Cmon on now emmet

[Rovena]

Originally Posted by snowbaby

listen to john lennon's imagine evryone who is unsure what the communist ideal is but in the reality it just doesn't work and human nature is greedy and wants not to share things and i don't think that we should be so down on civilisation cille cause it's handy living in a society where stealing and murdering is considered bad. when there's no order people run around killing and stealing and anything goes... so civilisation may be greddy and obssessed with material goods but at least its a kind of order that works. and private property isn't just a human thing, study some apes and see how they behave when new apes try take over their things eg banana tree or home and if the way a dog behaves when you try take its food is about survival then surely the human instinct to protect whats theirs is on some level because of a survival instinct too??

Well, I have to disagree with you. For example, a person who has 5 diiferent houses will try to protect them the same way that i person who lives on shack would try to protect his/hers little shack; however, no one needs 5 different houses to survive. This protection over property can be anything but survival instinct.
Another thing, regarding the apes, their proctection over "property" is EXCLUSIVELY a survival instinct. Savage animals need a certain area in which they can hunt or obtain food; they tend to protect these areas only because they need food to survive and not because they are greedy creatures, such as humans!

[noshorterthan3characters]

"their proctection over "property" is EXCLUSIVELY a survival instinct."

But surely thats a fascist observation (obviously ur not). Fascism is inherintly anti-rational, for example Mussolini's favourate slogans 'Believe, obey, Fight' and 'Action not Talk'. So surely if we were to REBEL against the Enlightenments views that reason should take precendence over emotion and desire, we would be resorting to anti-rational fascism.

[Rovena]

Originally Posted by noshorterthan3characters

"their proctection over "property" is EXCLUSIVELY a survival instinct."

But surely thats a fascist observation (obviously ur not). Fascism is inherintly anti-rational, for example Mussolini's favourate slogans 'Believe, obey, Fight' and 'Action not Talk'. So surely if we were to REBEL against the Enlightenments views that reason should take precendence over emotion and desire, we would be resorting to anti-rational fascism.

I don't know if you understood what I was saying.
When I menitoned "their protection over property is EXCLUSIVELY a survival instinct" I meant The APES protection over property not HUMANS. I completely agree that humans should reason rather than take precedence over emotion and desire; however, you can't expect savage animals to do so.

[snowbaby]

Originally Posted by Rovena

Well, I have to disagree with you. For example, a person who has 5 diiferent houses will try to protect them the same way that i person who lives on shack would try to protect his/hers little shack; however, no one needs 5 different houses to survive. This protectection over property can be anything but survival instinct.
Another thing, regarding the apes, their proctection over "property" is EXCLUSIVELY a survival instinct. Savage animals need a certain area in which they can hunt or obtain food; they tend to protect these areas only because they need food to survive and not because they are greedy creatures, such as humans!

fair enough.. i don't think you got quite what i was on about, i probably rambled on too much am... i was trying to say isn't it the BASIC instinct??... sure greed and everything comes in then and obviously no one needs 5 houses but isn't it always on a very basic primitave level a survival instinct? and i think animals can be greedy defo!!! the whole "dog in a manger" idiom is used to describe people but its a dog in the idiom

[Funky Avocado]

Originally Posted by snowbaby

fair enough.. i don't think you got quite what i was on about, i probably rambled on too much am... i was trying to say isn't it the BASIC instinct??... sure greed and everything comes in then and obviously no one needs 5 houses but isn't it always on a very basic primitave level a survival instinct? and i think animals can be greedy defo!!! the whole "dog in a manger" idiom is used to describe people but its a dog in the idiom

Jeez, I couldn't agree with you more. Finally someone with some common sense!

I can only deduce from the rest of these posts that some of you do not live with a dog. Please get one, god knows there are enough of them out there that need a stable home..

Dogs exhibit the same behavior as man. Take for instance, their favorite toy. My dog is super protective over the frisbee. To him, it his private property. You fu!K with it, that being another dog, you best be willing to suffer the consequences. He can own 20 frisbee's and to him they are all one and the same. As humans we love to think we are so complex and therefore, we like to draw lines between us and everything outside of us.. As Buddhist like to believe, this ignorance, the ego, is the basic root of all of our problems and I couldn't agree more.

[cille]

i still think the idea of 'private property' is a human invention, i'm not sure your dog sees it as you do.

[snowbaby]

do u have a dog?

