The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

"The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep."

This was a quote from a member of another forum. He actually wrote it with an air of "of course, so what?"

What say you?



**I'd like to add a poll, but that option is apparently gone. **
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4788
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Snooz »

He sounds like a pompous ass that assumes he shouldn't be questioned due to his much higher intelligence. Does he have anything to back up his claim?
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Bruv »

I think that is what so many of my threads have tried to say.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

SnoozeAgain;1418617 wrote: He sounds like a pompous ass that assumes he shouldn't be questioned due to his much higher intelligence. Does he have anything to back up his claim?
Not pompous, really, but he really think that it's the natural way of things, and he considers it progress.

Bruv;1418624 wrote: I think that is what so many of my threads have tried to say.
So do you see it as a good thing or bad thing? Is it really progress when we lose liberty?
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Bruv »

Certain liberties are sacrosanct, but unfortunately as we all live closer physically as people, sharing the same resources, some liberties are sacrificed purely to co-exist peacefully, it is called good manners or common sense.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

Bruv;1418658 wrote: Certain liberties are sacrosanct, but unfortunately as we all live closer physically as people, sharing the same resources, some liberties are sacrificed purely to co-exist peacefully, it is called good manners or common sense.
What liberties are sacrosanct? I'm not coming up with any, considering current trends.

While some liberties may be sacrificed in the name of good manners, others are swept aside in the name of security - meaning the invasive, unnecessary, and ineffective groping by federal officials one must submit to before flying on a commercial airliner.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by gmc »

Accountable;1418600 wrote: "The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep."

This was a quote from a member of another forum. He actually wrote it with an air of "of course, so what?"

What say you?



**I'd like to add a poll, but that option is apparently gone. **


Bollocks!
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by theia »

I'm reminded of Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning; whatever the circumstances, we are free to choose the attitude we adopt. For me, this is the ultimate liberty that can never be taken away from us.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
weeder
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:05 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by weeder »

I have spent my whole life searching for meaning. There isn't any meaning hanging out there waiting to be spoon fed to us. We create our own meaning.. have to eat it, and then live with it.
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
User avatar
Betty Boop
Posts: 15592
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: The end of the World

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Betty Boop »

weeder;1418716 wrote: I have spent my whole life searching for meaning. There isn't any meaning hanging out there waiting to be spoon fed to us. We create our own meaning.. have to eat it, and then live with it.


Hello there, Welcome back!! :-6
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Losing Liberties? Like the freedom not to serve people of color, not to have people of color in your classroom. Free to deny freedom to others. Don't miss that freedom, no sir.
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by theia »

weeder;1418716 wrote: I have spent my whole life searching for meaning. There isn't any meaning hanging out there waiting to be spoon fed to us. We create our own meaning.. have to eat it, and then live with it.


So good to see you, weeder :-4

How are you?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1418724 wrote: Losing Liberties? Like the freedom not to serve people of color, not to have people of color in your classroom. Free to deny freedom to others. Don't miss that freedom, no sir.
No, smartass. Like the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment as written. Like the freedom to board a plane without being treated like a convicted felon. Like the freedom to decide your own medical care, to buy insurance or not as you will. Like the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and feel the wind the way it was meant to feel. Like the freedom to decide to take your child out of an inferior school and enroll her in the better one just down the street. Like the freedom to allow smoking in your own establishment. Like the freedom to buy a large soda.

Like the freedom to live your life as you wish, even though it might not conform to the status quo.
weeder
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:05 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by weeder »

Betty!!! You have a new son?? Wonderful!! Congratulations. Hardly recognize The Garden
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
weeder
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:05 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by weeder »

Im OK Think about you often. I would send you a message... but not sure how to use the new forum. Where is Spot?
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
weeder
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:05 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by weeder »

I dont know if you can see my reply.... I don't see it
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
User avatar
Betty Boop
Posts: 15592
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: The end of the World

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Betty Boop »

weeder;1418779 wrote: I dont know if you can see my reply.... I don't see it


We can see you! Spot is now Tyr.

