Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 210 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#35920 - 09/02/10 02:13 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Family > Friends > Region I am currently in > Country I am currently in > Everyone else


OK gotcha. I personally find that concept immoral. Applied to other areas it goes by names like "nepotism" and "cronyism", and is sometimes outlawed because of it's overall counter-productive effects.

Top
.
#35921 - 09/02/10 02:19 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I think you got that backwards - green countries have excess growing capacity. If anything, buying from red (at-risk) countries would be a bad thing, as you would be reducing local stocks, thus reducing the local food supply.


Now it's you having it backwards. You say you're showing a courtesy to countries you're in by buying from them. At the same time you say you're depleting their scarce food supply. So it's not a courtesy, it's a disservice. I think actually it's not a disservice. Their low food production is probably often caused by low food prices (and low demand) rather than intensive, highly productive use of every bit of available land.

Top
#35922 - 09/02/10 02:27 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
courtesy. They don't have to let me into their country - the very least I can do in return for the privilege of visiting their country is to support the


That also goes against my feelings. The Earth isn't divided up by God to certain groups of special people. Somebody took it and persuaded people that it belongs to them, and they don't want to let just anybody into their private club.

What courtesy do you show to the people who had that land taken off them way back in history? It's an insult to respect the usually murderous thieves and forget the victims.

Would you show similar respect to a gang who controlled part of town at night for them giving you the priviledge of walking through their turf? Sure you might make a token gesture to keep yourself safe, but if it was me I certainly wouldn't respect them or do any more than I had to.



Edited by kallog (09/02/10 02:39 PM)

Top
#35925 - 09/02/10 06:22 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Family > Friends > Region I am currently in > Country I am currently in > Everyone else


OK gotcha. I personally find that concept immoral. Applied to other areas it goes by names like "nepotism" and "cronyism", and is sometimes outlawed because of it's overall counter-productive effects.


I don't buy into your morality. To not support your family and friends is immoral; its also a good way to not have any friends. That ranking is also a pretty good description of what evolution has molded for us - reciprocal altruism (the basis of conventional morality and human society) functions best when you exchange benefits with a set group, rather than "spreading the wealth".

And I hope you are at least consistent, and follow through with your "morality" in real life - making your kids, spouse, siblings, parents, etc, fight on equal terms with all other people in the world for your time, attention and support.

Somehow I doubt it though.

Bryan


Edited by ImagingGeek (09/02/10 06:23 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35926 - 09/02/10 06:33 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
courtesy. They don't have to let me into their country - the very least I can do in return for the privilege of visiting their country is to support the


That also goes against my feelings. The Earth isn't divided up by God to certain groups of special people.


Three points:
1) There is no god, ergo the point's underlying assumption is faulty.

2) Home ranges are a well understood biological phenomena, and are common to most motile animals. It shouldn't be a surprise that humans have them too.

3) The gods of mythology most certainly divided people into groups and territories. Take the Israelis of the bible/torah. Gods special people, fighting with others for the land god granted to them (despite the fact that the others were there first...but I digress). God frequently extolled them to murder/rape/enslave the "others" and to take their land. You can find similar stories in most other religious texts.

Originally Posted By: kallog

What courtesy do you show to the people who had that land taken off them way back in history? It's an insult to respect the usually murderous thieves and forget the victims.


And how do you decide who is the "original inhabitants", and why do they deserve special treatment? The entirety of homo sapiens million-ish year history is one of successive waves of migration, invasion and replacement. To think this is somehow "immoral" is to ignore the biological history of each and every human on the planet. If it wasn't for that process you so readily discount as "evil", we as a species would not even exist.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Would you show similar respect to a gang who controlled part of town at night for them giving you the priviledge of walking through their turf? Sure you might make a token gesture to keep yourself safe, but if it was me I certainly wouldn't respect them or do any more than I had to.


But you just answered your own question - you (and I) would give them the token. Even you recognize the reality of the situation, although the comparison between a independent state and a criminal organization is vague at best.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35927 - 09/03/10 02:33 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
To not support your family and friends is immoral


Can you support that at all?

Please don't define morals as "whatever people have evolved to behave like" or "something which makes you freinds".

Top
#35928 - 09/03/10 02:41 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

1) There is no god, ergo the point's underlying assumption is faulty.

If you remember me from other discussions you know I know there's no God, ergo God means something else. See if you can work it out.