[cille]

no i have cats, and yes it is easy to interpret their behaviour via human concepts like 'greed' or 'private property'. it's definately quite impossible to not be speciocentric, cause after all we are humans and we know only of the world the way it is seen through our concepts and cultural framework. i'm just saying that other species, as well as human beings with other cultural understandings of this world may not share our concepts. 'private property' is a concept that includes many constructs and 'rules' that aren't necessarily applicable to the way a dog feels towards it's food bowl or chew toy. i'm not saying that the dog doesn't have a certain feeling of connection with and need to protect those items, and we might have this in common with them.

the reason why i don't wanna accept the transfer of the concept of 'private property' to other animals is that when one says "it's in out insticts/genes/nature to be like this", etc. it sounds to me like giving up before hand. maybe there are examples of human cultures who don't have the same concepts of ownership as we do, and maybe we can learn from them? that would show a way ahead in my view, cause the way we're exploiting our ressources and fellow human beings and other species right now is bound to destroy this planet, i think. it's about time to stop accepting old explainations to how things are, and look for other ways of living.

gosh, i thought this was just gonna be a short note

[SilentNight]

good readings for me, Jason. but you can't really go back to the tribes, can you?

[cille]

yay, i was hoping you'd post in this thread eventually jas! as always you have more clever ways to say things than i.

Originally Posted by SilentNight

good readings for me, Jason. but you can't really go back to the tribes, can you?

hm, would it have to be 'going back'? of coyurse we can't erase milleniums of history and culture, but maybe there's a new way around things?

i'm still at asking the questions, the answers still seem too far from my way of thinking too

[lefty01]

Hi,

Just to let you all know you should checkout www.paulhourican.net.Great Irish singer songwriter who has played with Damien!!!

[lefty01]

Hi,

Just to let you all know you should checkout www.paulhourican.net. Great Irish singer songwriter who has played with Damien!!!

[cille]

Originally Posted by lefty01

Hi,

Just to let you all know you should checkout www.paulhourican.net. Great Irish singer songwriter who has played with Damien!!!

wrong thread, buddy!

[snowbaby]

defo wrong thread i know nothing signifigant bout american indians but didn't the tribes war against each other??

[The Pink Girly]

Originally Posted by Miss Pink

i like emmett alot, and i dont what ppl to be all mean to him.


leave him alone or i'l just have to cover u in pink and spit on u. or something.

muhahaha


yes but be nice to emmett

lol! love it miss pink!

[dizzy cannon]

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

rape is rampant in our society....a very rare thing in the rest of the animal world.

actually though its not a pretty thing rape is not uncommon in the animal world... i just went over it in my lectures for bio its called coercion, rape usually happens with males with a "low fitness" and homosexual rape also happens where males will rape other males to obstruct them from mating with females

it doesnt justify rape in humans but with insects and animals its considered an evolutionary strategy that males will do to have offsprings and pass on their DNA

[Closing_Doors]

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

....savage animals....as if we are above them in some way. sorry i dont mean to sound ....whatever..... this is the internet remember...
but i want to know what makes animals savage (ignoring that we are animals as well) and us not.
is it our televisions? cars? other cool gadgets?

How about our conscience? Our sense of right and wrong?
I've never known an animal to display these attributes (I'm by no means an expert on the subject....so if you do have an example of this please bring it up ). For animals it all seems to be black and white....corner an animal and they will generally attack you (regardless of your intention), move in on their territory and they will generally attack you (again, regardless of your intention). There is no sense of that to take a life is wrong (of their own kind even). It's blind defense. (I'm not talking about hunting to kill here btw).
Displaying emotion is not the same as having a conscience.

And yes, humans can cause great evil, but they have an equal capacity for great good.


I actually had an interesting discussion on a related topic with my cousin recently regarding artificial intelligence, and what distinguishes it from any other type of intelligence (be it human or animal). We were unable to come up with anything that made the distinction

[dizzy cannon]

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

no doubt it does occur. and i wish i could find the study i read about it....but statistically speaking it is far, far less observable in the rest of the animal kingdom than in our society.

i dunno how accurate that is... i would think it would be the other way around considering all of the billions of animals and insects on the planet but for the most part i aggree with ya, you got some good points there

[eims]

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

a biologist , when he was a kid, once observed the metamorphasis from a cocoon to a butterfly. after watching a couple struggle to get out he decided to be a good moral boy and help the others. he took his thin fingernail and pried open the cocoon a bit to make it easier for the butterflies to escape. it worked. the butterflies had no problem getting out. unfortunately, after flapping a few times, they all fell to the ground and died. the young boy did not know that in helping the butterfly he actually made things worse and caused its death. the struggle to escape the cocoon triggers a chemical reaction which produces an enzyme for the new butterfly to live as a butterfly. without it, and with the 'help' from the moral boy, the butterflies died.

wow- thats really interesting Jason..makes u think doesn't it?! u always have such good quotes and i'm sorry to say that i quite often skim down through the rest of your stuff to see what you've quoted at the end!! no offense or anything!

