, which would be humane, but to expand our base of knowledge. Whose intention are you talking about? The government, the medical industry, or the individual? I think each of these would have different takes on what the intention of medical care is. Social welfare is another way our society countervenes the natural course of things, which leads to our inner cities (in the US) being populated with underpriveleged children, homeless men and drug dealers. In my eyes social welfare works best when it is a part of a well-run system, receives enough funding, and when being sick or disabled is not considered a problem for society as a whole. The problem in the US and most other countries with a welfare system is that it does not work because politics and financial empires make it impossible to create a welfare system for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care. In many countries without a working welfare system (if we can define that as a state-run system) the sick and diseased are taken care of by their families. It is considered inhumane not to take care of your own. I don't think this is working against evolution in any way. That one wild puppy dog survives into adulthood is hardly comparable with how humans grow up...but in al ot of third world countries there is an alarming death rate among babies and young children. Many of these children could have been saved if each and every global company were willing to take care of their workers, provide decent health care plans, fresh water, food, etc. The motivation is probably guilt. But this is getting into another topic. Mind you, I prefer libertarian socialist, policies as explained best by Noam Chomsky. Linda Yes, in some respects this is off-topic but I think it is a very, very interesting aspect you bring up, Linda. I welcome you to take this idea up in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 I should have given this matter more thought. Nature is not an entity with decision making powers. It is the sum of all physical laws. Technology enables us to alter the course of events that would otherwise result in a different world population. I suppose most people perceive technology to be a benefit at least in the short term. You mention the millions of starving people who could be saved by donations. There are sufficient resources in the world to support the entire population at this time. (I recall we discussed this in another thread.) Also, in times of "plenty'" the population stabilizes. So it's possible that we could all live as one. And in theory, we could all live forever as our technology progresses along those lines. Then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 As it seems to be a dead post now I allow myself to return to an earlier point in the discussion, where lindagarette states: It's very discouraging that most of you seem so confused about globalization. The currently accepted definition is a free market economic system without country borders. (Worldwide capitalism.) I agree with your definition, until you write the thing in brackets "worldwide capitalism". A "free market economic system without country borders" has not to be a capitalistic system, it's very easy to imagine a globale welfare state for example based on that system and that would still be globalization. Or an economy based on exchange could still be "free market ... borders" What you defined is the current globalization, but not the globalization itself. Again, that's why I'm not against globalization (there are very many good ways of having a globalized world that wouldn't make the poor poorer and the rich richer), just against the way it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 I also want to excuse myself I posted a message and then disappeared without answering the critics adressed to me. The reason is, you won't believe it, it's a very poor one: I didn't have access to Internet (actually I had once but on that computer the javascripts for replying to a message didn't work). So I can also answer to Irisheyes Originally posted by: IrishEyesSanctus, it's GREAT to see you back. Where have you been??? I've been travelling by bike trough europe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts