[Gorefest]

This is why I never get involved in religious debates on the internet anymore. It usually starts off with a religious person challenging or posing something, not seldom only very loosely based on the actual thread topic, then lots of people jump on it with counter-arguments, then the religious person shifts or changes the question(s), then goes into victim mode by claiming that everyone else is against them and that they are getting personal and abusive, then disappears to leave the self-acclaimed enlightened to quible amongst themselves either in defense of the 'persecuted' religious person or to pour extra fuel on the flames.

No side can ever win these arguments, the trenches are too deeply set, people don't actually want to listen to each other but only get their own opinion heard, and all the debates and posts always end up going around in the same predictable circles. These days I just go by 'live and let live'. If you find comfort in a belief, good for you, cherish it, that's a personal feeling that nobody should take from you and I don't really see why you would want to have it challenged in the first place. If you don't believe, you're not going to change any believer's opinion anyway, because the whole point of 'believing' is that you accept something regardless of available (scientific) evidence. It is a spiritual view, not a scientific or social/cultural one.

[Powder]

I'm still here.

I have really enjoyed some of the posts in this thread.

Some people are being incendiary, not just towards me, but others elsethread.

While we are airing gripes, I'm not a big fan of the Attack one area, and then when there's an answer retreat and move on to the next attack. I do tire of playing whack-a-mole when there are 6 different people asking you questions from different angles.

Back OT, I feel like I wrestle with my concept of spirituality daily. I have doubts, concerns, and misunderstandings. In my minds eye I have stared into the abyss and wondered if life is really empty of meaning. I am wondering though for those of you who claim no deity, do you ever wonder if there is? Or are you just comfortable not thinking about such things?

[Aptorian]

Powder, on 08 May 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

Back OT, I feel like I wrestle with my concept of spirituality daily. I have doubts, concerns, and misunderstandings. In my minds eye I have stared into the abyss and wondered if life is really empty of meaning. I am wondering though for those of you who claim no deity, do you ever wonder if there is? Or are you just comfortable not thinking about such things?

I believe life only has the meaning we give it.

You could argue that the purpose of a mamal is to multiply, ensuring that the biological data stored in your genes, will be transferred to the future mankinds evolution. As such, as soon as you have produced 2,7 children and ensured that at least two lived to a breeding age, you could consider the meaning of your existance fulfullied. From then on all that is left is helping to ensure the safety of the tribe and gathering ressources (food, money/tuition, etc.)

You could also argue that if you loyalty is to your family, then it is your duty to spread your seed/produce as many babies as possible, ensuring that the name and heritage of your bloodline will always exist. There's a kind of immortality there. Keeping a name alive, continuing traditions, telling the stories, etc.

Personally I subscribe to the notion of futulity. Nothing really matters. Maybe if we make it off this giant rock we'll make it but most likely we'll all be gone tomorrow or in ten thousand years. It doesn't really matter in the cosmic perspective. As such you might as well just do what ever the fuck you want. Make up your own meaning.

I find that freeing. There are no rules, no check boxes that have to be filled, no goals that must be met. When I die I know it will simply be over. No debt, no expectations, no judgement from some cosmic jokester. Just unconciousness. Can't fucking wait but in the mean time I am going to try to consume as much information and calories as possible.

[D'rek]

Apt, on 08 May 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

You could also argue that if you loyalty is to your family, then it is your duty to spread your seed/produce as many babies as possible, ensuring that the name and heritage of your bloodline will always exist. There's a kind of immortality there. Keeping a name alive, continuing traditions, telling the stories, etc.

If everyone does this, though, then we're going to have an even greater population explosion problem and the odds of humanity lasting longer diminish. I wonder where the optimal balance point of "have lots of babies so your genes 'survive' for the longest time possible" and "have some but fewer babies so you have more wealth/resources per child to distribute making them more affluent and also don't prematurely destroy the planet with too many babies" is.

[Grief]

Powder, on 08 May 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

Back OT, I feel like I wrestle with my concept of spirituality daily. I have doubts, concerns, and misunderstandings. In my minds eye I have stared into the abyss and wondered if life is really empty of meaning. I am wondering though for those of you who claim no deity, do you ever wonder if there is? Or are you just comfortable not thinking about such things?

Sometimes, certainly.

