Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Is natural selection good?

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Hello Polly, ... Yes, we do. ... Mostly anxiety, rarely certainty. Not an ideal parent, by any means, if certainty is a prerequisite :-) ... Did Sartre simply
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 24, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Polly,

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

      > > As you know, selective involuntary sterilization occurred in much of the 20th century in mostly democratic countries but was ultimately condemned as a crime against humanity. >What is absurd to me is how anyone believes they are capable of choosing for anyone else.
      >
      > But we choose for our children all the time, don't we? First we choose
      > someone we didn't know to be there, ex nihilo, and after that we
      > socialised them, much in the the same manner that we ended up being
      > who we are.

      Yes, we do.

      > >The requisite certainty is beyond my comprehension.
      >
      > But only in part, or not? Or was every step of you rearing your kids
      > filled with doubt?

      Mostly anxiety, rarely certainty. Not an ideal parent, by any means, if certainty is a prerequisite :-)

      > > Camus, as much as any other human, projected his personal convictions on to all of humanity. Ironically, he was acting on Sartre's humanist manifesto that when you choose for >yourself, you choose for everyone.
      >
      > I can relate to that. We may all be physically distinct, but not causally.

      Did Sartre simply mean our choices affect others, or that we choose believing others should make the same choices? I thought it was the latter, hence my concerns about projection.

      > >Only Nietzsche knew better.
      > >
      >
      > Is that because he denied the reality of choice?

      I think Nietzsche believed we have will but not free will: we act according to our individual nature which is further shaped by others. This seems paradoxical. What I think Nietzsche knew was that few will make choices: most will have choices made for them.

      Mary

      Mary
    • Herman
      Hi Tom, ... You cannot seem to imagine governments or administrations different to the ones we know about, the misrepresentative ones. And if indeed all
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 24, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Tom,

        On 24 February 2010 04:41, tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
        > Heerman,
        >
        > I just thought of a couple other things.Making voluntary suicide legal would certainly be a way to allow the individual to decide whither the body/mind that he or she has  seems suited to continue to exist. And of course, in many cases people might have body/minds that were adequate enough for a reasonably happy, fullfilling life for many years, but aging has created more problems and removed many sources of fulfillment.I am all for science empowering the individual, but totally opposed to any greater impositions of collective power restricting individual freedoms.Such things create both monstrous police states as well as monstrous >organized crime; and often these two become increasingly interconnected.

        You cannot seem to imagine governments or administrations different to
        the ones we know about, the misrepresentative ones. And if indeed all
        authority turns into narrow self-interest, why is that so?

        Polly
      • Jim
        Hi Polly, You write to Tom: And if indeed all authority turns into narrow self-interest, why is that so? Well, Polly, why do you think it is so? Or do you
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 25, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Polly,

          You write to Tom:

          "And if indeed all authority turns into narrow self-interest, why is that so?"

          Well, Polly, why do you think it is so?

          Or do you think a Government can act from altruistic motives? And if so, why are some governments better than others?

          Jim



          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Tom,
          >
          > On 24 February 2010 04:41, tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
          > > Heerman,
          > >
          > > I just thought of a couple other things.Making voluntary suicide legal would certainly be a way to allow the individual to decide whither the body/mind that he or she has  seems suited to continue to exist. And of course, in many cases people might have body/minds that were adequate enough for a reasonably happy, fullfilling life for many years, but aging has created more problems and removed many sources of fulfillment.I am all for science empowering the individual, but totally opposed to any greater impositions of collective power restricting individual freedoms.Such things create both monstrous police states as well as monstrous >organized crime; and often these two become increasingly interconnected.
          >
          > You cannot seem to imagine governments or administrations different to
          > the ones we know about, the misrepresentative ones. And if indeed all
          > authority turns into narrow self-interest, why is that so?
          >
          > Polly
          >
        • Herman
          Hi Mary, ... I m sure you are right about what Sartre intended. But if I choose to limit the choices of others as an act of self-aggrandisement, I doubt that
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 26, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Mary,

            On 25 February 2010 02:58, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            > Hello Polly,
            >
            >>
            >> I can relate to that. We may all be physically distinct, but not causally.
            >
            > Did Sartre simply mean our choices affect others, or that we choose believing others should make the same choices? I thought it was the latter, hence my concerns about projection.
            >

            I'm sure you are right about what Sartre intended. But if I choose to
            limit the choices of others as an act of self-aggrandisement, I doubt
            that somehow I really want others to limit me.

