Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2310)

Bloggingheads 10-25-2008 09:16 AM

Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 

SkepticDoc 10-25-2008 10:49 AM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
I will vote for George!

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 11:03 AM

Re: Too Many People
 
"Every child is a blessing?"

uh....I don't think a discussion on "science" is a good thing for you be watching then;)

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 11:27 AM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
John, why would you say the patriotism is categorically bad? Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc so that you can sit there on your webcam and play on the internet? Absurd.
These people were fighting against tribalism for you.
Furthermore, being liberal, I can still recognize that there's something unique about where we live. The U.S. is the birthplace of so many culturally influential things like the internet (and many of its major websites), many scientific discoveries, etc. It's not really a bad thing to be proud that our forefathers set up better rules than what many many other countries have (i.e. Africa, Middle East.) Being "against patriotism" is such a coffeehouse cliche....no nuance at all and shamefully dismissive, arrogant and ungrateful. It shows absolutely no respect for those who came before us. (Hey, wasn't "respect" on Haidt's list?) Everyone's aware of the potential for destructiveness caused by nationalism but to write it off totally is just worthless. For example, I hate religion but I can recognize its use for others and its presence as an evolutionary crutch or byproduct.

SkepticDoc 10-25-2008 11:27 AM

Re: Bad News: The Stork Didn't Bring You
 
How do we explain congenital deformities, chromosomal syndromes?

Are those blessings too?

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 11:34 AM

Re: Bad News: The Stork Didn't Bring You
 
i'm a little confused as to what your point is now. are you defending the choice of the poor to have lots of kids because that will lead to higher living standards in their country?

thprop 10-25-2008 11:36 AM

Your Brain on Cubs
 
John speaks of the irrationality of being a Mets fan. Even worse are Cub fans - and we hate the Mets. 1969 is too painful to talk about. So why do people continue to support this team? Steve Goodman was the consummate Cub fan. He died in 1984 - having already penned "A Dying Cub Fans Last Request". But the people who pack Wrigley Field still sing Goodman's "Go, Cubs Go!" after the game. This year, the Cubs failed us again - but we will be there again next year - and the year after that and the year after that and.....

Rational people may question this behavior. Science has studied it. The results are in "Your Brain on Cubs:
Inside the Heads of Players and Fans"
edited by Dan Gordon.

Brief summary -
A group of today’s leading science writers and neuroscientists explore here the ways that our brain functions when we participate in sports as fans, athletes, and coaches, taking baseball as the quintessential sport for all three perspectives.

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 11:58 AM

Re: Bad News: The Stork Didn't Bring You
 
that's an honorable thing to say but the reality is that almost every underdeveloped country, especially places like Bangladesh, Nigeria, India, etc. just don't have the physical or financial structure in place to support the amount of people they have. to me, that qualifies as overpopulation. these countries clearly don't have the ability to feed, clothe or employ their populations. I think most people understand that, technically, we can fill the earth with billions more people but it's gonna get uglier rather than prettier as far as pollution and death go. i understand the (presumably religiously based) urge to fight against the prevailing (liberal) wisdom that there are too many people but when you see video of a Lagos, Nigeria slum there's just no other way to look at it. those people are suffering terribly.

WilliamP 10-25-2008 12:31 PM

Re: Too Many People
 
From my perspective, this is somewhere at the center of the divide between liberals and conservatives. Some people seem to take it as axiomatic that the ultimate good is to maximize the number of quality human lives on the planet.

I don't get that at all. I don't see how 10 billion people is in any way better than 5 billion people, even if the quality of life per person is exactly the same. The human population will have to stabilize somewhere, after all, so sooner or later we'll have to get used to the fact of zero growth. I also put a lot of value on conserving some of the state of the planet, including its diversity aside from humanity.

However, these aren't things I can defend based on logic or deeper principles. On the other hand, I'm sure they aren't things that can be refuted either.

Ocean 10-25-2008 12:39 PM

Re: sacred vs pragmatic views
 
Here we have two different 'dimensions' of the topic of reproduction.