Yes have a lovely little lad, fast approaching two now.
weeder
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:05 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by weeder »

Ohhhh good. God this is like going back in a time warp. I remember all of my FG friends like it was yesterday...

Never forgot any of you. I spent some really good time on here. Id like to participate but I have to see if I can get comfortable with the set up. Your "Little Kids" must be what? 16, 17? amazing...... scary. So happy to see you kept up with school. Great accomplishment.
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
weeder
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:05 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by weeder »

Theia one message was a reply to you.. but it doesn't appear under your name.

So good to see you. I hope your well. I lost my mother this past March, and I still think of visiting your mother. Still remember the love story she told me about the war.

I have such nice memories of my visit to you. I wish that jet lag hadnt taken up half my time there.. so I could remember more. God, that was awful.

Gorgeous son, apricot creams, Bettys apartment, Glendurgen Gardens, the train ride home............. Leg of lamb... the beach.. Laughing... very, very, nice.
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
User avatar
Betty Boop
Posts: 15592
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: The end of the World

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Betty Boop »

weeder;1418782 wrote: Ohhhh good. God this is like going back in a time warp. I remember all of my FG friends like it was yesterday...

Never forgot any of you. I spent some really good time on here. Id like to participate but I have to see if I can get comfortable with the set up. Your "Little Kids" must be what? 16, 17? amazing...... scary. So happy to see you kept up with school. Great accomplishment.


Eldest boy is 16 this year and daughter is 11 this year, scary! The degree was really hard work, not sure I'd put myself through it under the same circumstances ever again!!
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Accountable;1418761 wrote: No, smartass. Like the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment as written. Like the freedom to board a plane without being treated like a convicted felon. Like the freedom to decide your own medical care, to buy insurance or not as you will. Like the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and feel the wind the way it was meant to feel. Like the freedom to decide to take your child out of an inferior school and enroll her in the better one just down the street. Like the freedom to allow smoking in your own establishment. Like the freedom to buy a large soda.

Like the freedom to live your life as you wish, even though it might not conform to the status quo.


My, my. Why didn't you say so in the first place?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1418795 wrote: My, my. Why didn't you say so in the first place?Be careful. One might infer that you agree with me. :yh_wink
User avatar
Scrat
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:29 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Scrat »

No, smartass. Like the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment as written. Like the freedom to board a plane without being treated like a convicted felon. Like the freedom to decide your own medical care, to buy insurance or not as you will. Like the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and feel the wind the way it was meant to feel. Like the freedom to decide to take your child out of an inferior school and enroll her in the better one just down the street. Like the freedom to allow smoking in your own establishment. Like the freedom to buy a large soda.

Like the freedom to live your life as you wish, even though it might not conform to the status quo.


You'll find that some freedoms have a tendency to interfer with the freedoms of others. If you want to ride without a helmet and get in an accident why should your insurance company pay for the medical costs? You know how insurance works, we all pay collectively into it. Why should I have to pay more because some fool gets his brains splattered all over the highway because he wanted his freedom? Maybe all bikers that want to feel the wind in their hair need to get a special type of insurance just for them?

I think that we do lose freedoms in a civilized society, you can't avoid it but then freedom is something granted in degrees by the society you live in. Some societies have less, some more most often by necessity.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Accountable;1418805 wrote: Be careful. One might infer that you agree with me. :yh_wink


So what? :yh_wink
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

Scrat;1418806 wrote: You'll find that some freedoms have a tendency to interfer with the freedoms of others. If you want to ride without a helmet and get in an accident why should your insurance company pay for the medical costs? You know how insurance works, we all pay collectively into it. Why should I have to pay more because some fool gets his brains splattered all over the highway because he wanted his freedom? Maybe all bikers that want to feel the wind in their hair need to get a special type of insurance just for them? That's a question of business transactions, not law. Insurance pays medical costs when the policy covers them, and it doesn't pay costs not covered. If the insurer wants to require a rider to ride a helmet as a condition of coverage, that's perfectly within their rights. The motorcyclists has the right to agree or refuse. There is no such option when it becomes a legal requirement.



