tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post991474321384663737..comments2024-01-02T10:55:10.607-06:00Comments on Angry Astronomer: Brownback and evolutionJon Voiseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-56278966326989622042011-05-10T18:24:07.845-05:002011-05-10T18:24:07.845-05:00Science has given the power to make diseases such ...<i>Science has given the power to make diseases such as smallpox disappear completely. It has lifted us to the stars.</i><br><br>I am hesitant to voice my opinion about this because it is inflammatory, but I feel it is important. There is a real problem pre-supposing that smallpox should disappear. There is no moral compass in science and neither should there be, unfortunately. The impulse of humanity is to "do good" with tools like science. Doing "good" is a platitude formulated by faith driven moralism which only sees superficial truths.<br><br>My meaning is merely this: by removing disease and by lengthening human lifespans ad infinitum, we have opened up the possibility for the outcome to render us extinct. With constantly positive population growth, we are forced into a place where we will need to decide whether governments must sterilize parts of their populations, where "environmental conservation" must give way for us to feed and house ourselves. If other species are not pushed out of the wild and allowed to die because they can't coexist in a world of wall-to-wall humans, we will inevitably push them out and they will become extinct. This is place where children become a curse rather than a benefit and where war and genocide become useful for the preservation of us all. In this place, all the "good" things hurt us, while the "bad" things will actually act to make certain the species has a tomorrow.<br><br>The problem is that is it not "morally right" to think about how the good things might become bad someday and that the bad things might save us from the dust bin of evolution. By this means, we blind ourselves to the truth. Can we selectively decide which data points are "good" and "evil" without potentially excluding a truth from the model? We are inclined to do just that when we hurt. With our tools, like science, we half-rationalize problems and build levies without ever understanding that the river has already moved and should be allowed to move.<br><br>The ingrained programming of religious, faith-driven thought, the very notion of good and evil, inevitably blinds our society to the truth at some level. The only place moralism should exist is in the mundane day-to-day business of allowing humans to coexist. This is why it exists. If it is extended out into nature, where moralism has no meaning, the result can kill us.<br><br>For the record, I am not a nihilist, nor am I a pessimist. I help my fellow man and I do what I can to smooth the way for people around me... the truth is that this smooths my way too. And this is why "morality" exists. The only thing I'm bringing to the table is that "bad" things have the same importance to our world as "good" and that we cannot run away from them without running toward them.viggennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-10848248717461383112007-06-04T16:47:00.000-05:002007-06-04T16:47:00.000-05:00Science has given the power to make diseases such ...<I>Science has given the power to make diseases such as smallpox disappear completely. It has lifted us to the stars.</I><BR/><BR/>I am hesitant to voice my opinion about this because it is inflammatory, but I feel it is important. There is a real problem pre-supposing that smallpox should disappear. There is no moral compass in science and neither should there be, unfortunately. The impulse of humanity is to "do good" with tools like science. Doing "good" is a platitude formulated by faith driven moralism which only sees superficial truths.<BR/><BR/>My meaning is merely this: by removing disease and by lengthening human lifespans ad infinitum, we have opened up the possibility for the outcome to render us extinct. With constantly positive population growth, we are forced into a place where we will need to decide whether governments must sterilize parts of their populations, where "environmental conservation" must give way for us to feed and house ourselves. If other species are not pushed out of the wild and allowed to die because they can't coexist in a world of wall-to-wall humans, we will inevitably push them out and they will become extinct. This is place where children become a curse rather than a benefit and where war and genocide become useful for the preservation of us all. In this place, all the "good" things hurt us, while the "bad" things will actually act to make certain the species has a tomorrow.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that is it not "morally right" to think about how the good things might become bad someday and that the bad things might save us from the dust bin of evolution. By this means, we blind ourselves to the truth. Can we selectively decide which data points are "good" and "evil" without potentially excluding a truth from the model? We are inclined to do just that when we hurt. With our tools, like science, we half-rationalize problems and build levies without ever understanding that the river has already moved and should be allowed to move.<BR/><BR/>The ingrained programming of religious, faith-driven thought, the very notion of good and evil, inevitably blinds our society to the truth at some level. The only place moralism should exist is in the mundane day-to-day business of allowing humans to coexist. This is why it exists. If it is extended out into nature, where moralism has no meaning, the result can kill us.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I am not a nihilist, nor am I a pessimist. I help my fellow man and I do what I can to smooth the way for people around me... the truth is that this smooths my way too. And this is why "morality" exists. The only thing I'm bringing to the table is that "bad" things have the same importance to our world as "good" and that we cannot run away from them without running toward them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-35184798275263351112007-05-31T14:00:00.000-05:002007-05-31T14:00:00.000-05:00Are knee-jerk leaps to extremes what we really loo...<I>Are knee-jerk leaps to extremes what we really look for in a president?</I><BR/><BR/>If "we" is the American electorate, then the answer to that question is... unclear at this time. N = 43 is probably insufficient sample size.<BR/><BR/>The rest of the world* hopes the answer is "no".<BR/><BR/><BR/>* obviously, I'm being rather facietious here. Sorry about that.TheBrummellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08973380652057861796noreply@blogger.com