KS is expressing his/her views on the inner experience of parenting or the 'joy' of interacting with children. I agree that there's wonder and beauty in every form of life, if you care to be receptive to it. You may choose to look at the negative aspects of life with indignant outrage or focus on the resilience, the compassion, solidarity and other positive aspects it promotes.

Working with people with various disabilities, of any age, and finding the beauty in them is a wondrous and humbling experience. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, one shouldn't reject the inner experience of 'sacredness of life'. This is part of what drives us to go on in spite of difficulties and to find our place within a larger meaningful context.

The second 'dimension', as expressed by fedorovingtonboop, is a more pragmatic view. The balance between this 'life drive' and rationality has to be found. We do not have unlimited resources. Even if the entire world population could be redistributed, I'm afraid we are past the number of members of one single species that can support ecological balance.

And if we consider, for a moment, KS's argument that there are vastly 'unpopulated' areas in the U.S., a legitimate question would be, if KS or the American people in general are willing and ready to receive, say, 100-200 million people from Africa, Asia, or Latin America. Considering the heated discussions about immigration in this country, I would hesitate to entertain this possibility any further.

World population has to decrease. In my opinion, we either plan how that will happen in a humane and compassionate way or the blind self-correcting mechanisms that Nature has, will take care of it. Wars, famine, diseases and natural catastrophes decrease world population. No question about that.

Ocean 10-25-2008 12:49 PM

Re: patriotism
 
The problem of patriotism is dependent on the meaning you give to it and whether it becomes an overriding principle placed above other more universal principles. So the issue is about each of us having a better understanding of what patriotism entails and how high it is in our moral hierarchy of principles.

Patriotism is tribalism. It is ingroup loyalty. It is 'us vs them'. If you believe in these concepts, then you wouldn't challenge the idea of patriotism. But, if you recognize that although tribalism and the other definitions are part of our innate make up, but that it can lead to actions that we morally reject, then you have to question, at least, how much 'patriotism' is acceptable and how far you are willing to go to defend it. I think this is the dilemma that John was referring to in the diavlog.

thprop 10-25-2008 01:11 PM

John's commercial for Obama
 
I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Ocean 10-25-2008 01:20 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Excellent diavlog! Very thought provoking in many topics.

When John and George are talking about Haidt's findings they mention the position of 'conforming to non-conformism'. This is the problem of being anti- something. Should we be dogmatic about being non-dogmatic?

In my opinion these are the 'traps' of language. The general idea is to be dynamic, to seek change, to improve. That requires questioning what is established, avoiding blind rigid adherence to one perspective, keeping an open mind and looking for alternative solutions. If we want to call these non-conformism, it's fine. But we shouldn't conclude that we have to 'reject' everything that is established. After revising certain principles, we may decide it's OK to keep them, at least for the time being. Rebellion has to be rational and not a blind reflex. And that doesn't make it conformism.

A similar fallacy appears with the concept of 'tolerance'. Tolerance should be reciprocal, not just tolerance of the other. Perhaps one could argue that it's better to start by being tolerant, since it wouldn't be uncommon that the other side will follow by reciprocating. But, that isn't always the case. In such situation the idea of tolerance has to be supplemented by the idea of placing some boundaries, or protections to our position. Ultimately, the problem will always reside on where the 'power' resides. If the power resides with the more tolerant side, it's easier to maintain diversity. If the power resides in the non-tolerant side, then the risk of totalitarianism is greater.

People seem to forget or, perhaps ignore, some of the most fundamental principles of democracy and 'freedom'. Religious fundamentalism, or any other dogmatic ideology, or position of intolerance are anti-democratic and certainly anti-American. That is, in case we want to maintain the basic principles in which the country was founded. I'm always surprised that this is not more openly denounced.

And a final comment on Woodward's "The War Within", what the heck were they talking about?

Bloggin' Noggin 10-25-2008 02:13 PM

Tolerance is not the same as Relativism
 
I loved it that John dismissed Haidt as "Pop psychology" -- that's exactly what he's doing.
Haidt takes popular confusions about liberalism (e.g. that it's based on relativism) along with ephemeral social facts (the recent polarization of America along secular vs. religious lines) and produces an eternal psychological theory to explain why these things have always been so (even though they haven't always been so).

