@Fido,
Fido wrote:The old conclusion that form follows function still holds true, so even our building blocks tend to a certain shape... Let me point out that in the example of the Dog, evolution was managed by humans in a blink of an eye in time... Suddenly dogs were domesticated by selecting for a few simple traits we found desirable...
You're not describing evolution.
Fido wrote:It is because we have done the same with our entire environments that we have not evolved but adapted... If the form of our dwelling did not work in our climate, we changed our form of dwelling... We changed what we could change so we could remain the same...
Evolution is based on "fit." Fitness is how well a organism is adapted to its environment. Humans achieve fitness by manipulating their environment. This is different than the domestication of livestock and dogs.
Fido wrote:And we have, but much of what we do is not healthy for the species or life on earth, and it is because of our particular view of good... Out of an abstract concept of good, people have allowed their social forms to actually draw them away from moral living, break up their communities, and turn them all into individuals...
You're reaching.
I'll agree that much of what we do is not good for life on earth (sustainability), but it isn't from some abandonment of "moral living." What has enabled these things is not individualism as much as protectionism.
Fido wrote:All the progress of the last thousand years has been at the expense of the human misery, loneliness, anxiety, and neurosis, along with general poverty, and war... And such pain would not be conceivable without the breakup of communities into so many individuals, so the whole is immorallity on immorality.
Not conceivable? Uh. History disagrees. Certainly imperialism and nationalism are greater contributors to our greatest wars.
Also, what is with this "last 1000 years" bit? What of your argument prior to this time?
You're composing.
Fido wrote:Look at some cultures like the Muslims which have managed morality and to keep communities intact which produce very intelligent people but no technology... It is because if they do not allow the exploitation of their individuals then excess wealth, capital cannot be created...
Simply put, this is factually false. The top of the ladder enjoys plenty of western technology and even western educations. The denial of access to technology and education is meant to galvanize a caste society.
Additionally, Muslims in the west aren't as primitive as you paint them here. They get engineering degrees and work in scientific fields. Saying "Muslim culture" is a useless identifier because you are relying on a type of cultural homogeny that simply does not exist.
Fido wrote:So our forms have first wrecked moral natural relationships, and has now reached the point where it endangers all life... Certainly, natural communities where ethics and morality got their meaning were often in conflict with each other, but it was small scale, and tended to keep all healthy and intelligent and honorable...
Because you say so.
Fido wrote:There was a point were the Muslims advanced science, medicine, history, and philosophy generally and did not endanger moral relations... I think it is unfortunate that Suffi Islam turned Islam away from physics and science in general. .. But they have not nuked anyone yet...
Muslims still do.
Fido wrote:Morality, though it does not prevent knowledge does inhibit its use against humanity, if one considers themselves a part of the human community... Morality does no concern ones behavior outside of community unless it is likely to affect the community... The modern conception of the individual sets him apart from all communities...
Morality is not an institution.
Your concept of community is archaic. Strong communities exist in contemporary times. It is that now to be a part of the community, you simply no longer must be the same. Concepts like diversity have strengthened community. Individualism is not the enemy of community. That is a false dilemma.
Fido wrote:Will you be less or more dead regardless???
I might not be dead. This is my point. Your statement that we may die from knowledge or by stupidity is a foolish equivocation.
Fido wrote:Einstien was what all scientist should be, what all philosophers are... In fact, since morals continually put us at odds with others it should always be the first consideration of every person... The problem is that with all our communities fractured, no one has the perspective, that is, the community perspective from which to judge their own behavior... Scientist in judging their behavior by scientist can justify anything...
Morals are put at odds with other morals. Now what? Stop addressing morals like they are established in stone, or that they are some annual publication put out by those who (unlike us) somehow get it.
Fido wrote:There is no inherent morality to physics, which is the problem...
There is no inherent morality to ANYTHING. It is not that morality does not enter scientific discussions, and I'd say that most scientific endeavors begin with a moral beckoning to a cause.
Tell me how physics is a problem, specifically. It's not a man's scientific knowledge, but his philosophical knowledge that will enable him to justify anything. Don't put the moral receipt on the lap of science.
Fido wrote:And you are correct that poverty is related to life styles, and the answer is not to hand poor people money....
Interesting that this is how you interpreted this statement. I was thinking more that our desire to have things cheap and accessible harms other third world countries. Would we buy apples out of season from Argentina at a fair trade value? I doubt it, but we get them at a cheap price, and that price represents a farmer somewhere who got paid virtually nothing for their labor.
You took my statement RE: lifestyle to be about the poor being a product of their lifestyle and addressed the idea of handouts.
Fido wrote:Nor is it to deny them money or technology, but to hand them technology without working on the moral understanding, which we cannot do from a position of moral ignorance, is more insanity... People who are slaves to their want of technology are no more moral than those who are slaves to the technology, or slaves as the technology... Slaves are not moral, and morality is essential to freedom and democracy...
Forget technology. It's not the source of our problem. Just buy apples at a fair price or only in season.
Fido wrote:A plutocracy based upon science and technology is not going to produce a more moral humanity...
No threat of a plutocracy anywhere I see. Quite opposite, we see the threat of religious orthodoxy and its moralists.
A society based in science is not going to produce a more moral humanity? Compared to what exactly?
Fido wrote:Technology first made capture and slavery preferable to cannibalism... If technology did not make possible excess exploitation no civilization would be possible, but what has happened, and happens today, is that exploitation knows no moral bounds, and people in the end are exploited to death or just killed so their goods can be taken over... Is there a moral justification for war, or the use of technology for war... But, scientists are for the most part only hired help, and their inventions and discoveries are no more their property than one making hubcaps...
Technology is not to blame for any of this. Quite ironic on your choice of slavery, since the advent of the industrial age largely changed our agricultural labor methods. Even if we assumed the worst intentions and morals of the cotton farmer, they'd still be more inclined to use machinery instead of human slaves in the modern day. Do you disagree?
Having said that, if you want to blame slavery on our maritime technology that allowed for trans-Atlantic shipping, you're ignoring that slavery is older than the bronze age. The correlation between technology and human exploitation is inverse of what you imply.
I'd like to reply, but you got some code sorted wrong.
