On 1-5-2009 22:51, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I am an atheist who is firmly 
>> rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me 
>> the creeps.
> 
>   Well, someone could have a philosophy like: "I'm only an individual,
> I cannot affect the grand scale of things. I'm poor and I don't have
> children, there's nothing I can leave them as inheritance, not even a
> better world, both because I don't have children and because I can't make
> the world better. The world will follow its course regardless of what
> I do, so stressing about the world being destroyed would be useless,
> even if this destruction happened in my lifetime, much more useless if
> it happens hundreds of years after I'm dead."

That could be the case if he had said 'If *I* don't exist...' but he 
said 'If you don't exist...' meaning either Chambers or any human 
person. So that won't work.

>   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
> my case.

I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god 
fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and 
desperados. But it is a reasonable position.

>   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> Maybe nihilism?)

Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in 
a flamewar, so I won't. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   It's sad, really.

If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other 
species is perfectly natural.  I am quite sure that many of the species 
to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until 
another species came along and bumped them off.

The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any 
right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time. 
Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.

As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during 
the time of the earth's existence, from many causes.  This time around, 
man happens to be one of those causes.  That is no more wrong than for a 
shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to 
cause a massive die-off as well.

And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place 
for any other species to arise.  We owe our own existence to the fact 
that our niche was vacant when we came along.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2009 23:20, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:49F### [at] hotmailcom...
>> * The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or
>> institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an
>> entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )
> 
> I'm an atheist too, and this is how it works: I care about what happens
> during my lifetime, nothing else. Someone 20 years my senior cares about
> what happens during *his* lifetime, which falls 20 years short of my period
> of interest. Someone 20 years my junior has a vested interest in an
> additional 20 years after my expiry. In the end, if everybody is selfish, as
> they should be, it forms a continuum and it all works out 

I assume you would not be surprised if I told you that that is not true 
and the only symmetrical (but non-stable) solution is for everybody to 
be non-selfish.

> - well, as
> smoothly as anything works out in nature, which may not be saying much.
> While recognizing that different people have different expectations, it
> would be foolish of me to trade mine for someone else's. Just as I don't
> expect a 15 year old to care for the types of things I care, you cannot
> expect me to care for the things that a 15 year old should.
> 
> Buxton index for individuals is simple. $1M to a person at age 20 is the
> same worth as $10M to a person at age 60 and $inf to a person in
> deathbed/grave. 

The buxton index is about planning not about money.

> It's the aforementioned overlap across generations is what
> makes institutions or corporations behave unlike individuals. But, to state
> what should be painfully obvious but apparently is not, I am not an
> institution. 

I don't remember anyone suggesting that you are.

> Those who accuse me of inconsistency miss the obvious that my
> personal expectations and even values can, and should be, different from
> what I expect from institutions, corporates or governments. I don't need to
> do as what I lobby for the government to do, for instance.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:49F### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 1-5-2009 20:57, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

> >>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> >>>         You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments?
Godwins Law, etc?
> >>>         I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points
out the
> >>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
> >>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
> >>   I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was
meaningless
> >> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid
opinion,
> >> which makes a point.
> >
> > The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> > assumptions that are not commonly shared.

> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
>
> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.

I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards) the
self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or
"(voluntarily) voting in a general election is irrational". It's neither
meant as a moral judgement, nor a redundant and/or rude declaration of the
falsity of the previous poster's views.

Post a reply to this message

On 1-5-2009 23:40, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
>> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> 
> I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards) the
> self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or
> "(voluntarily) voting in a general election is irrational". It's neither
> meant as a moral judgement, nor a redundant and/or rude declaration of the
> falsity of the previous poster's views.
> 
Well, now you know other people use that word with a different meaning 
;) Ah, the joys of a multicultural newsgroup.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in 
> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)

I would suggest objectivism as a pretty good term to use for this sort 
of ethical position (which is not too far off of neo-capitalism in some 
ways).

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fb2399$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > What makes you think they listen to me (or you, for that matter)? I may
not
> > be a part of LHC's reality, but LHC is a part of mine. Besides,
consistency
> > is not a virtue.
>
> Yes, so don't preclude something happening 500 years down the road
> being someone's reality.

It cannot be *my* reality. And if it is not my reality, I cannot possibly or
honestly make the claim that it's anybody else's reality. Thus it's nobody's
reality.

> And lack of consistency always works when pointed out...

I'm consistently inconsistent. But in this case, I'm not even inconsistent.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49fb60ef@news.povray.org...
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> > I am an atheist who is firmly
> > rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me
> > the creeps.

>   Well, someone could have a philosophy like: "I'm only an individual,
> I cannot affect the grand scale of things. I'm poor and I don't have
> children, there's nothing I can leave them as inheritance, not even a
> better world, both because I don't have children and because I can't make
> the world better. The world will follow its course regardless of what
> I do, so stressing about the world being destroyed would be useless,
> even if this destruction happened in my lifetime, much more useless if
> it happens hundreds of years after I'm dead."

More or less, but without the undertones of desperation or self-pity.

>   I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
> my case.
>
>   (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> Maybe nihilism?)

Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
>> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
>> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
>> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
>> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
>>
>> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
>> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> 
> I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards) the
> self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or

	And how do you suddenly declare that being concerned about the universe
a few hundred years from now is "not benefiting the self".

	It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
definition) for others.


-- 
(Ice rocks hit the hull)  "Captain, we are being hailed."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
> would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?

Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is 
espoused by the state.  Other than that, probably apathy, but some might 
not consider that a "school of thought".

Post a reply to this message