Debate Everything

[Kat]

It depends on the nature of your job. Personally, I simply cannot focus on doing something for 8 hours straight, unless it is extremely interesting. All that ends up happening is that I get nothing done. But, at the same time, my job doesn't require me to do so. For one thing, I often have to wait for programs to compile, run etc., and I also don't really have any fixed time when I need to work, so my work is also flexible. It's not a lack of effort, it's simply that I work in a different way. I have at times done work at home when there was something I needed to run.

Ultimately, I do not have the same view of work as you do. I will try to make sure I get everything I need to get done done, but I am not going to rigidly adhere to an 9-to-5 schedule. You do not have to be self-employed to work flexibly.

My friend worked as a programmer in a machine tools factory during his internship and indeed there was time when nothing particular was expected of him, but you know, instead of procrastinating at Asian porn game forums (or metal music forums in his case) you can do things for self-improvement or socializing with other workers that are not doing currently anything.

[Cherry Lover]

Who the heck quote movies here? As for me, I bring up legitimate arguments from the field of bology and psychology. Our brains are hardwired to help relatives first over strangers because we spend overwhelming majority of our history as species in close knit nomadic packs that competed over resources. Homo Sapiens Sapiens as species is 200000 years old, and our hominid ancestors exhibited similar behavior for millions of years. It takes another millions of years of changing the nature of species.

Yeah, unfortunately your understanding of Biology is not as great as you are making out. We are, of course, hardwired to care more for our close relatives, but that doesn't mean we are not going to care for other people. Further, whilst we did evolve in certain ways, humans now have got to the point where our development has massively outpaced our ability to evolve, and our intelligence is sufficient to cause us to act in ways that aren't necessarily optimal in an evolutionary sense.

Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent. There's a reason we have animal rights campaigners, human rights campaigners and so on, and why many people actually support those things. Sure, we do have a bias towards people we know, but we're also pretty good at stretching the definition of "people we know" to an absurd extent.

It depends on the nature of your job. Personally, I simply cannot focus on doing something for 8 hours straight, unless it is extremely interesting. All that ends up happening is that I get nothing done. But, at the same time, my job doesn't require me to do so. For one thing, I often have to wait for programs to compile, run etc., and I also don't really have any fixed time when I need to work, so my work is also flexible. It's not a lack of effort, it's simply that I work in a different way. I have at times done work at home when there was something I needed to run.

Ultimately, I do not have the same view of work as you do. I will try to make sure I get everything I need to get done done, but I am not going to rigidly adhere to an 9-to-5 schedule. You do not have to be self-employed to work flexibly.

My friend worked as a programmer in a machine tools factory during his internship and indeed there was time when nothing particular was expected of him, but you know, instead of procrastinating at Asian porn game forums (or metal music forums in his case) you can do things for self-improvement or socializing with other workers that are not doing currently anything.

Yeah, well, I'm not "your friend". I will live my own life the way that I want to live my life. Plus, it's not just an "Asian porn game forum", it's one that I actually own, and I am not someone who can easily socialise with random people (plus, I work for a small company, we only have three or four people in the office most of the time, and I do talk to them when appropriate).

So, no, just because I don't fit into your narrow definition of how people should live, that doesn't mean how I act is wrong. Just like the fact that my sexual tastes do not fit with yours does not make them wrong. You have no damn right to tell me how I should and should not act, that is between me and the people who my actions are actually affecting (i.e. my boss and co-workers). If my boss is OK with the work I produce, then it is none of your damn business how I produce it.

[Kat]

Yeah, unfortunately your understanding of Biology is not as great as you are making out. We are, of course, hardwired to care more for our close relatives, but that doesn't mean we are not going to care for other people. Further, whilst we did evolve in certain ways, humans now have got to the point where our development has massively outpaced our ability to evolve, and our intelligence is sufficient to cause us to act in ways that aren't necessarily optimal in an evolutionary sense.

Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent. There's a reason we have animal rights campaigners, human rights campaigners and so on, and why many people actually support those things. Sure, we do have a bias towards people we know, but we're also pretty good at stretching the definition of "people we know" to an absurd extent.

People can afford to behave somewhat altruistically because we are not pressed to devote all we have into protecting our family and close relatives/associates. But during times of great need we would generally revert back to prioritising our families.

And yeah, unfortunately you keep forgetting I said being selfish is good when not in extreme way. Most humans are somewhat selfish.

Remember this all is happening in First World countries, generally. People in regions where you have to devote your most time on supporting family does not give a shit.

Good, I'm neither yours and I'm glad about that.