I wish John hadn't then followed Haidt in confusing liberal tolerance with moral relativism. Tolerance is NOT NOT NOT the view that every view is right!!!!! It is the view that evidence and argument should be the main means of "suppressing" wrong views, and that force can be used against such views or rather the practical application of such views) in only very limited circumstances -- where there is strong evidence that a non-consenting party will be harmed. There is NO CONTRADICTION -- NO WAY, NO HOW -- between saying that and saying that liberalism really is the correct moral view.
LIberalism does not compel the liberal to believe that theocrats are equally right. Nor does it compel the liberal state to do nothing to prevent the theocrats from taking power. It can't prevent theocratic views from being expressed (except where they would be an incitement to riot), and it's true that the theocrats wouldn't reciprocate if they were in power. But if the theocrats (or other illiberal types) are attempting to use force to compel others to accept their beliefs, then the liberal can COMPLETELY CONSISTENTLY use state power to interfere with such a violation of the rights of others.
Liberal toleration simply demands that beliefs should be exposed to a (fair) marketplace of ideas, and I see no reason why it should have to except itself from that. Liberals have always felt (I think rightly) that liberalism survives very well in the marketplace of ideas. So what is the supposed inconsistency of liberalism? How is tolerance supposed to undermine itself again?

DoctorMoney 10-25-2008 02:18 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fedorovingtonboop (Post 95240)
John, why would you say the patriotism is categorically bad? Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc so that you can sit there on your webcam and play on the internet? Absurd.

If our boys hadn't fought off the Nazis, you'd be talking on a Webernkamera. And ya wouldn't be playing on them intertubes, you'd be fillin' em -- with skulls!

Ray 10-25-2008 02:32 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fedorovingtonboop (Post 95240)
Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc

Why do you think that's patriotism?

To me, the way the people use the word 'patriotism' today corresponds with the term 'loyalist' as used during the Revolutionary War. Back then a 'patriot' was a traitor to the crown and held no allegiance to any nation. The Patriots of the American Revolution held fast to principles, not to states.

In the truest American sense, patriotism is the opposite of blind, arbitrary loyalty. My family fought against Britain in that war, and because we came from Rhode Island, the thirteenth stripe on the flag represents us. That's my family's blood--and the blood of people we killed--in the red of that stripe.

And I'd burn that flag in heartbeat, if I felt it necessary to communicate my point. I'm a patriot of the values, not of the symbols or even the attempt to realize those values in a nation.

bkjazfan 10-25-2008 02:59 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
These bloggingheads seem to have a condescending attitude toward religion and patriotism. I guess the many thousands of people who go to churches in South Los Angeles where I live are mentally challenged. Also, the large proportion of males in my family who served in the military were wasting their time.

John

themightypuck 10-25-2008 03:14 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Even in a Prius, a two hour commute doesn't seem very green ;)

Ocean 10-25-2008 03:35 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 95256)
These bloggingheads seem to have a condescending attitude toward religion and patriotism. I guess the many thousands of people who go to churches in South Los Angeles where I live are mentally challenged. Also, the large proportion of males in my family who served in the military were wasting their time.

John

John,

I don't think that was the intention. At least for me, the reaction that I have when someone talks about "patriotism" has more to do with a particular view of patriotism which has become pervasive in recent years in this country. It's more about being called "anti-patriotic" if one criticizes certain actions taken, for example, by the current government. Many people will say it's anti-patriotic to criticize the war or to criticize aspects of American culture. Loving your country and being proud of its history, its people, and its accomplishments is part of being human, and it's not a bad thing. But if you use the word "patriotism" to defend nationalism above other values, or to justify supremacy or imperialism or extreme interventionism or lack of self-criticism, then many of us would have a problem with it.

Those who serve in the military are carrying out orders. If there is criticism against war, it's about those who decided to go to war or maintain it, and not about those who are sent to fight. Radical pacifism may differ and assign responsibility to all the involved, but I don't think that view was represented in this diavlog.