Quote:

2) Home ranges are a well understood biological phenomena, and are common to most motile animals. It shouldn't be a surprise that humans have them too.

So what? Many animals kill each other. So do humans. Doesn't make it moral.

Quote:

3) The gods of mythology most certainly divided people into

Mythology is not reality.

Quote:

successive waves of migration, invasion and replacement.

I hope you would have supported the Nazis in their quest to create a wave of migration, invasion and replacement. Again just because something's natural, doesn't make it moral. You're frequently confusing the two.

Quote:

But you just answered your own question - you (and I) would give them the token. Even you recognize the reality of the

Yes a token because it was the easiest way to get what we wanted. You didn't have to buy local food in Africa, so it's a different case.

Top
#35929 - 09/03/10 02:46 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And I hope you are at least consistent, and follow through with your "morality" in real life - making your kids, spouse, siblings, parents, etc, fight on equal terms with all other people in the world for your time, attention and support.


By your own standards, that's a personal insult. You havn't yet justified your view that it's moral to give your neighbors(also strangers) preferential treatment to the detriment of more distant people. This comment suggest you may never be able to justify it.



Edited by kallog (09/03/10 02:51 AM)

Top
#35930 - 09/03/10 03:29 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

1) There is no god, ergo the point's underlying assumption is faulty.

If you remember me from other discussions you know I know there's no God, ergo God means something else. See if you can work it out.


Work out what - that you're not self-consistent?

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

2) Home ranges are a well understood biological phenomena, and are common to most motile animals. It shouldn't be a surprise that humans have them too.

So what? Many animals kill each other. So do humans. Doesn't make it moral.


Also doesn't make it immoral.

But in the cases of home ranges, it is generally a good thing for a species as a whole - it minimizes between-group competition for resources.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

3) The gods of mythology most certainly divided people into

Mythology is not reality.


You invoked god, not I. I simply pointed out that the very attribute you stated god does not have is actually a defining characteristic.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

successive waves of migration, invasion and replacement.

I hope you would have supported the Nazis in their quest to create a wave of migration, invasion and replacement. Again just because something's natural, doesn't make it moral. You're frequently confusing the two.


Godwins law, guess I win ;-)

As for the Nazi's , I wouldn't support them. What they did ran contrary to the best interests of our species - species thrive on diversity, the Nazi's wanted uniformity. They actually left a notable hole in the genetic diversity of the countries they ravaged.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

But you just answered your own question - you (and I) would give them the token. Even you recognize the reality of the

Yes a token because it was the easiest way to get what we wanted. You didn't have to buy local food in Africa, so it's a different case.


Which makes me wonder why you brought up the gangs in the first place.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35931 - 09/03/10 03:34 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And I hope you are at least consistent, and follow through with your "morality" in real life - making your kids, spouse, siblings, parents, etc, fight on equal terms with all other people in the world for your time, attention and support.


By your own standards, that's a personal insult.


How do you figure? I don't think I implied you were a white supremisist up there; which is what I found insulting about your prior comment.

Originally Posted By: kallog
You havn't yet justified your view that it's moral to give your neighbors(also strangers) preferential treatment to the detriment of more distant people.


But I did - keeping "charity" close to home maximizes reciprocal altruism; which is pretty much the entire basis of human (and animal) society.

I also disagree totally with your underlying premise - that by buying stuff from close to home harms others. Globalization - the purchasing of goods from around the world, rather than closer to home - has reduced the standard of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35932 - 09/03/10 03:38 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
To not support your family and friends is immoral


Can you support that at all?

Please don't define morals as "whatever people have evolved to behave like" or "something which makes you freinds".


Morals = evolutionary derived behaviors that allow for a functioning and successful social species. If something benefits the species, it is moral. If it harms the species, it is immoral.

That's why we shouldn't murder, covet our neighbors wife and ox, and all that - it weakens our society, and thus weakens the benefits we receive from it. Its also why we respect our families and work with others - it strengthens our society, thus enhancing the benefits we get from it.

I'm off for a week at the cottage as of friday PM - if I don't reply to anything you write for a week, that is why. I may be able to write a bit tomorrow; depends on how many lectures I prep...