Usually this takes the form "a deity" and struggles once it gets into details. I can't really see any reason to choose one religion above any other, or to choose any of them specifically. The idea that something might have created the universe isn't as difficult for me as the specifics of religion; that something might have created humanity, and decided to communicate with us in certain rather oblique fashions, which often seems to rely on accepting ancient people/texts where I don't see much reason to do so (any more than I would turn to Galen for medical advice). I also generally find that I struggle with morality claims made by religion, and don't think it justifies itself well as a moral system, or that it is more useful than various others; in a sense then it seems superfluous. If you act morally (by societies present standard) then I'm not sure if it's here or there whether you justify it by reference to a text or institution. If you don't act morally then reference to the text or institution doesn't seem particularly to matter, especially since other members of the religion will likely condemn it if it doesn't conform to social standards anyway, imo. Which brings up the point that I don't see it as objective, it seems just as tied to present social standards as anything else. I tend to see things as social changes leading to religious adaption rather than vice versa (people's interpretation of religious texts changing because of more general social shifts, rather than general social shifts being caused because people interpretting the texts differently, though that's a bit of a simplification since I think the latter can happen it's just not such a big force). So yes, sometimes I think about "a deity" but this doesn't really take the form of considering religious belief. It also doesn't extend to much beyond musing about the beginning of the universe, or what might exist, rather than impacting specifically on issues of morality for example, where I think I would just live as I see fit (as I think everyone does), and if there does turn out to be an afterlife (which I don't really think is likely) than either that's enough or it isn't. There doesn't seem to be much reason for me to believe that, even if there is an afterlife, a specific set of beliefs will make it more likely for me to end up there, and I have no way of knowing what those beliefs would be.

I'm not especially sure life is meaningful as such. Even if there is a creator entity, it may not be meaningful. Occasionally I wonder at the universe, and think maybe it was created, but I don't know if I extend this to meaning. Mostly, it doesn't strike me as being more wondrous that the universe would be created and meaningful than it would be meaningless and arising arbitrarily.

[Gorefest]

Powder, on 08 May 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

Back OT, I feel like I wrestle with my concept of spirituality daily. I have doubts, concerns, and misunderstandings. In my minds eye I have stared into the abyss and wondered if life is really empty of meaning. I am wondering though for those of you who claim no deity, do you ever wonder if there is? Or are you just comfortable not thinking about such things?

I think (or at least used to) about it quite a lot, actually. I was raised a Catholic, ticked all the required boxes (baptism, first communion, confirmation) and then just drifted away from it. There was too much in the traditional religion as was taught to me in church and after-school classes that simply didn't add up. Then I had a period where I thought 'Well, maybe there is something out there, but not the traditional concept of the old white-haired guy on a cloud being omniscient and omnipotent. Instead, maybe like a universal life force that binds everone and everything together and that we all feed into and our 'souls' or collective consciousness and experiences that we gathered over a lifetime return back to when we die. Apparently, as I later learned, this touches a bit on Zen buddhism, and I do still like the notion of it in an abstract sense. I don't believe in it anymore, though.

These days, after endless discussions with friends and strangers (both in the pub and on the internet), a life sciences degree and a doctoral program, I feel I have gained several insights that for me personally make the belief in a higher being unneccessary and even downright unrealistic. I'll try and clarify what I mean by this with some examples, although this in no way is meant to convince anyone or persuade people to change their views. By all means, if your faith is making you feel a more happy, confident and stronger person, clearly there is something in that for you. It really shouldn't matter whether it is an actual "old man on a cloud", or just a "divine inner peace". To many people that sense in itself can be godlike, can be their 'God'.

Anyway, one point is that I feel that I gained some insight into how religion as a social and cultural concept can arise in a society. Knowing how religion can come to exist (from early societies with low education levels, where having an external all-powerful force that observes and judges your actions would be a very good way for a fairly small group of governing elders to give a large group of people a moral compass and a way to control their behaviour and interactions) absolves the need for there to actually be a God in the first place. The existence of a God seizes to be a necessity or a prerequisite for the existence of religion.

Then there is the existence of evil and nastiness in the world and in interactions between people. Some religous people attribute this to the devil, which in itself is in my view a cop-out because if God is all-mighty, there doesn't have to be a devil, or it is attributed to free will, which again seems weird. Why give someone free will as a diety in the knowledge that they will abuse it, leading to having to terminate your population (apart from Noah, or so the story goes) because they didn't take the direction you wanted them to go? Sure, we can never know God's will and all that, but isn't the far easier and more straightforward explanation that we are in the core selfish creatures that need to somehow live together and sometimes our own needs conflict with those of others, leading to excesses? Biologically and culturally, this makes absolute sense, and does not require any involvement or intervention of any higher beings.

