What do you hate the most?

[Agrippa]

That's exactly right; which is why I choose to identify people based on how "productive" they are to our society. Why would someone's skin tone or where he/she come from matter to me at all? I have to actually CARE about the individual to care about his/her origins. I tend to only see people as a mathematical sum of their capabilities.

Is this 'logics' at work: "I have to care to care"?

Take a class that's not given by the biology department, meet different people, try not to objectify them, travel, express yourself more clearly (and I'm not talking spelling)--you'll grow as a person, and increase your 'mathematical sum' in what actually matters.

 

[eastender]

Getting There

That's exactly right; which is why I choose to identify people based on how "productive" they are to our society. Why would someone's skin tone or where he/she come from matter to me at all? I have to actually CARE about the individual to care about his/her origins. I tend to only see people as a mathematical sum of their capabilities.

Productivity would not be able to stand on its own. It would have to be refined and supported.

Suppose tomorrow society discovers a miraculous solution that eradicates all crime. While noble and productive this would be problematic from the standpoint that everyone involved in the "crime machine" from police officers to clerical workers in the judicial system, to workers in support industries that produce crime related products - security systems, almost an infinite list would be out of work. Putting people out of work is somewhat counter-productive.

The concept of optimization - offering people situations where the potential for failure is minimized would be an important component.

 

[Agrippa]

Suppose tomorrow society discovers a miraculous solution that eradicates all crime. While noble and productive this would be problematic from the standpoint that everyone involved in the "crime machine" from police officers to clerical workers in the judicial system, to workers in support industries that produce crime related products - security systems, almost an infinite list would be out of work. Putting people out of work is somewhat counter-productive.

Are you retarded?

 

[eastender]

Agrippa, Agrippa,......

The history of religion, literature and science fiction,Star Trek amongst others is marked by concepts of Eden, a world or society that is crime free, the fall from grace or returning / evolving to a perfect society or world.

Perhaps you are unaware of such concepts or works.

 

[Agrippa]

You must be.

What has more value? The jobs of loggers or an intact ecosystem? The tobacco industry jobs or the health of the general populace? Are you saying that it is worthwhile to continue living with various ills at everybody's expense so that cops and lawyers (to trim your supposedly 'infinite' list--it seems mathematicians can't count just like writers can't write) keep their jobs?

 

[eastender]

Read Very Carefully

You must be.

What has more value? The jobs of loggers or an intact ecosystem? The tobacco industry jobs or the health of the general populace? Are you saying that it is worthwhile to continue living with various ills at everybody's expense so that cops and lawyers (to trim your supposedly 'infinite' list--it seems mathematicians can't count just like writers can't write) keep their jobs?

The concept of optimization is about putting everyone in in a position where the potential for failure is minimized. So if you eradicate crime you have to create new jobs for those whose employment would be affected. If you do not,then you risk creating a situation where criminality might re-surface due to unemployment and the cycle would begin again.You would have a cosmetic short term gain but a long term loss.

The problem with your view - using your analogy of the tobacco industry is this If you would outlaw smoking and the tobacco industry you would not preclude smokers or those so inclined from turning to other indulgences such as over eating, drinking and whatever excesses they choose.Perhaps the jobs
that would be lost that are generated by the tobacco industry would be compensated by job creation in the various other industries that produce the replacement indulgences BUT what would be the impact on the general health of the public? Increases in obesity, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, etc. all impact on health. Would you create a net gain or a net loss situation?

If you abolish logging - how do you replace wood products? With plastics? Yes you would have a job shift but would additional use of plastics help our ecosystem? Since plastics are PVC based you would impact on our petroleum reserves and change re-cycling habits. Then you would have the additional problem of managing the growth of trees.Since trees will not voluntarily stop growing you would eventually have to cut some of them. But you no longer have loggers so you have to train new loggers. What would you do with the cut trees - simply waste them? That doesn't make sense so you make wood products.Where is your net gain?

Your ideas need refinement.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Agrippa,

What I think eastender is saying is that there is an entire industry based on social failure. This assures sufficient vested interests to guarantee that there will not be any major movement to address fundamental issues any time soon.

The US has more people behind bars per capita than any other nation. There are many towns whose sole employer is a large state- or federal prison. Any move to correct certain social injustices would inevitably lead to the closure of these institutions and unemployment. It is therefore more interesting for the organizations that run prisons and the politicians who have them located in their constituencies to perpetuate the status quo than make any serious attempt to address social issues.

This situation assures failure to meet the needed conditions for maximization of individual productivity as stated in the opening and closing sentences of eastender's post:

1) Productivity would not be able to stand on its own. It would have to be refined and supported.

2) The concept of optimization - offering people situations where the potential for failure is minimized would be an important component.

Anyway, this is how I understood eastender's post.

[edit: looks like I understood it incorrectly.]

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Take a class that's not given by the biology department, meet different people, try not to objectify them, travel, express yourself more clearly (and I'm not talking spelling)--you'll grow as a person, and increase your 'mathematical sum' in what actually matters.

Beautifully said, Agrippa.

 

[Agrippa]

One can't preclude everyone from everything.