Scrat;1418806 wrote: I think that we do lose freedoms in a civilized society, you can't avoid it but then freedom is something granted in degrees by the society you live in. Some societies have less, some more most often by necessity.I disagree. Freedom cannot be granted. It can only be denied by the society you live in. Disagree? Consider if the society suddenly did not exist. Would you have less freedom or more? Certainly more. Don't let your kneejerk impulse to point out danger cloud the facts. Liberty comes with responsibility. Choices come with consequences. People willingly give up their freedom because they are afraid (or at least unwilling) to face the consequences that balance them.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Bruv »

Accountable;1418761 wrote: Like the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment as written. Like the freedom to board a plane without being treated like a convicted felon. Like the freedom to decide your own medical care, to buy insurance or not as you will. Like the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and feel the wind the way it was meant to feel. Like the freedom to decide to take your child out of an inferior school and enroll her in the better one just down the street. Like the freedom to allow smoking in your own establishment. Like the freedom to buy a large soda.


I wanted to bring up the 2nd amendment but thought we were sick of gun law threads, so I am glad you mentioned it.

As societies become more sophisticated the right to protection against repressive government should come from the ballot not from the right to be able to shoot the government's representatives.

So I don't see a "Right" to bear arms as legitimate.

I see no reason why such a right shouldn't be limited by licenced use, for the good of the majority.

Now the "Right" to wear a safety helmet while driving a motor bike ?

If, as in the UK the medical bill for repairing a broken skull is borne by the general public by way of taxes, a Law stipulates helmets should be worn. If somebody doesn't wear a helmet, medical care is not witheld. Sikhs are exempt by Law from wearing helmets while riding motor bikes. I don't think this qualifies as a "Right" more a responsibility.

The "Right" to smoke ? Everybody has this right, as an ex smoker I agree there should be a right to agree to self contaminate amongst consenting adults.

This gets complicated in a society like the UK where healthcare is free at source, so giving non smokers a say in whether they allow free range smoking.

In a mature sophisticated society medical care costs should be shared.

Anyone should have to have a "right" to immediate care when needed. I see that as more of a privilige, hence the lower case "right". A civilised modern democracy would give this privilege to it's citizens as a "right"

The right to choose the school your child attends depends on availability of places.

This is a housekeeping problem, as long is there is an element for self selection and a way to improve failing schools, only the education is a "Right"

The sacrosanct "Rights" are listed Here
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

Bruv;1418864 wrote: I wanted to bring up the 2nd amendment but thought we were sick of gun law threads, so I am glad you mentioned it.

As societies become more sophisticated the right to protection against repressive government should come from the ballot not from the right to be able to shoot the government's representatives.

So I don't see a "Right" to bear arms as legitimate.

I see no reason why such a right shouldn't be limited by licenced use, for the good of the majority.The right to protection against repressive government should come from the ballot, and it does. That doesn't negate the prudence of being prepared in case the ballot fails.

Bruv;1418864 wrote: Now the "Right" to wear a safety helmet while driving a motor bike ?

If, as in the UK the medical bill for repairing a broken skull is borne by the general public by way of taxes, a Law stipulates helmets should be worn. If somebody doesn't wear a helmet, medical care is not witheld. Sikhs are exempt by Law from wearing helmets while riding motor bikes. I don't think this qualifies as a "Right" more a responsibility. So then you agree that as you have become more "civilised" by absorbing everyone's responsibility to care for themselves, you have removed the liberty of choosing certain behaviors simply because they might result in the responsible party - the government - incurring higher costs.

Aside: I think we need to iron out what a "right" is, because it's pretty clear to me that we have different definitions.