Also, this logic is very human-centric. Humans have a conscience and supposedly a free will, so humans are free to commit atrocities. animals however are never mentioned in this, yet there are some ghastly activities displayed by certain parasites that are very hard to run by the free will argument. How do you rationalise a God creating a parasite that bores into an ant's nervous system, in order for it to always climb up grass shoots to increase the chance that it will be eaten by a sheep, whose gut flora is the natural breeding ground of this parasite? How do you rationalise there being a louse that eats the tongue of a fish and then attaches itself to the stub to join in its feeding? What possible justification can there be for any deity to create such things? What did these poor animals ever do to deserve such suffering? And, if you claim that God originally created life but then left it to evolve naturally and this is just an after-effect, why would I have to spend time each day acknowledging and worshipping this deity if he or she clearly has no interest or interaction anymore with its Creation?

Leaving aside the Christian image of a God, and taking the stance that 'God' is simply a life force, fair enough, sounds great. But worshipping a life force with specific engrained human rituals is not going to actually do anything or make a difference as far as I can see, apart from perhaps making that person feel better about themselves. In which case, great, but it isn't for me.


Finally (and this is going to be a big section, really sorry in advance), a lot of people say that they 'know' that God exists because they 'feel' his presence and they are aware of someone watching over them and judging them. Interestingly enough, this seems to have a very clear biological basis as well. Accepting that mankind evolved from early hominoid ancestors (primordial 'apes' if you like, although obviously those are not the same as current-day apes, who also evolved from these ancestors), our frontal cortex is a fairly recent evolutionary development. The frontal cortex is the bit that is largely responsible for our sense of self, our self-awareness, our abilty for introspection and abstract thought. Most other animals and also our early ancestors primarily act and react using more primordial centers of the brain, especially the 'emotional' centers, the limbic system (amygdala, hypothalamus, etc). Let's call it our 'chimp' brain (this term was coined by an English psychiatrist who developed this concept).

This 'chimp' area has got direct links to our senses (smell, sight, etc), whereas our frontal cortex does not. You can almost see it as a separate brain to our 'human' brain. Our human brain tells us how we see ourselves and what we aspire to and dream about, whereas our chimp brain is our core reaction to the outside world. The human brain says we want to lose weight or stop smoking; our chimp brain smell food or nicotine and craves. The problem is that all sensory input goes to the chimp first, but to our human much later. The chimp brain is therefore a lot more powerful in early response than our rational thought. So by the time we think: "I really shouldn't have eaten that whole pack of cookies", it is already too late and you are left with guilt and regret. This guilt and regret, this sense of judgement, is your human brain observing your chimp brain actions and tutting. However, if you don't know better, if you cannot distinguish between actions driven by your 'chimp' self and your 'human' self, this guilt and regret could easily be perceived as an outside force judging your actions. You feel bad because 'you' messed up, even though you know very well that 'you' would never do something like that or want to display such behaviour. It's very similar to the 'homonculus' concept that people have described through the ages, this idea of a little person living inside you. That's the frontal cortex, the 'real' you, the part that has transcended base instinct. But that part is in an eternal battle with the primordial chimp, who by the very nature of your brain wiring is way more powerful because he gets all the information first. "And God judged you and found you wanting." Really, you did, that sense of failure is your own conscious self.


Okay, lost my thread now, I'll leave it here.

[Aptorian]

D, on 08 May 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

Apt, on 08 May 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

You could also argue that if you loyalty is to your family, then it is your duty to spread your seed/produce as many babies as possible, ensuring that the name and heritage of your bloodline will always exist. There's a kind of immortality there. Keeping a name alive, continuing traditions, telling the stories, etc.

If everyone does this, though, then we're going to have an even greater population explosion problem and the odds of humanity lasting longer diminish. I wonder where the optimal balance point of "have lots of babies so your genes 'survive' for the longest time possible" and "have some but fewer babies so you have more wealth/resources per child to distribute making them more affluent and also don't prematurely destroy the planet with too many babies" is.

