tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896237156501813410.post7655396322056963225..comments2024-01-18T09:45:05.923+10:00Comments on campagnolo delta brakes: 1990 Toei wingnuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11016671831457597440noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896237156501813410.post-17368531392015497112014-08-22T06:39:46.669+10:002014-08-22T06:39:46.669+10:00Thanks Chris. I do enjoy our conversations. See yo...Thanks Chris. I do enjoy our conversations. See you soonwingnuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11016671831457597440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896237156501813410.post-29349595695091307582014-08-21T23:45:39.186+10:002014-08-21T23:45:39.186+10:00I think what you’re saying is your not confident w...I think what you’re saying is your not confident we can rely on altruism to replace religious motivations for doing good deeds on a global scale. And I think you’re right if you mean by altruism the doing of good deeds for others for quiet, inner, personal reward even though there’s no, or perhaps even negative, material benefit. Altruism, as an evolutionary mechanism, arose to strengthen the bonds of family and other small groups of humans, the context in which most of human evolution has taken place. It is a mechanism for close-range good-doing, and confers various individual and species-level advantages in those groups (correct me if you think that’s wrong). Our evolution to this point as a species was never “designed” to cope with dealing with the far-flung misery of millions unknown to us. In fact we evolved probably not to care about these things. One might say we are unable to care for distant misery in any meaningful personal sense. You might call this an “internal” factor and say it is unmodifiable, and you might be right. But even though it may not be possible to make me care about what’s going on in the remote lives of others, it might be possible (indeed I believe this is the crucial thing we need to do) to make me care about how my own moral behaviour reflects upon my own humanity, if even only in an intellectual sense. By this I don’t mean creating a gulit-trip (although this does work) - I mean moving our whole basis for understanding morality from the cave-days of “God will strike you down” to the acceptance of our intuitive understanding that morality, the sense of what is good, is intimately linked, perhaps tautologically so, with the well-being of conscious creatures (as Sam Harris would phrase it).<br /><br />How do we do this - well as you say we have to work on the external factors. I would call this modifying the environment. I’m not sceptical that this would be a game-changer. If we stopped wasting the time and lives of children the world over with religious indoctrination, and instead spent that time immersing them in the principles of secular humanism, I think we’d see a different world. Practically speaking this would include ethics classes based specifically on the core principles of human well-being as well as we currently understand it (which draws information from a wide swathe of intellectual disciplines such as medicine, psychology, neuroscience, social sciences and economics etc), as well as frequent and useful field-trips where students are literally giving their time to help those less fortunate than themselves. This is already happening in some schools - at our school the value of giving and helping in the local community is enshrined in the curriculum and involves all sorts of reward points and incentives and encouragement for students who involve themselves in charitable endeavours. If we were as dedicated as a society to this kind of “indoctrination” as we are to the religious kind, I believe we would see at least as much “good stuff being done” as is current under religious paradigms, if not more, with the side-effect benefit of having none of the massive harms that are perpetuated every second in the name of religion, or under its guise.<br /><br />I agree with you that the internet can, and should be, used for good. This is obviously already happening. Here are some links to some well known, non-religious internet-based opportunities for doing good. <br /><br />http://www.kiva.org/about<br /><br />http://www.globalgiving.org<br /><br />http://www.skillsforchange.com<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/foundationbb<br /><br />I agree that the secular world needs to mobilise and rise up to it’s potential. We need to accept the limitations of our inevitable cause-and-effect, punishment-versus-reward based physiology by better understanding it, and making it work for our benefit. More knowledge, more facts, more education, less superstition, less made up stuff, less religion - on a personal, and global scale - is the answer.Crtopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02095277829765513581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896237156501813410.post-35208186751316502302014-08-18T12:33:16.436+10:002014-08-18T12:33:16.436+10:00I think one of the interesting problems with a Dar...I think one of the interesting problems with a Darwinian view is how humans appear to be able to play in the pool or get out and look from outside.<br /><br />From a success of the species point of view, mass destruction would not be ideal. <br /><br />But I suppose from an overpopulation point of view it might be a evolved mechanism? <br /><br />I think I am not an atomist because of the beautiful order and symmetries in life. Just too ordered to me to be accounted for by the influences of things like gravity.<br /><br />I think I'll just go back to adusting the brakes on my 73 GC;)nonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07335536255132894074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896237156501813410.post-21349631033560475342014-08-17T10:07:25.545+10:002014-08-17T10:07:25.545+10:00Thank you for the comment. Biological altruism has...Thank you for the comment. Biological altruism has been shown to exist in social animals and can be explained on Darwinian principles as outlined in the link. Whether we accept that this can also help explain the development of what we describe as altruism in the colloquial sense depends on your point of view. On forgiveness, your point is well taken. But some might use the harsher light of an interplay between emotion and pragmatic considerations which determines whether one chooses to forgive or to avenge. <br /><br />Sharing common ground does not preclude arriving from a different line of reasoning.<br /><br />Atomist I am. Well, sort of.wingnuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11016671831457597440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896237156501813410.post-77771624636831344332014-08-17T02:42:46.087+10:002014-08-17T02:42:46.087+10:00Toei is one of those few remaining workshops that ...Toei is one of those few remaining workshops that have produced such practical machines for a very long time. Not one of the new builders caught up in the romance of rando, not that they don't produce bikes for such buyers. Long time craftsmen plying their trade with the meticulous care brought about by great experience.<br /><br />In a similar vein to your posting I think forgiveness is one of those actions that benefits both giver and receiver but is a sacrifice on the part of the giver. In so many conflict zones around the world the simple act of forgiveness would greatly benefit both parties. Yet it seems the need for revenge is much greater than the need for wellbeing. An example is the road to recovery that Rwanda is on compared to the middle-east.<br /><br />Not being an atomist, as yourself, I can't buy that every other evolutionary creature is not capable nor benefits from self-sacrifice yet man has somehow developed this feature via the same evolutionary vehicles. This for me means that this capacity was gained from another source or that all creatures do have this capacity even if we do not attribute or perceive it.<br /><br />I think it would be interesting if it turned out that the higgs boson reveled a creative source like gravity that explained many mystical systems but is simply available to all who know how to use it.<br /><br />I think your essay on commuters is well put. Their bikes are tools not toys. <br /><br />I do like my toys though...biciakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00659423813175282484noreply@blogger.com