Cutting down trees for paper is absolutely wasteful. Hemp would be the replacement. Trees will always be logged for the construction industry, and I wouldn't argue against stopping all logging. It's just that it makes me shake my head in disgust when I hear someone place the jobs of a few fishermen, loggers, miners, etc at the expense of something far more valuable. Something that, once damaged, is 'irreparable.'

I don't claim to have solutions to all the various problems out there, but your myopia is alarming. Trees won't voluntarily stop growing? What the fuck are you talking about? Managing forests? Forests do just fine without us interfering with them, thank you very much.

 

[Agrippa]

[T]here is an entire industry based on social failure. This assures sufficient vested interests to guarantee that there will not be any major movement to address fundamental issues any time soon.

This is, sadly, the case. What baffles me is that somehow we are unable to make a simple decision: lose a few jobs or continue exploit (humans and non-humans). The consequences of which, I am positive, are much less damaging as a whole than continuing the status quo.

 

[eastender]

Cycle of Waste

Agrippa,

What I think eastender is saying is that there is an entire industry based on social failure. This assures sufficient vested interests to guarantee that there will not be any major movement to address fundamental issues any time soon.

The US has more people behind bars per capita than any other nation. There are many towns whose sole employer is a large state- or federal prison. Any move to correct certain social injustices would inevitably lead to the closure of these institutions and unemployment. It is therefore more interesting for the organizations that run prisons and the politicians who have them located in their constituencies to perpetuate the status quo than make any serious attempt to address social issues.

This situation assures failure to meet the needed conditions for maximization of individual productivity as stated in the opening and closing sentences of eastender's post:

1) Productivity would not be able to stand on its own. It would have to be refined and supported.

2) The concept of optimization - offering people situations where the potential for failure is minimized would be an important component.

Anyway, this is how I understood eastender's post.

[edit: looks like I understood it incorrectly.]

FHB,

You more or less had it but let it slip away.Your explanation of my analogy within the confines of certain areas of the USA is accurate.What should be added is one of the first principles of medical care - don't make things worse.

Until the mid late fifties Park/Pine was an intersection and Montrealers had streetcars including up and down Park/Bleury.

The the decision was made to build an interchange at Park/Pine. Buildings were demolished,mature trees were cut down,neighbourhoods were altered and an interchange was built.This interchange was often blocked by traffic and eventually the structure started to show signs that it was not longer safe.It was torn down and within the last year replaced by ....... if you said an intersection go to the head of the class.The buildings, trees, neighbourhoods were not replaced. This is the pointless cycle of waste that I am referring to when I caution against running blindly towards change.

By the way Montreal is now studying the viability of bringing back streetcars to run up and down Park / Bleury.

Agrippa your point seems to be that as long as it is someone else's job,home, neighbourhood, way of life, change is acceptable for a perceived common good.

Using the Park/Pine interchange example above as long as it was not your home and neighbourhood that was torn down it would be okay because your life would not be impacted.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Take a class that's not given by the biology department, meet different people, try not to objectify them, travel, express yourself more clearly (and I'm not talking spelling)--you'll grow as a person, and increase your 'mathematical sum' in what actually matters.

Encore faut-il être capable de renoncer à des repères culturels familiers. L'"autre" s'apprend seulement une fois que toutes les parties impliquées ont sû ramener chacun à la base commune. C'est un truisme que même le plus raciste parmi les racistes est en mesure de comprendre. Pourtant, aux dernières nouvelles, le racisme et l'industrie des vols transnationaux se portaient bien. Trouvez l'ingrédient qui manque!

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Pensée magique et réalité

You must be.

What has more value? The jobs of loggers or an intact ecosystem? The tobacco industry jobs or the health of the general populace? Are you saying that it is worthwhile to continue living with various ills at everybody's expense so that cops and lawyers (to trim your supposedly 'infinite' list--it seems mathematicians can't count just like writers can't write) keep their jobs?

Je laisse ton interlocuteur patauger dans sa mare à canards pour énoncer seulement un principe de l'éducation scientifique dont la validité a aussi été éprouvée à travers l'histoire sociale, et qui dit que "rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée". Tout étant toujours en constante transformation, il est raisonnable que penser que l'éradication magique, instantanée, du crime, n'éradiquerait pas pour autant la négativité qui lui est sous-jacente. Si l'on s'en remet au principe, cette négativité ne se perd pas, elle se transforme.

Pour qu'elle puisse se transformer en du positif, il lui faut du temps. La multitude d'intervenants se trouvant soudainement déstabilisés par le coup de baguette magique auraient sans doute souhaité que le processus d'éradication du crime se fasse plus lentement, pour qu'ils y aient eu au moins le temps de s'y préparer.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Cutting down trees for paper is absolutely wasteful. Hemp would be the replacement. Trees will always be logged for the construction industry, and I wouldn't argue against stopping all logging. It's just that it makes me shake my head in disgust when I hear someone place the jobs of a few fishermen, loggers, miners, etc at the expense of something far more valuable. Something that, once damaged, is 'irreparable.'

I don't claim to have solutions to all the various problems out there, but your myopia is alarming. Trees won't voluntarily stop growing? What the fuck are you talking about? Managing forests? Forests do just fine without us interfering with them, thank you very much.