Well, I'm a bit of a communist so I'd prefer if we just gave our seed and eggs to the government and they controlled how many children were born. This is of course not something that can be implemented without decades of cultural reeducation and suppression of biological instincts. People want to have more children than is necessary. You can't stop them because that would be taking away their liberties, etc.

You could work towards dismantling the notion of legacy. You could make people strive for the greater good rather than personal need but how would you implent such a programme on a global scale?

The only way I see you solving that problem is making energy as cheap and clean as possible and making food and water as abundant as possible. None of which are impossible projects. They just cost more than we are willing to pay or sacrifice. Then you hunker down and wait for the singularity because otherwise god help us.

[Andorion]

Some really good posts upthread.

To address Powders question on meaning of life....I don't suppose you would be happy if I told you the answer was 42?....

Sorry couldn't resist

Anyway, I agree with Apt that for those who do not believe in a diety, we give meaning to our own lives. I do not however subscribe to the 'reproduce like rabbits' school of thought. Incidentally, number of children born is inversely proportional to standard of living, going by global demographic standards. So thats something to consider when you are talking about population control methods.

There was one theory I vaguely read about a few years back - The Clockmaker God idea, which says that God created everything, set everything running properly all the important processes and then went away. So while God is acknowledged as the Creator, worship or prayer is meaningless, as no one is listening. I found this to be pretty interesting, and it made a lot more sense than most other religious thoeries I have read.

But, speaking for me personally, when I seriously consider, that there is no God, there is no big divine plan for us, ...I don't really care all that much. Frankly i find this liberating. It makes me want to live my life in the best and most fulfilling way I can, because, I know, this is all I have, there won't be anything else
Also, the idea of an invisible authority figure watching me and taking notes always creeped me out. We have enough government surveillance as it is.

[Maark Abbott]

Apt, on 08 May 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

D, on 08 May 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

Apt, on 08 May 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

You could also argue that if you loyalty is to your family, then it is your duty to spread your seed/produce as many babies as possible, ensuring that the name and heritage of your bloodline will always exist. There's a kind of immortality there. Keeping a name alive, continuing traditions, telling the stories, etc.

If everyone does this, though, then we're going to have an even greater population explosion problem and the odds of humanity lasting longer diminish. I wonder where the optimal balance point of "have lots of babies so your genes 'survive' for the longest time possible" and "have some but fewer babies so you have more wealth/resources per child to distribute making them more affluent and also don't prematurely destroy the planet with too many babies" is.

Well, I'm a bit of a communist so I'd prefer if we just gave our seed and eggs to the government and they controlled how many children were born. This is of course not something that can be implemented without decades of cultural reeducation and suppression of biological instincts. People want to have more children than is necessary. You can't stop them because that would be taking away their liberties, etc.

You could work towards dismantling the notion of legacy. You could make people strive for the greater good rather than personal need but how would you implent such a programme on a global scale?

The only way I see you solving that problem is making energy as cheap and clean as possible and making food and water as abundant as possible. None of which are impossible projects. They just cost more than we are willing to pay or sacrifice. Then you hunker down and wait for the singularity because otherwise god help us.

Slightly off topic: China have a variant of this, right? Not perfect by a very long way, but it's there.

With regard to the 'meaning of life' - why does there need to be one? Someone has previously stated that we give meaning to our own existence. I subscribe to the fact (as I see it) that there is no purpose to life beyond reproduction.

Andorion's points above are ones I very much agree with. Shedding Christianity was the best thing I could have done for my life; I felt liberated and have never once considered going back.

[Studlock]

Because humanity is more than reproducing offspring? If the question of life wasn't such a fundamental thing to human's experience I doubt it'd be so universal. Human's existence is fundamentally biocultural, and if we start ignoring the culture part (society) and focusing on the biological part we get stuff eugenics which was cultural under the guise of a wholly biological imperative. It's nihilistic.

[Powder]

I would love to see a response to Studlocks assertion.

EDIT: Also, some really great talking points here.

This post has been edited by Powder: 11 May 2015 - 06:01 PM

[Andorion]

I have never really thought human life = reproduction. In fact given environmental concerns, the less reproduction the better. Believe me, I live in a country of 1.2 billion+and not a day goes by that I wish there were fewer of us.

Its just that I think everybody should get to define the meaning of his life in his own way. For me so far, its been making the people I love happy, reading awesome books and dreaming of going to beautiful places. One day I know I will actually do that third one.