Bruv;1418864 wrote: The "Right" to smoke ? Everybody has this right, as an ex smoker I agree there should be a right to agree to self contaminate amongst consenting adults.

This gets complicated in a society like the UK where healthcare is free at source, so giving non smokers a say in whether they allow free range smoking.Does everybody have a right to smoke wherever they will? Haven't you made your pubs smoke-free? I seem to remember that.

It strikes me odd that you are adamant that people not be free to ride without a helmet because of the medical risk, and just as adamant that they retain the right to choose to take the medical risk of smoking.

Bruv;1418864 wrote: In a mature sophisticated society medical care costs should be shared.

Anyone should have to have a "right" to immediate care when needed. I see that as more of a privilige, hence the lower case "right". A civilised modern democracy would give this privilege to it's citizens as a "right" and as pointed out already, this "right" comes at the cost of other rights.

Bruv;1418864 wrote: The right to choose the school your child attends depends on availability of places.

This is a housekeeping problem, as long is there is an element for self selection and a way to improve failing schools, only the education is a "Right"That's a nice tap dance, but you just came round in a circle. You can choose if there is a choice is available. :wah: Of course, if no options are available then no one can choose something else.

But in the United States, there is no choice in which school you may send your children to, with rare exceptions. Every address is assigned a district. If you want to send your child to a different public school, you have to move house to another district. Parents can't choose to take their child to the next nearest school, even at their own expense.

Bruv;1418864 wrote: The sacrosanct "Rights" are listed HereNice list. Does the UK subscribe to it in its entirety? The US does not. And again, we need to nail down just what a right really is.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had more written, but with delays to do real world stuff, apparently the forum gave up on me. I hit Send & everything disappeared. Thankfully I'd copied this much.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

Correct me if I'm wrong, Bruv, but it seems clear to me that you agree that more civilisation results in less individual liberty, and you are quite comfortable with that ... well, until they try to take your smokes.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Bruv »

Accountable;1418901 wrote: The right to protection against repressive government should come from the ballot, and it does. That doesn't negate the prudence of being prepared in case the ballot fails.


I understand you lot had hanging chads, and needed to invent a word 'gerrymandering' to cover voting irregullarities, how does having the right to bear arms fix that ?



So then you agree that as you have become more "civilised" by absorbing everyone's responsibility to care for themselves, you have removed the liberty of choosing certain behaviors simply because they might result in the responsible party - the government - incurring higher costs.

Where did I say that ?

In your free society you rely on the rich sharing their good fortune to care for the unfortunate........if they have a mind to.

In my free society, as we all become better off, we collectively care for our less abled, perhaps the thinking behind that is too sophisticated for you ?



Does everybody have a right to smoke wherever they will? Haven't you made your pubs smoke-free? I seem to remember that.

It strikes me odd that you are adamant that people not be free to ride without a helmet because of the medical risk, and just as adamant that they retain the right to choose to take the medical risk of smoking.
Both restrictions are for the benefit of all, everybody covers any costs involved with taxes.

There are no helmet restriction on private roads or smoking on private grounds.

The rules only apply to public places, for the public good.

Insurance might be invalid though



Nice list. Does the UK subscribe to it in its entirety? The US does not. And again, we need to nail down just what a right really is.


What amongs all those rights does the land of the free think a freedom too far ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

Bruv;1418905 wrote: I understand you lot had hanging chads, and needed to invent a word 'gerrymandering' to cover voting irregullarities, how does having the right to bear arms fix that ?There was no rebellion. That's no reason to remove the means to rebel. No one tries to use a lack of protests to justify taking away the right to free speech.