In terms of religion, the majority of nonreligious people just want to be left alone, meaning they want their right to not being religious respected, and not having religion imposed on them. That idea was covered when 'tolerance' was discussed.

When religion becomes a threat or violates other principles, then there is a more adversarial stance. The issues of separation of church and state, teaching creationism in science/ schools, and pro-choice/ pro-life are obviously among the conflictual items for which there is disagreement.

Why did you take the diavloggers's comments as dismissal or condemnation of religion or patriotism? Do you take my comments as expressed here, as being dismissive or harshly critical? It's always important to know how the 'other side', so to speak, hears what we say. Sometimes, inadvertently, the choice of words is wrong or one may not see an angle that makes it look very different in someone else's eyes. I'm really interested in having your feedback.

claymisher 10-25-2008 03:39 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
This episodes was kind of a bummer, because thanks to BH I'm a big Haidt fan, and John and George knew less about his research than they would have learned by simply watching either of the episodes he's done. "Pop psychology" is a pretty severe condemnation to make when you don't know anything about the subject.

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 03:49 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray (Post 95255)
Why do you think that's patriotism?

Um...because that's a pretty typical and very reasonable definition of patriotism, perhaps? (Pride) I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with me or just asking....

BeachFrontView 10-25-2008 04:40 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Science Saturday fucking rocks.

jeffpeterson 10-25-2008 04:54 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
It's obscurantist to hold that there are too many people on the planet, and anybody who imagines otherwise needs to work through Julian Simon's magnum opus The Ultimate Resource 2. The title refers to human ingenuity, and the book marshals a wealth of data to show that historically, population increases result in improved living standards as people generate new and better ways to employ natural resources. So why are Malthusians and other doomsayers constantly getting a hearing? For the same reason that crime stories lead the local news, not because the opinion has merit. Voicing it is almost as great an offense against reason as suggesting that a person who uses the word "blessing" has no place in a scientific discussion. Behold the tolerance of the Enlightened!

AemJeff 10-25-2008 05:04 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffpeterson (Post 95271)
It's obscurantist to hold that there are too many people on the planet, and anybody who imagines otherwise needs to work through Julian Simon's magnum opus The Ultimate Resource 2. The title refers to human ingenuity, and the book marshals a wealth of data to show that historically, population increases result in improved living standards as people generate new and better ways to employ natural resources. So why are Malthusians and other doomsayers constantly getting a hearing? For the same reason that crime stories lead the local news, not because the opinion has merit. Voicing it is almost as great an offense against reason as suggesting that a person who uses the word "blessing" has no place in a scientific discussion. Behold the tolerance of the Enlightened!

By the same argument, since my glass of lemonade has not overflowed up until now, I can fit an infinite amount of lemonade in my glass. I'd be careful of accusing others of an "offense against reason," if I were you.

a Duoist 10-25-2008 05:36 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
The "two world-views" which inform liberal vs conservative are bio-psychological in origin. We humans have both psychologies (the improvabilist and fallibilst) within us, but one usually predominates. Both psychologies, by the way, are very 'tribal.' If humans who are liberals do not believe they are just as tribal as conservative humans, they are not paying attention to their herding behavior. Communalism is, by its nature, tribal.

osmium 10-25-2008 05:38 PM

Merle Haggard, Great American!
 
George on a commercial featuring a country music star.

Just to make sure we don't defame the great Merle Haggard, let's recognize the fact that Merle is a Democrat. (I think Hank Williams Jr. does a McCain/Palin ad, so maybe it's him.)

p.s. I always heard that Okie from Muskogee was intended as ironic, because ole Merle was smoking pot, no matter what the Okies thought. So, the intro paragraph to that Time article is a little skewed I think.