It may not sound like much, but thats what gives my life meaning

[Aptorian]

Studlock, on 09 May 2015 - 06:06 AM, said:

Because humanity is more than reproducing offspring? If the question of life wasn't such a fundamental thing to human's experience I doubt it'd be so universal. Human's existence is fundamentally biocultural, and if we start ignoring the culture part (society) and focusing on the biological part we get stuff eugenics which was cultural under the guise of a wholly biological imperative. It's nihilistic.

Powder, on 11 May 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

I would love to see a response to Studlocks assertion.

EDIT: Also, some really great talking points here.

People always think of Nazi doctors or similar advocates across the world when eugenics is brought up.

The truth is we already perform eugenics. People get tests and scans that reveal birth defects, diseases, genetic disorders, etc. In most cases like those abortions are performed and society as a whole is better for it. EDIT: Not to mention when we do invasive surgeries pre-natal. This isn't about the right to live, or the right to breed, it's about improving the quality of life both for child and parent. I think such procedures will only become more prevalent as the technology improves. And why not? Why not make designer babies as long as this is done across the civilization as whole. We'd have healthier, stronger, smarter children as a result.

Of course this is also coming from a person living in a country with free healthcare.

If we're talking about the right to have a baby I don't think that should be a human right. If the childs well being is your first priority then the childs parents or the household it grows up in should be a discerning factor. There's so many people who get children when they are too young, too dumb or too poor. This results in children who grow up under shitty circumstances who will likely continue down the same road.

Parents of a child should AT LEAST have to take an exam on which part of the baby the food goes in and the poop comes out and then have to pass a credit check.

This post has been edited by Apt: 11 May 2015 - 07:12 PM

[Maark Abbott]

My response would be this: In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative. That goes for all life, as I see it. Eat, defecate, sleep, procreate. It's for us to impart meaning where otherwise there is none. Myself? I came to terms with the futility of it all a while back, and I've actually (and strangely) been a lot happier for it. Nihilistic? Perhaps. But then I identify as a misanthrope, so nihilism isn't too far away.

[Studlock]

That might be true for jellyfish but humans are not jellyfish, we are not only our biological impulses. In fact people can and do ignores those impulses for various reasons (be them religious, ethical, etc) that pertain to cultural impulses. Your own assumptions are based in a cultural understanding of human biology. So what do you call these cultural impulses? Futile gestures of made-up meaning? Are they less real than your need to fuck? It might have been futile for yourself but for many other people it's why they continue to live. Your statement is true for yourself but beyond that it is goobly-goop.

And @ Apt when I think eugenics I don't go immediately to Nazi's but to my home Province who sterilized various people for being 'unfit' but the question of being unfit wasn't actually the reason of their sterilization but because, for women, were mentally unhealthy as deemed by the state, and that often just meant women acting out in ways that weren't acceptable for culture: being sexually active and not married etc. For Native people it was essentially being First Nation. It was a tool that claimed to be empirical backed science and wasn't, it was a cultural tool of control and it was damaging.

[Maark Abbott]

I didn't say that my response was true for anyone but myself. Did I? Because if I did, I must be really good at subliminal messaging. All hail me.

[Studlock]

Your language, to me, is very deterministic:

'I subscribe to the fact (as I see it) that there is no purpose to life beyond reproduction.'--the word 'fact' despite the personal modifier threw me through the loop. Facts are empiricist back statements and not personal interpretations of life and ones place in it.

'In terms of purpose, there isn't one to life, beyond the biological imperative'--again, this is a very definitive statement.

I apologize if I came on strong, this dark, dark place known as the internet have made harden against such things.

[Aptorian]

Studlock, on 12 May 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

That might be true for jellyfish but humans are not jellyfish, we are not only our biological impulses. In fact people can and do ignores those impulses for various reasons (be them religious, ethical, etc) that pertain to cultural impulses. Your own assumptions are based in a cultural understanding of human biology. So what do you call these cultural impulses? Futile gestures of made-up meaning? Are they less real than your need to fuck? It might have been futile for yourself but for many other people it's why they continue to live. Your statement is true for yourself but beyond that it is goobly-goop.

I think what you're arguing here is actually the classic and the reverse Marslov pyramid.