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35933 - 09/03/10 05:37 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Godwins law, guess I win ;-)


Doesn't matter if there's a name for it or not. You're saying invasion of other countries is moral if it causes more diversity, and immoral if it reduces it. I suppose if the invading soldiers rape the local women, and they have genetically diverse babies, that makes a war more moral.

Top
#35934 - 09/03/10 05:39 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Morals = evolutionary derived behaviors that allow for a functioning and successful social species. If something benefits the species, it is moral. If it harms the species, it is immoral.


OK that's the fundamental point we disagree on. To me something is moral if it doesn't hurt individuals. Of course it's hard to do anything that's totally moral, but that's why nobody can ever really agree on the morality of various grey-area actions.

Top
#35936 - 09/03/10 05:45 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: kallog
[quote=ImagingGeek]
of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


Something's missing there. How does somebody offering to buy your things make you poorer? You can always refuse to sell it.

You maybe have an unrealistically romantic view of unindustrialized societies.

Top
#35942 - 09/03/10 03:52 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: kallog
[quote=ImagingGeek]
of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


Something's missing there. How does somebody offering to buy your things make you poorer? You can always refuse to sell it.

You maybe have an unrealistically romantic view of unindustrialized societies.


No, I've spent a lot of time in them and have seen first hand the problems they face.

As for your first question, poverty isn't defined by money, but rather by your ability to meet your basic need.

Pre-globalization, most 3rd worlders lived on farms, and fed themselves/their families via their own farming. Clothing and shelter was also quite often supplied from their own land. They may not have had money, but they were generally able to meet their basic needs.

Fast forward to today - land has been lost to large-scale plantations. Many people have moved to the city, where they now produce goods. Many, despite working in factories, plantations, etc, don't make enough money to meet their basic needs - food, shelter and clothing.

Bryan

You
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35943 - 09/03/10 03:54 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Godwins law, guess I win ;-)


Doesn't matter if there's a name for it or not. You're saying invasion of other countries is moral if it causes more diversity, and immoral if it reduces it. I suppose if the invading soldiers rape the local women, and they have genetically diverse babies, that makes a war more moral.


More moral than genocide - of course it is. And peaceful migration is better still.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35944 - 09/03/10 03:56 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Morals = evolutionary derived behaviors that allow for a functioning and successful social species. If something benefits the species, it is moral. If it harms the species, it is immoral.


OK that's the fundamental point we disagree on. To me something is moral if it doesn't hurt individuals. Of course it's hard to do anything that's totally moral, but that's why nobody can ever really agree on the morality of various grey-area actions.


But the difference between what you see as moral and I do is quite small - things which benefit society/species as a whole are seldom detrimental to individuals. Murder and violence weaken members of the group, thus weakening society as a whole, and thus are immoral by socio-biological standards.

When you get down to it, a successful society is one that has healthy, long-living and generally happy population.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35950 - 09/04/10 04:16 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

plantations, etc, don't make enough money to meet their basic needs - food, shelter and clothing.


You still havn't explained why they can't go back to their farms and enjoy the same old lifestyle. Was their land taken by force?

Top
#35951 - 09/04/10 04:23 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

But the difference between what you see as moral and I do is quite small - things which benefit society/species as a whole are seldom detrimental to individuals. Murder and violence


Absolutely not. In my home country there was a race of indigenous people living on an isolated island. They had a culture of pacifism. They didn't fight, they we happy, healthy and contented.

Then another group from the mainland sailed out there and murdered almost all of them.

That part of the gene pool has been pretty much obliterated because of too much peace leaving them vulnerable to invaders.

On the other side of the coin, Europe has been fighting for thousands of years, and all that fighting has partly led to industrialization and general betterment of the surviving people, as well as a strong defense against invaders from more peaceful places.

War is often good for future generations and survival of the species, but bad for individuals at the time. By my morals it's bad, by your morals it's good. So we don't agree.

Top
#35967 - 09/05/10 08:35 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
"If anything, buying from red (at-risk) countries would be a bad thing, as you would be reducing local stocks, thus reducing the local food supply." Bryan [/quote]
....thus forcing people in red countries to buy more from green countries, which they probably could not afford to do. Of course, people in green countries could donate their surplus food to red countries, in the hope that it found its way to those who really needed it, but even that is only a short term benefit because it undermines the ability of local producers to sell locally. Perhaps the only real answer would be a genuine international effort to help the red countries to improve their productivity and local sales; combined with short term support while that is made to work.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.