Bruv;1418905 wrote: Where did I say that ?Right here:Bruv;1418864 wrote: If, as in the UK the medical bill for repairing a broken skull is borne by the general public by way of taxes, a Law stipulates helmets should be worn. If somebody doesn't wear a helmet, medical care is not witheld. Sikhs are exempt by Law from wearing helmets while riding motor bikes. I don't think this qualifies as a "Right" more a responsibility.
Remember the topic: The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Your society has decided, as an evolution toward a more civilized society, to collectively care for not only your less abled, but for everyone. In other words, your society has taken on the responsibility of medical care that once belonged to each individual. As a result, costs of risky behavior gone wrong, such as injuries from accidents while riding without a helmet, are born collectively, and society has decided that the individual's liberty to take such risks are too costly and cannot be kept.

You can get upset about it all you want. Rephrase it to be more palatable. It doesn't change the fact.



Bruv;1418905 wrote: Both restrictions are for the benefit of all, everybody covers any costs involved with taxes.This is my point. Thank you.

Bruv;1418905 wrote: What amongs all those rights does the land of the free think a freedom too far ?I plan to comment on the list, but it will have to be later. Real life calls. I believe it is crystal clear, though, that while we agree that some benefits of society require certain restrictions, we disagree on where that balance should be struck.
Fakin'It
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Fakin'It »

Accountable;1418600 wrote: "The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep."

This was a quote from a member of another forum. He actually wrote it with an air of "of course, so what?"

What say you?



**I'd like to add a poll, but that option is apparently gone. **


This presupposes that we're actually becoming more civilized?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

Fakin'It;1422005 wrote: This presupposes that we're actually becoming more civilized?
That's true. Same thing with "advanced".
Fakin'It
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Fakin'It »

Accountable;1422008 wrote: That's true. Same thing with "advanced".


According to Darwin, we shouldn't be here! :yh_wink
User avatar
halfway
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:52 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by halfway »

Our techno,ogy has far outpaced our civility.

I believe man is "fallen" and that very nature can barely be contained let alone completely changed. History shows this clearly.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
User avatar
tabby
Posts: 2511
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Virginia

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by tabby »

There's civility and then there's the pretense of civility. The pretense is kind of handy ... you get to claim the moral high ground without actually having a clue.
User avatar
tabby
Posts: 2511
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Virginia

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by tabby »

My response was to Accountable's original post which I must have missed somewhere along the way and I probably should have read this entire thread before responding several pages later!

As for halfway's post, I think he's just making a generalization about how advances in science & technology have moved along faster than morality & ethics in human nature. Nuclear weapons v/s the inherent knowledge of if and when to use them, modern medicine that can keep patients alive albeit as "vegetables" and the resultant quandaries of quality of life, etc.

He sees man as "fallen" and I don't really agree with that part. Limited and repetitive, yes but not necessarily fallen.
User avatar
tabby
Posts: 2511
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Virginia

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by tabby »

I just made a post in response to AB's and now hers is gone ... am I hallucinating imaginary posts again or did I wander in this thread just talking to myself? :-2
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

I just pm'd you w/explanation! Criss-Cross!
Fakin'It
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Fakin'It »

halfway;1422076 wrote: Our techno,ogy has far outpaced our civility.

I believe man is "fallen" and that very nature can barely be contained let alone completely changed. History shows this clearly.


Are you including the spiritual aspect of this word, "sin," in your conclusion?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Ahso! »

Fakin'It;1422012 wrote: According to Darwin, we shouldn't be here! :yh_winkI didn't know that. Care to elaborate? Have you read anything Charles Darwin wrote?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Fakin'It
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Fakin'It »

Ahso!;1422235 wrote: I didn't know that. Care to elaborate? Have you read anything Charles Darwin wrote?


Ahso!, I am trying to answer but having trouble posting my response. I'll keep plugging away!
Fakin'It
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Fakin'It »

Ahso!;1422235 wrote: I didn't know that. Care to elaborate? Have you read anything Charles Darwin wrote?


Got it!!!