(Imagine a second picture with the groups flipped



The modern western man (or woman) already has things like food, shelter, basic comforts and basic security covered. Therefore needs like self actualization and cultural esteem becomes the most important needs. That is for example the reason why feminism/suffrage rises to public attention because the women or the kids have the financial and social capital needed to seek out what makes them happy and not just what the family needs.

In reality Maark is the one who is right. If you lost your family, home and job today you'd see that pyramid get flipped in an instant. The classical pyramid is what we need, what the reverse pyramid offers is simply what makes us satisfied. For this to be the meaning of life, attaining the next Iphone and showing you latest vacation pictures on Facebook, is a dead end.

Studlock, on 12 May 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

And @ Apt when I think eugenics I don't go immediately to Nazi's but to my home Province who sterilized various people for being 'unfit' but the question of being unfit wasn't actually the reason of their sterilization but because, for women, were mentally unhealthy as deemed by the state, and that often just meant women acting out in ways that weren't acceptable for culture: being sexually active and not married etc. For Native people it was essentially being First Nation. It was a tool that claimed to be empirical backed science and wasn't, it was a cultural tool of control and it was damaging.

What province and when was this? I suspect the answer is going to be no later than the 60s or early 70s unless you're living in a fucked up part of this globe. These methods were used all across Europe and North America long after WW2. There's no secret in that.

What has changed is the medical community's concept of ethics and what a doctor is morally allowed to do. We have a better understanding of disabilities and psychological disorders today. That's not to say Western society's treatment of the mentally ill and disabled people isn't still quite obscene but we continue to make great strides.

I mean Edison make scare campaigns showing electricity killing an elephant to demonstrate alternating current was evil. (I actually think this is a myth but you get my drift). Eugenics have been used in the of racially and politically motivates crimes against innocent people, that still doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses.

I think what always makes me uneasy about the concept is not man tampering with life but the potential abuse. However I think the benefits far outweigh the potential threat.

(I have no idea what direction this religious thread is heading in right now)

This post has been edited by Apt: 12 May 2015 - 12:15 PM

[Studlock]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been criticized heavily for a long time as being empirical bullshit. At best it's a model to interpret data, and worst it doesn't suggest anything that's close to being true about human nature, both socially or biologically. As anecdotal evidence one must simply bring up there own existence. I've lived in horrid poverty (and not just relative poverty--but being unable to meet the basic standard of living acceptable for Canada and the world) for a fair portion of my life, as a child and teenager I was occasionally homeless living off a meal about every 2 or 3 days for weeks at a time. In the either situation given here, the 'classic' hierarchy I would prioritize my own survival over all else to the point in which 'belonging' or 'esteem' wouldn't come into the decision I made yet that's not true. In most situations I would actually prioritize situations in which I could forget the hunger, or the danger, of being homeless in a city that gets below -30 degrees in the winter. I prioritized relationships and my own intellectual curiousness (much of what informed my current studies) in self-actualization. In the 'inverse' hierarchy that is suggest satisfaction with life (I'm not sure if that is what you're suggesting so if it's not let me know)? It would suggest that I would simply be satisfied with the base needs, or little more, and yet here I am arguing against that. I think for most of humanity the base biological impulses is not enough to make ones life satisfactory including those who live in destitute poverty. We are hardwired for curiosity, to seek, and play, and to question things including our own existence. Simply eating, shitting, and fucking, is not acceptable for most, they have friends, hobbies, or other things in which they hammer out their meaning even in the worst conditions. To suggest otherwise is, well, simply wrong.

As for your other question it was Alberta, and the Alberta Eugenics Board was dismantled in 1972 and was pretty much useless as a tool of good. Eugenics has always been a cultural tool first and foremost, and tool that has large misunderstanding of natural selection and genetics. You simply can't breed a better human, like I said humanity is biocultural, if we ignore one for the other we are going to end up with a problem. I've yet to see any kind of eugenic program that suggests at addressing those points.