            Polly
          • Herman
            HI Jim, ... I asked Tom the question, wondering whether he believed there to be some fundamental human trait at play. I certainly don t believe that all
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 26, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              HI Jim,

              On 26 February 2010 00:17, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
              > Hi Polly,
              >
              > You write to Tom:
              >
              > "And if indeed all authority turns into narrow self-interest, why is that so?"
              >
              > Well, Polly, why do you think it is so?
              >

              I asked Tom the question, wondering whether he believed there to be
              some fundamental human trait at play. I certainly don't believe that
              all authority turns into narrow self-interest.


              > Or do you think a Government can act from altruistic motives? And if so, why are some governments better than others?
              >

              I believe that governments that have more active participation from
              their communities have a far greater claim to being representative,
              and are better than those that don't. And here I go again, limiting
              the freedom of others, but I would say it is everyone's duty to
              participate in the politics of their communities. It is apathy and
              other such negligent devolution of power to others that creates the
              governments that Tom despises.

              Polly


              > Jim
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> Hi Tom,
              >>
              >> On 24 February 2010 04:41, tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
              >> > Heerman,
              >> >
              >> > I just thought of a couple other things.Making voluntary suicide legal would certainly be a way to allow the individual to decide whither the body/mind that he or she has  seems suited to continue to exist. And of course, in many cases people might have body/minds that were adequate enough for a reasonably happy, fullfilling life for many years, but aging has created more problems and removed many sources of fulfillment.I am all for science empowering the individual, but totally opposed to any greater impositions of collective power restricting individual freedoms.Such things create both monstrous police states as well as monstrous >organized crime; and often these two become increasingly interconnected.
              >>
              >> You cannot seem to imagine governments or administrations different to
              >> the ones we know about, the misrepresentative ones. And if indeed all
              >> authority turns into narrow self-interest, why is that so?
              >>
              >> Polly
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Jim
              Hi Polly, You write: I certainly don t believe that all authority turns into narrow self-interest. I believe that governments that have more active
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 27, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Polly,

                You write:

                "I certainly don't believe that all authority turns into narrow self-interest. I believe that governments that have more active participation from their communities have a far greater claim to being representative, and are better than those that don't. And here I go again, limiting the freedom of others, but I would say it is everyone's duty to participate in the politics of their communities. It is apathy and other such negligent devolution of power to others that creates the governments that Tom despises."

                Yes, I agree with you one hundred percent here.

                At the very least, citizens should vote in all elections after carefully evaluating the candidates. And local elections are just as important as national elections in this regard.

                I am not sure what you mean by "active participation" aside for exercising their democratic right to vote. I assume you mean such activities as organising and/or attending community meetings on issues affecting the citizens, and the formation of pressure groups to publicize and campaign for political action for anything from the opposition to the closure of the local post office to the Government's preparation for another foreign war.

                I very much agree that apathy is the negative attitude which often leads to bad governments getting to power, almost unnoticed.

                Apathy often goes together with the pessimistic attitude that individual citizens are powerless to effect change for the better. However my experience is that a handful of energetic and committed individuals can work together to effect change at the local level, and often such small successes can be copied around the nation, and eventually affect national policy.

                In this age of television and the internet, I think it is very important that citizens still get out of their houses and discuss and debate social and political issues that affect their lives "face to face" with their neighbours and their community leaders.