[SisterMidnight]

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb... and I also know that I'm not blonde.
Dolly Parton

good quote

jason's very verbose but hey ya want posts with substance there ya go ^

seriously though man you should write a book! all of those eloquent words.. i dunno.. maybe they kind of go to waste here

[eims]

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

haha none taken
most of the time i have a lot written in a post but i cant get my points across with short ones usually.

jason

yep - u always have something to say -and some smart quotes to back it up with .. damn if only u could do some of my history c'work for me!!

[Closing_Doors]

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

well, first off, i cant see how you can say definitively that they dont have one. what exactly is it about them that causes you to say they dont have a conscience or a sense of right and wrong?

I'm not saying that at all! I was merely offering a suggestion.
I just don't see how you could conclusively say we're not "better" than them.

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

WWI- 9,000,000 killed. another 7 million were never pronounced dead but were listed as missing. 57% of everyone that even fought in that war either died, were wounded or was unaccounted for afterward. can anyone even tell me why we fought that one?

ive never seen millions of chimps running through africa to battle millions of other chimps. you cant find a report or even a hint of anything remotely resembling this behavior in the entire animal kingdom outside of us nonsavages.

I once watched a documentary about a type of chimp that was the only animal on the planet that has been observed to set out and murder in cold blood (sensationalism on the part of the producers perhaps, but the footage spoke for itself). It was chilling to watch the viciousness of it all.

I don't think you can ask why apes haven't declared wars on a scale like WW1...they lack the means.

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

no, but for many years it was emotions that many denied animals as having. maybe we are wrong about conscience as well.

I've nevr come across anyone that denied that animals have emotions.

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

a lot of people act as though im insulting them when i speak of animals in equal terms as humans. but thats just how i see it. we are different, not better. what you see as a lack of morality , i see differently. morality itself is subjective. for instance, i dont think we should keep sending more and more food to third world nations, or rather , i dont see that as the solution. am i a monster for this? ive been called that. but the way i see it is that we are making it worse. increase food to any population and that population increases. the population in question lives in an area unable to produce the food for its inhabitants. it never will. and all we do is increase the numbers by sending food. so this is a 'solution' that has no end. every year we send more food and every year they need more. at some point it has to come down. millions will not starve by just topping off the aid we send. some will yes. but im not god. i dont control who lives and who dies(theres that word again -control). some forms of morality are just people thinking they can control things better or make things better than god(s). and sometimes it makes things worse.

There is enough food in the world to go round.

Re:Artificial Intelligence...had another debate with my cousin over the weekend! Some new questions (no answers!): Is conciousness a requirement for "intelligence"? How do you define conciousness etc? Head-wrecking stuff

[Closing_Doors]

I was simply pointing out that there is enough food to go around (The average American ate 118 take-out restaurant meals in 2002. Source: Time Magazine)...I did not imply that it has/is/will be distributed accordingly. For my part I do what I can, donate money to charities etc. I think it's a fairly sh*tty excuse to say there's no point in sending food out because the population will just increase and starve anyway. Try explaining that to the dying kid in Ethopia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
stabilization
12/29/2003

By 2050, three of every four developing nations will probably have stabilized their populations.
Source: Boston Globe


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Todaro (1994): 183.

Demographic Transition of Countries

All developed countries have more or less passed through the following stages of population growth:

Stage 1. High Birth Rates and High Death Rates (Before they achieved higher rates of growth and before they were modernized.)-result: very little or no population growth

Stage 2. High Birth Rates diverging with Falling Death Rates (When they started to grow economically, death rates started to fall because of higher incomes, better diets, and better health methods.)-result: increasing population growth

Stage 3: Falling Birth Rates converging with Lower Death Rates (With influences of modernization and development, fertility rates also started to decline.)- Result: little or no population growth (but more than in Stage 1)

Western Europe, for example, passed through these stages during the following periods: 1780-1840 (Stage 1), 1850-1900 (Stage 2), and 1900- (stage 3).
Most Third World Countries have passed through these stages during the following periods: until 1950s (Stage 1), 1950-1970 (Stage 2), 1970- (Stage 3). There are still many Third World countries, however, especially in Africa and the Middle East, which have not yet passed through Stage 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

unless they magically stop having sex(good luck considering its quite possibly the last thing they have that they can enjoy) this will continue no matter how much food is sent.