J'évoque ici un autre principe: "entre deux maux, choisir le moindre".

Décider d'une action suivant une logique d'optimisation, laquelle tiendrait compte, entre autres, du principe de transformation, a l'avantage de mener, par une prédictabilité mieux informée, "au meilleur choix". Le désavantage, en contrepartie, tient à sa lenteur, une lenteur telle qu'elle laisse perdurer des situations urgentes qui demandent qu'on y intervienne rapidement.

Entre deux maux, choisir le moindre, en revanche, relève du tâtonnement. Si la décision s'en inspire, le risque d'aggraver une situation générale en transférant le problème ailleurs, demeure un facteur à considérer.

L'histoire, toutefois, nous enseigne que l'évolution des sociétés s'est faite davantage sur la base du tâtonnement que sur des modèles prédictifs, l'un n'excluant pas l'autre.

 

[Agrippa]

Je te suis Ziggy. Merci pour les éclaircissements, mais j'aurais tout simplement dû dire que l'example était boiteux. Je crois que je m'acharne inutilement avec certains...

 

[John_Cage]

Is this 'logics' at work: "I have to care to care"?

Take a class that's not given by the biology department, meet different people, try not to objectify them, travel, express yourself more clearly (and I'm not talking spelling)--you'll grow as a person, and increase your 'mathematical sum' in what actually matters.

Eh?

One have to care about his familly in order to care about traveling safely...
One have to care about your future in order to care about one's grades in school...
YOU have to care about your posts in order to care about its content (or lack of).

You have to CARE about the individual (as a person, not as part of your world) in order to care about his/her original (because his/her origin means nothing to you OUTSIDE of your context).

Seriously... What's wrong with you? The whole point for reasoning with someone is following through their thoughts THEN make a productive comment (or counter-point).

Have you read any Nietzschean or Kant? Their ideas are going to be much harder to comprehand; if you can't even grasp the concept of "Having to care about [a larger concept] in order to care about [its smaller details]".

This is, sadly, the case. What baffles me is that somehow we are unable to make a simple decision: lose a few jobs or continue exploit (humans and non-humans). The consequences of which, I am positive, are much less damaging as a whole than continuing the status quo.

What's sad is that... I actually agree with you on this point. I too, value the "common greater good" over the "suffering of a few". I take a utilitarian appoarach on matters like this; the total value of happiness gained is GREATER than the total value of happiness lost.

That being said, however I do understand where Eastender is coming from. He's saying that we have to be VERY cautious and not over-zealous when it comes to "achieving the greater good" --- especially since we must make sacrifices on the way.

But Eastender, let me propose something else then:

IF we can SURELY eliminate crime (for good, it will NEVER resurface) at the cost of the jobs of policemen, lawyers, judges, various alarm system companies... etc... Would you be for it? Considering that the people who lost their job can retrain AND there's bound to be new jobs created by a safer society.

Just post that you hate certain recipes or that certain types of cooking is superior and you stand a chance of adding another five pages of posts.

I say sushis are superior because they are healthier and, BY GOD, girls like them more (at least the girls I know).

Discuss... lol.

 

[Agrippa]

I've never heard of Nietzschean, I do however know a German fellow by the name of Nietzsche relatively well. When you're done thinking you're an Übermensch, you can come back and live amongst us ordinary Volk.

I guess the rest of my post flew over your head. I find if very difficult to believe that someone who claims to have an IQ of 156 and to be a writer would reason and write the way you do. Your posts exude emotional and intellectual immaturity. Empathy for a fellow humans, I assure you, is quite different from 'caring' about your grades--that is all I will respond to your stunted reasoning.

 

[Rook01]

I find if very difficult to believe that someone who claims to have an IQ of 156 and to be a writer would reason and write the way you do. Your posts exude emotional and intellectual immaturity. Empathy for a fellow humans, I assure you, is quite different from 'caring' about your grades--that is all I will respond to your stunted reasoning.

Just my opinion but I always found intelligent, book smart, highly knowledgeable persons, socially awkward. It could be that they think too much to a fault. Maybe lack of real life experiences or not enough time spent socializing and getting to know people. They become outcasts early in age.

What does emotions and caring, empathy for others matter? It doesn't fit in an equation. It's not a lack of maturity but just not learning about compassion or having any. Don't get me wrong, they are nice people but they just lack real world experiences making them look naive or having no common sense. Everything to them becomes a piece of information, they analyzed, weigh and formulate to a theory or answer.

BTW there is nothing wrong with people like this, they become the backbone of highly technological societies and are certainly highly prized in advancing us further. They just lack people skills and they have aweful jokes .

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Je te suis Ziggy. Merci pour les éclaircissements, mais j'aurais tout simplement dû dire que l'example était boiteux. Je crois que je m'acharne inutilement avec certains...

Ton acharnement provient sans doute que tu aies reconnu, à travers l ensemble de l oeuvre de ton interlocuteur, une visée argumentative qui dépasse de beaucoup le cadre de l énoncé.

À bon entendeur...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Doesn't maturity come with life experience?

With life experience indeed, not entirely with chronological age.