                Jim
              • tom
                All, Polly wrote It is apathy and other such negligent devolution of power to others that creates the governments that Tom despises. I am not saying that
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 27, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  All,

                  Polly wrote

                  It is apathy and other such negligent devolution of power to others that creates the governments that Tom despises."

                  I am not saying that government can't be improved by more citizen partisipation, but that as a general rule special interests have much greater interests and much greater funds than general interests do. As I recall, Polly lives in either Australia or New Zealand. According to Transparency International, both of them are along with the northern European countries, Singapore and Hong Kong
                  rated in the category of the countries where political corruption is at its lowest. The US was rated 18 out of about 200 in 06, so I know the ones near the bottom must be very corrupt.People that don't have a special interest are much less liklely to vote, since they are usually cyncical about both candidates for good reason.Whereas, people voting for special interests will vote to continue or expand programs that put money in their pocket.

                  I certainly favor any improvements in governments operating at a higher level,but realistically any improvements are likely to be very gradual if at all. In the last 15 years or so in the USA, legislators and appointed office holders are becoming much more likelty to become lobbyists after they leave government service. I have read in Finland that political scandals are rare, and most citizens trust and respect office holders. Certainly, if more honest government was obtained, a better argument could be made for expanded government regulations etc. However, even in an imaginary country where all lawmakers are honest, I would still prefer to not be ruled by the collective any more than necesary.

                  If the goal of the government controlling reproduction was to stop the population expansion, legalizing assisted suicide could accomplish this by increasing rather than decreasing individual liberties. If the goal is the reduction of dominating and controling types, to me it would increase domination and control over individuals.

                  Peace,
                  Tom ..

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Jim
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:29 PM
                  Subject: [existlist] Good governments and bad governments



                  Hi Polly,

                  You write:

                  "I certainly don't believe that all authority turns into narrow self-interest. I believe that governments that have more active participation from their communities have a far greater claim to being representative, and are better than those that don't. And here I go again, limiting the freedom of others, but I would say it is everyone's duty to participate in the politics of their communities. It is apathy and other such negligent devolution of power to others that creates the governments that Tom despises."

                  Yes, I agree with you one hundred percent here.

                  At the very least, citizens should vote in all elections after carefully evaluating the candidates. And local elections are just as important as national elections in this regard.

                  I am not sure what you mean by "active participation" aside for exercising their democratic right to vote. I assume you mean such activities as organising and/or attending community meetings on issues affecting the citizens, and the formation of pressure groups to publicize and campaign for political action for anything from the opposition to the closure of the local post office to the Government's preparation for another foreign war.

                  I very much agree that apathy is the negative attitude which often leads to bad governments getting to power, almost unnoticed.

                  Apathy often goes together with the pessimistic attitude that individual citizens are powerless to effect change for the better. However my experience is that a handful of energetic and committed individuals can work together to effect change at the local level, and often such small successes can be copied around the nation, and eventually affect national policy.

                  In this age of television and the internet, I think it is very important that citizens still get out of their houses and discuss and debate social and political issues that affect their lives "face to face" with their neighbours and their community leaders.

                  Jim





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Herman
                  Hi Jim, ... And in that process of evaluation, I would think that any candidate that is affiliated with a political party must fall off the list. Political
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 1, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Jim,

                    On 28 February 2010 07:29, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                    > Hi Polly,
                    >
                    > Yes, I agree with you one hundred percent here.
                    >
                    > At the very least, citizens should vote in all elections after carefully evaluating the candidates.

                    And in that process of evaluation, I would think that any candidate
                    that is affiliated with a political party must fall off the list.
                    Political parties represent themselves first and foremost.


                    > And local elections are just as important as national elections in this regard.
                    >
                    > I am not sure what you mean by "active participation" aside for exercising their democratic right to vote. I assume you mean such activities as organising and/or attending community meetings on issues affecting the citizens, and the formation of pressure groups to publicize and campaign for political action for anything from the opposition to the closure of the local post office to the Government's preparation for another foreign war.
                    >

                    Yes, that's the sort of thing I meant.

                    Polly
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.