In the Dominican Republic, pregnancy is the principal cause of death among
females aged 15-19.

Ian


If everyone in the world consumed like the average U.S. citizen, we would need at least four more planet Earths.
Source: Purchasing Power, World Watch Paper 166


In 1970, Americans spent about $6 billion on fast food; in 2001, they spent more than $110 billion.
Source: Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser

[Closing_Doors]

Ok before I begin another rant...
I've nothing against America. I spent 3 weeks in California last year and absolutely loved it. I'm aware that the facts and quotes etc. I used in the last post (and in this post probably!) were mainly "America-bashing"....that's just cause they're easier to find

But seriously, no offence to any American intended. This is a global problem.

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

im simply pointing out there has always been enough food to go around and there has always been people starving. im suggesting that the timehonored solution of simply sending more food isnt the answer. it is simple biology. human population growth varies with food availibilty. you increase food supply to a population, the population increases.

Again, to refer to my last post, population growth will level off as the countries develop. Some countries (Germany for one, I think) have actually got declining populations.

I agree with you in so far as sending food alone will not solve everything.
A good start would be relieving the debt (this is where Bono comes in )

Some facts/quotes I've dug up:

-----------------------------------------------

Combined foreign debt of 47 of the poorest countries:
$422 billion
Amount U.S. spends in the interest on the national debt every 24 months:
$422 billion

Military expenditure of the rich countries in one year: $427 billion

Source: Worldwatch

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Americans believe that foreign aid represents about 20 percent of the national budget, and they think it should represent about 10 percent, according to a University of Maryland poll. In reality, the U.S. this year has budgeted about $14.9 billion for foreign aid in its $1.8 trillion budget. That's 0.827 percent of the budget.
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer

------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to UN estimates, rich countries need to double the $50 billion they spend annually on development to achieve the goals that 189 countries agreed upon at the UN Millennium Summit. These include reducing the number of people living in poverty by half, achieving universal primary schooling, reducing maternal and infant mortality rates, and halting the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Source: Financial Times

----------------------------------------




The key is to help and allow these countries to develop, educate them etc.
I'm sorry to keep bombarding everyone with quotes so after these I'll try and cut down:






-------------------------------------------

If by 2010, every young child completed primary school, per capita GDP levels in the developing world could be as much as one-third to one-half higher in 2035 than they are currently projected.

Source: World Bank

-----------------------------------------

One in five of the world's people -- 1.2 billion -- live on less than $1 a day. 56% of the developing world lacks basic sanitation, and more than 50 countries have lower real per capita incomes today than they did a decade ago.
Source: U.N. Development Programme

---------------------------------------------


HIV-infected patients who are unable to read and understand basic health care information tend to have "significantly worse health outcomes," according to a study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. Researchers, using the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults, classified 25% of the 339 HIV-positive individuals studied as having lower health literacy.
Source: Kaiser HIV/AIDS Report, 1/18/01

---------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

you and most others look at it from some moral stand point....we cant let these people just die!
im looking at it from a scientific view.

You can't be 100% impartial. You're human, you're not capable of it.

Would you swap your child with a starving baby from Ethiopia? If you were impartial and detached you wouldn't mind: one person dies, another lives. It would be the same if you hadn't swapped.


There is no importance in anything save the emotions....William Carlos Williams

And yes I do feel that "we can't just let these people die". I can't understand why you wouldn't want to help them. By your method of reasoning, by not sending food we are saving the lives of people who will never be born (ie. the descendents of the people you would let starve).

Originally Posted by jasonAVO

yes, the WHO and the UN both feel that magically this trend of population growth will abate.(of course we tend to ignore the word 'probably' in that statement). somehow what hasnt worked for 50 yrs is going to work in the next 50 and population will just stop at 12 billion. (btw, just a few years ago their estimate was 8. then 9). but i'll give you a secret....one that is in the fineprint of those UN estimates.....a small little footnote to their claim is the fact that they admit if their numbers are off by less than one per cent that number of 12 billion could be as high as 80 billion.

You can't, in all fairness, complain that they use the word "probably". It is impossible to know anything for definite. Eg. do you know you're going to die? How? Because you perceive that other people have died?

If you wanted to be scientific about it, you could argue that by Occam's razor, ie. assuming that nothing incredible happens which changes population trends in the next 50 years, their figures are reasonable and population levels will match them.

On a side note: Occam's razor is not something I generally approve of or agree with. Too narrow-minded. It does have some useful applications though. In the X-Files, Agent Mulder once referred to it as "Occam's Theory of Limited Imagination"

Anyway gotta go
Ian

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing....Edmund Burke