It was a joke. Without getting in over my head, I should say that I am not a student of Darwin. My curiosity is limited to finding the common ground where science and my faith overlap. I am comfortable with his theory of evolution by natural selection. Except for human beings. Darwin said,

Variation is a feature of natural populations and every population produces more progeny than its environment can manage. The consequences of this overproduction is that those individuals with the best genetic fitness for the environment will produce offspring that can more successfully compete in that environment. Thus the subsequent generation will have a higher representation of these offspring and the population will have evolved.
I believe that we are not successfully competing in our environment, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom. Instead, we are transforming our environment into a reflection of our own condition. We have poisoned our food and water supplies, and the air that we breath. Our streets are not safe. Our governments sanction torture. Race relations sit on a powderkeg. The Doomsday Clock is set to 11:55 PM. I could go on. We compensate for the guilt of our hypocrisy, but greed and corruption prevail over reason and balance. Early man was guilty of senseless violence, and the most successful genetic fitness we have to show for 2.5 million years of offspring is both the efficiency of our greed/corruption/violence and the ease with which we justify it. This is the opposite of natural selection. We violate the parameters of evolution, yet here we are. It's almost as if someone were watching over us, giving us every opportunity to repent and get it right! :yh_wink If our dysfunctional existence can't be explained naturally, perhaps it can be explained supernaturally. This is why I asked halfway if he used the term 'fallen' in reference to sin, and why I made a joke about our being here.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Ahso! »

I think you're taking the quote philosophically while it's in a biological context. Natural Selection is all about biology.

Look at it like this: there are beetle populations of two different colors in a given area, one yellow and the other brown. The yellow beetles are more easily seen by birds so the birds eat them and they become extinct while the brown beetles blend in with the environment more and are harder to spot, thus they survive. That means that the brown beetles have been selected for, or, are the most fit of the given species in that given environment. Of course you can sit and contemplate this idea further involving various species' and see how mutations and adaptation help in the fitness of any species.

What Charles Darwin was saying in that quote is that in an effort to assure the survival of any species it breeds many slight variations of itself and the variations that survive in a natural setting have proven to be the most fit of the bunch.

Species variation is not a result of the environment but rather the surviving variations that are selected for are best equipped for the environment.

A good example of this is the tail fin of a fish. Fish with tail fins possess the ability to swim in deeper waters which offer the species more food sources and more of an ability to avoid predators, so the tail fin adds to the fitness of the fish. Now, (and it's important to understand this part) the tail fin did not grow because there were deeper waters, no, it just grew and since there were deeper waters it provided the fish with the advantage. However, if there were not deep waters at the time, tail fins probably would have caused the fish to be an easier catch for predators and fish with tail fins would have gone extinct. We would not know this, of course, because we'd only see fish without tail fins. We'd probably find fossils of the fish with tail fins and know that they existed at one time.

There are many more variations of surviving species and species in general that have not survived than have.

What I would say regarding your concerns is that it's possible to say that we as a species don't allow Natural Selection to do it's job much anymore with the advancement of medical science. Those efforts are causing us to run out of time, if anything. It's normal for a species to work to further its survival, generally speaking, however, we've been usurping Natural Selection.

I had more to write but got the dreaded "internal server error", so I'm stopping now.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Bruv »

So who's to say having the ability to heal and manipulate our enviroment is not part of evolution ?

To me it obviously is.

Evolution is not a short game.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Ahso! »

Bruv;1422430 wrote: So who's to say having the ability to heal and manipulate our enviroment is not part of evolution ?

To me it obviously is.

Evolution is not a short game.That is also a philosophical discussion. Natural Selection is about biological fitness and nothing more.

I think I'd be comfortable saying that medical science is a consequence, or byproduct of human evolution through Natural Selection.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Accountable »

I agree. Same with all innovation. Not all evolution is beneficial, but the winner in natural selection overcomes or discards the bad and keeps & capitalizes on the good.
Fakin'It
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Fakin'It »

Ahso!;1422424 wrote: I think you're taking the quote philosophically while it's in a biological context. Natural Selection is all about biology.