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 05:47 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
"blessing" really doesn't have a place in a scientific discussion, obviously, because the user is making a religious reference...which is worthless in a discussion like that.
as far as population goes, what about the 5 out of 7 billion people who are poor as hell? how are their living standards? that's my definition of "too many people." not to mention the ridiculous amount of pollution being put out...

bjkeefe 10-25-2008 06:11 PM

Re: sacred vs pragmatic views
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 95249)
Here we have two different 'dimensions' of the topic of reproduction.

Agreed. I think ks is thinking in terms of individuals and the value, worth, joy, and love that one's child evokes. This is not only valid, it's fundamental to how we're wired.

However, I'm with the camp that thinks that all of those individuals added together produce a burden that we cannot sustain. We're fouling our own nest, and as far as getting along goes, we no longer have enough elbow room.

I don't agree that we have available vast swaths of land that could hold more people. A big reason for many of these areas to be sparsely populated is that they can't easily support a lot of people. Many have the most fundamental problem of all: a lack of water.

It is one of the happiest discoveries of recent times that increased health and education tends to cause a decline in the birth rate. I vote for doubling down along those lines.

bjkeefe 10-25-2008 06:20 PM

Re: Tolerance is not the same as Relativism
 
BN:

Good to see you back. Good response. I'll just address one bit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin (Post 95253)
So what is the supposed inconsistency of liberalism? How is tolerance supposed to undermine itself again?

I believe tolerance can, in principle, be taken too far, and that this can, in principle, have the effect of undermining itself. For example, if a group of people move into an area, and they have fundamentally different ideas about what is the right way to conduct society, and they make demands that society accommodate them, this can cause serious problems. You might have that group gaining a disproportionate amount of clout, with the result that tolerating that group leads to that group imposing a less tolerant approach on everyone. You might provoke resentment among those not in that group, with the result that toleration of that group leads to an increased intolerance of them.

I think it's also possible that tolerating "everything" can, in the extreme, leads to a certain amount of intellectual mushiness.

So, that's how I think it's possible for tolerance to undermine itself.

cragger 10-25-2008 06:21 PM

Re: Too Many People
 
Is whether or not to try to maximize human population at the current carrying capacity of the earth really a conservative/liberal divide? Even with the common abuse of the term conservative to mean whatever the Republican party is saying at the moment rather than any specific philosophy, I haven't really been aware of this as a general issue of partisanship or philosophy.

There seem to be plenty of folks who claim the conservative label whatever it may mean to them, who apparantly prefer to live in lower population density situations. Similarly, although the Republican party does include some who follow the "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant" approach for personal or religious reasons, there is no shortage of people who choose to limit their family sizes.

cragger 10-25-2008 06:47 PM

Re: sacred vs pragmatic views
 
I suspect that research would reveal a good case that human population has essentially reflected the carrying capacity of the various regions of the earth for most of human history. Recall for example Dr. Homer-Dixon's analysis of the collapse of the Roman Empire, which could no longer produce enough food to maintain the complexity of its civilization with so many members who were not involved with food production, given the agriculture of the time. (Can't recall the title of that BH episode right off.)

It is only recently that reliable birth control has been a factor in limiting population size. Previously, premature death by various causes was the significant limiting factor as it remains in many parts of the world today.

Tara Davis 10-25-2008 07:53 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fedorovingtonboop (Post 95240)
John, why would you say the patriotism is categorically bad? Why would it ever be a bad thing to be proud and grateful for the men and women who sacrificed their comfort and lives in the Rev. War, WWI, WWII, Civil War, etc so that you can sit there on your webcam and play on the internet? Absurd.
These people were fighting against tribalism for you.
Furthermore, being liberal, I can still recognize that there's something unique about where we live.

Speaking as a libertarian (who is often mistaken for being conservative), I find that it is entirely possible to be an American "exceptionalist" without being a nationalist.

America, to me, represents a structure which is in place to preserve capitalism and civil liberty. Possibly the best such structure anywhere in the world right now. I love my rights, therefore I love America. But I only love America as the best-available means to an end. Being tribalist about America doesn't even make sense. "American" doesn't describe a race, or even a common culture. Put a Freeper in a room with a Kossite and tell me they have any sense of shared culture whatsoever.