[Aptorian]

Studlock, on 12 May 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been criticized heavily for a long time as being empirical bullshit. At best it's a model to interpret data, and worst it doesn't suggest anything that's close to being true about human nature, both socially or biologically. As anecdotal evidence one must simply bring up there own existence. I've lived in horrid poverty (and not just relative poverty--but being unable to meet the basic standard of living acceptable for Canada and the world) for a fair portion of my life, as a child and teenager I was occasionally homeless living off a meal about every 2 or 3 days for weeks at a time. In the either situation given here, the 'classic' hierarchy I would prioritize my own survival over all else to the point in which 'belonging' or 'esteem' wouldn't come into the decision I made yet that's not true. In most situations I would actually prioritize situations in which I could forget the hunger, or the danger, of being homeless in a city that gets below -30 degrees in the winter. I prioritized relationships and my own intellectual curiousness (much of what informed my current studies) in self-actualization. In the 'inverse' hierarchy that is suggest satisfaction with life (I'm not sure if that is what you're suggesting so if it's not let me know)? It would suggest that I would simply be satisfied with the base needs, or little more, and yet here I am arguing against that. I think for most of humanity the base biological impulses is not enough to make ones life satisfactory including those who live in destitute poverty. We are hardwired for curiosity, to seek, and play, and to question things including our own existence. Simply eating, shitting, and fucking, is not acceptable for most, they have friends, hobbies, or other things in which they hammer out their meaning even in the worst conditions. To suggest otherwise is, well, simply wrong.

You are of course right about the hierarchal structure of the pyramid. It's mainly a model used to demonstrate the basic tenants of a sociological principle. As you yourself state, the needs change depending upon age, class, culture, etc.

What I observed is that Maark was arguing a point that I find harmonizes with my own lifestyle. One of minimalistic expectation to what life has to offer and a sufficiently low demand for what life needs to offer me.

Since the discussing has ventured into the slightly academic I'd argue that from the point of social constructivism, when the basic needs are fulfilled we construct new needs that must be fulfilled for us to feel happy or life to have meaning. Call it behaviorism or learned habits, but we perceive what other people have, what we see in the commercials and magazines, and we convince ourselves that we need these things to be happy. For our life to have meaning.

You yourself raise a question about whether biological impulses or cultural impulses dictate the way we behave and what we need. Now ignoring the fact that biological impulses like a sex drive or the biological clock may be stronger in some and not in other, I'd argue that most of the social structures of Western life is a constructed framework that we have adapted to, to better fit in with what society expects of us. I think that the need to have a child, to have a family, for some is as much a social construct as it is an inherent biological drive.

You want to fit in or perhaps you are lost. You have no concept of what the meaning of life is so you simply look to others and imitate. You appropriate what think are the accepted qualities that you need. You need to have a good education to not feel dumb and get a good job. You need to have a good job so that you will be respected among social peers, so that you can earn enough money to buy luxury items, so that you will be desirable by the other sex. You want to have a boyfriend or girlfriend because it gives you social status. It proves that you are yourself desirable. You need a significant other to fit into the social events of later life. You get a wife or husband because couples should be married, it's the moral or financial right thing to do. You get children because, hey that's what all your friends or coworkers are doing and that is what is normal. You go on vacations and visit cultural events because this makes you seem sophisticated and active.

I could go on. The point I am arguing is that I think that civilizations are built on the bones of the older generations. We are living in an era of unprecedented social and economical freedom and I think one needs to ask oneself whether what you desire is what your biological instincts tell you that you want or whether what you desire is simply what you have been indoctrinated to think you want. Keep in mind here, there isn't really a difference on the surface, as long as you don't begin to scratch too deeply into the surface you will be perfectly happy with both approaches.

What I philosophically wish we could do is to set aside our needs, even the most basic ones, and start looking at what is happening in 20-50-100 years and make the future our goal. Sacrificing the self for the betterment of the whole.

Studlock, on 12 May 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

As for your other question it was Alberta, and the Alberta Eugenics Board was dismantled in 1972 and was pretty much useless as a tool of good. Eugenics has always been a cultural tool first and foremost, and tool that has large misunderstanding of natural selection and genetics. You simply can't breed a better human, like I said humanity is biocultural, if we ignore one for the other we are going to end up with a problem. I've yet to see any kind of eugenic program that suggests at addressing those points.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again?

Eugenics is a tool. Just because ignorant or bigoted people misused the tool a generation ago does not mean that it isn't useful. You just have to use it right. Better pregnancies, better children make for better lives and a better society.

Which I realise is the kind of political pandering that an evil lizard person would probably use to try and convince you to let him implant his eggs in your womb, but ALL HAIL THE GLOW CLOUD! ALL HAIL THE GLOW CLOUD! AAAAAL HAIL THE GLOW CLOUD!

This post has been edited by Apt: 12 May 2015 - 02:05 PM