Yes, I suppose I am. But, it ought to be part of the conversation. Here's why:

Look at it like this: there are beetle populations of two different colors in a given area, one yellow and the other brown. The yellow beetles are more easily seen by birds so the birds eat them and they become extinct while the brown beetles blend in with the environment more and are harder to spot, thus they survive. That means that the brown beetles have been selected for, or, are the most fit of the given species in that given environment. Of course you can sit and contemplate this idea further involving various species' and see how mutations and adaptation help in the fitness of any species.


The beetles example works for beetles because they lack the self-awareness to know that their appearance either places them at risk or increases the survivability of their offspring. Their existence allows for no options, no decisions, no thought toward influencing the future. Only the hand that natural selection dealt them. Human self-awareness challenges these types of examples. I'm not trying to undermine evolution or rewrite the rules of natural selection. I'm simply suggesting that if natural selection weeds out non-survivable qualities, then 2 1/2 million years of offspring could not produce an animal capable of destroying the planet, especially when he is aware of the consequences of his behavior. Evolution explains a lot, it does not explain the long term survivability of self destructive behavior. That answer lies elsewhere. I think. :yh_wink



I had more to write but got the dreaded "internal server error", so I'm stopping now.


I suggested to Bryn Mawr that the name of the system interrupting our conversations is called The Wife. Am looking forward to the positive feedback that is sure to generate!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Ahso! »

Fakin'It;1422479 wrote: Yes, I suppose I am. But, it ought to be part of the conversation. Here's why:There is no why. The quote you cited is about biology. Attempting to turn it into a philosophical/religious argument is nonsensical.



Fakin'It;1422479 wrote: The beetles example works for beetles because they lack the self-awareness to know that their appearance either places them at risk or increases the survivability of their offspring. Their existence allows for no options, no decisions, no thought toward influencing the future. Only the hand that natural selection dealt them. Human self-awareness challenges these types of examples. I'm not trying to undermine evolution or rewrite the rules of natural selection. I'm simply suggesting that if natural selection weeds out non-survivable qualities, then 2 1/2 million years of offspring could not produce an animal capable of destroying the planet, especially when he is aware of the consequences of his behavior. Evolution explains a lot, it does not explain the long term survivability of self destructive behavior. That answer lies elsewhere. I think. :yh_winkThis is an enormous extrapolation and a terrible interpretation of what I wrote and what Natural Selection is. I realize lots of religious people don't understand evolution and therefore create arguments against it that have absolutely no correlation to it.

Go on if you like but understand you're not talking evolution.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Fakin'It
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Fakin'It »

Ahso!;1422481 wrote: There is no why. The quote you cited is about biology. Attempting to turn it into a philosophical/religious argument is nonsensical.


Not at all. Rome is burning, at the hands of the most evolved creature in history, and you're not curious to ask why? There is always a why. Why are we moral while the rest of the animal kingdom is amoral? Is it a result of evolution? If not, where did it come from? If so, please explain human depravity from a biological perspective. Marginalizing a philosophical response to any topic of conversation is pride. Asking why makes us uniquely human.



This is an enormous extrapolation and a terrible interpretation of what I wrote and what Natural Selection is. I realize lots of religious people don't understand evolution and therefore create arguments against it that have absolutely no association to it.

Go on if you like but understand you're not talking evolution.


Straw man. I have clearly not attempted to create an argument against evolution. But, I have given you an opportunity to explain dysfunctional and dangerous human behavior from an evolutionary point of view. So far, you have been unwilling or unable to do so. If you can get past the stereotypes, you still have the opportunity to do so. I'm not ready to move on.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

The more civilized we become, the less individual liberties we get to keep.

Post by Ahso! »

You've taken a statement regarding biology, pulled it way out of context, re-framed it to suit an absurd argument relating to a philosophical/religious position and then you accuse me of erecting a straw man? Now that's funny.

What I might suggest you do, instead of continuing to pull this thread off course, is to start your own thread laying your argument out properly and see what happens.

This is the last I'll respond to your straw man argument here because I refuse to continue to feed it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple

Return to “Philosophy”