WilliamP 10-25-2008 07:58 PM

Re: Too Many People
 
I doubt it's perfectly aligned along the liberal/conservative divide, but then I think you're going to have a very hard time finding someone who considers themselves liberal, and also thinks it's regrettable that there are places on Earth that are not yet inhabited by humans to their full capacity.

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 08:07 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
are you agreeing, disagreeing or just saying?

Ray 10-25-2008 08:12 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fedorovingtonboop (Post 95262)
Um...because that's a pretty typical and very reasonable definition of patriotism, perhaps? (Pride) I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with me or just asking....


I'm disagreeing with you.

Patriotism in the U.S. is extremely complicated, because our founding act was, quite literally, treasonous, anti-patriotic.

And this discussion is primarily about patriotism in an American context.

The definition you're using--pride in the traditions and accomplishments of people who belong to the same nation as you--fits the word 'loyalist', which remains a slur in the U.S. to the present day.

fedorovingtonboop 10-25-2008 08:33 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
uh...what? when people use the word "patriotism" today they do not in any way mean "traitor." I get it that you've studied history but you're adding something that doesn't need to be added.....kinda like claiming that "redneck" is still offensive because it used to be a more direct slur...it ain't offensive and neither is "patriotic." it's just generally pride in one's country - it's in the dictionary and the way i used it is by far the most often used and definitely appropriate.

Ocean 10-25-2008 08:58 PM

Re: sacred vs pragmatic views
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 95278)
Agreed. I think ks is thinking in terms of individuals and the value, worth, joy, and love that one's child evokes. This is not only valid, it's fundamental to how we're wired.

However, I'm with the camp that thinks that all of those individuals added together produce a burden that we cannot sustain. We're fouling our own nest, and as far as getting along goes, we no longer have enough elbow room.

I don't agree that we have available vast swaths of land that could hold more people. A big reason for many of these areas to be sparsely populated is that they can't easily support a lot of people. Many have the most fundamental problem of all: a lack of water.

It is one of the happiest discoveries of recent times that increased health and education tends to cause a decline in the birth rate. I vote for doubling down along those lines.

I agree with all the above. I just would add that I think KS didn't just refer to love for one's own kids but his/her appreciation of people that are 'defective'. This is 'way more' than affiliation to your immediate kin.

Ocean 10-25-2008 09:08 PM

Re: Tolerance is not the same as Relativism
 
I posted this before:

Quote:

A similar fallacy appears with the concept of 'tolerance'. Tolerance should be reciprocal, not just tolerance of the other. Perhaps one could argue that it's better to start by being tolerant, since it wouldn't be uncommon that the other side will follow by reciprocating. But, that isn't always the case. In such situation the idea of tolerance has to be supplemented by the idea of placing some boundaries, or protections to our position. Ultimately, the problem will always reside on where the 'power' resides. If the power resides with the more tolerant side, it's easier to maintain diversity. If the power resides in the non-tolerant side, then the risk of totalitarianism is greater.
Is that what you are talking about?

Ocean 10-25-2008 09:13 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
To summarize aemjeff and fedorovingtonboop comments. Your argument about historical data is inapplicable because as far as we know we haven't had 6-7 billion people in this planet before. We have been pushing the limits for a while.

Ocean 10-25-2008 09:19 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Confronting the Right Wing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a Duoist (Post 95274)
The "two world-views" which inform liberal vs conservative are bio-psychological in origin. We humans have both psychologies (the improvabilist and fallibilst) within us, but one usually predominates. Both psychologies, by the way, are very 'tribal.' If humans who are liberals do not believe they are just as tribal as conservative humans, they are not paying attention to their herding behavior. Communalism is, by its nature, tribal.

Agree. I don't think we have escaped tribalism. Being aware of it and moderating it is the best we can aspire to achieve for now. The circle that includes those that we consider part of our group can widen to include all people in this planet, all forms of life (animal, plants), nature, etc. And then we have other planets, and so on. I'm not sure whether we can in practice, ever do away with dualism. And I'm not qualified to go beyond this idea.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.