[Cherry Lover]

People can afford to behave somewhat altruistically because we are not pressed to devote all we have into protecting our family and close relatives/associates. But during times of great need we would generally revert back to prioritising our families.

Yeah, agreed. Hell, that's pretty much the entire crux of my argument about why society needs a social safety net in order to enforce property laws, because no person is going to let theirselves or their family starve just because theft is illegal (and nor do I think that they should).

And yeah, unfortunately you keep forgetting I said being selfish is good when not in extreme way. Most humans are somewhat selfish.

I think some level of selfishness is not a bad thing (protecting those you care for makes sense), but I think that being selfless is generally a good thing not a bad thing, unless taken to a real extreme and coupled with a lack of any limits (someone like MoS Shirou, for example).

Remember this all is happening in First World countries, generally. People in regions where you have to devote your most time on supporting family does not give a shit.

Yeah, and?

Good, I'm neither yours and I'm glad about that.

Yeah, I meant that in the sense of "I'm not that person", not "I don't like you", although the second is also true....

[Knick]

Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent.

Quick note, evolution is not development of sociological concepts. Please for the love of god get your terms right.

Compassion is not at all a biological trait, it is a sociological construct which no other, non trained animal, with a social system has developed, because it is unnecessary for survival. 

Now back to reading more papers about spider genetics.

[Umbra of Chaos]

Anyone who says but after the statement I would like to believe is lying. One can believe in and work toward a goal without disassociating reality.

the effective reply here is movie quotes and lies. At least, I suppose, I understand the boundless rage I get attacked with. It certainly makes more sense now considering your answers here.

Can someone explain what lantz is talking about?

[Cherry Lover]

Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent.

Quick note, evolution is not development of sociological concepts. Please for the love of god get your terms right.

Compassion is not at all a biological trait, it is a sociological construct which no other, non trained animal, with a social system has developed ,because it is unnecessary for survival. 

Now back to reading more papers about spider genetics.

Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

[Kat]

Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

Compassion is what certain species of apes call a particular response of the nervous system, nature itself is blind to emotions. It does not even care, because there is no directed evolution. It just happened that our selfish ancestors survived over selfless ones because they were more efficient.

[Knick]

Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

You underestimate just how much society influences people. New born children to not innately feel compassion, they simply act on their base instincts, however it is quickly taught to them though observation and so they adopt it. It is the same with many things. New born children are the best examples of observing innate traits, the ability to learn, desire for survival, the preference of those closely related.

Now, you are an astrophysicist, if what you have said is true in the past and so I will trust you on matter that are related to such. But please do not act like you know to much about biology.

[Kat]

Well, Knick, Mike probably thinks he is more knowledgeable in the area of law than third year student of MA law studies (namely moi). Scratch that, he probably thinks he knows better than everyone. He was infamous for being Instant Wikipedia Expert back at BL.

[Cherry Lover]

Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

Compassion is what certain species of apes call a particular response of the nervous system, nature itself is blind to emotions. It does not even care, because there is no directed evolution.

Nature isn't "blind" to emotions, because emotions drive how we act, and how we act is obviously something that is susceptible to evolution. Obviously nature doesn't care what we call it, but compassion itself is an evolutionary adaptation to solve the problem that, ultimately, pure selfishness is a bad thing for any animal that lives in groups.

It just happened that our selfish ancestors survived over selfless ones because they were more efficient.

Except that, no, our selfish ancestors did not survive over selfless ones. Otherwise, we would not have any concept of altruism or compassion at all. Selfishness might be beneficial on an individual level, but on a group and species level selflessness is better. That is why we have developed not only compassion and altruism, but also a concept of morality and of punishing people who act selfishly against the interests of society as a whole. The first encourages us to be selfless, the second ensures that selfish individuals that are individually better-off but worse for society as a whole do not gain a selective advantage over more selfless people.

Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

You underestimate just how much society influences people. New born children to not innately feel compassion, they simply act on their base instincts, however it is quickly taught to them though observation and so they adopt it. It is the same with many things. New born children are the best examples of observing innate traits, the ability to learn, desire for survival, the preference of those closely related.

Well, how exactly it is passed-on to children doesn't really matter, if it wasn't an evolutionary advantage then it would not be.

Now, you are an astrophysicist, if what you have said is true in the past and so I will trust you on matter that are related to such. But please do not act like you know to much about biology.

I am not an expert in Biology, but nor am I uneducated on the topic. I understand the basic principles of how evolution works, and I did study it to A-level (which is, I suspect, probably a similar level to about 1st-year degree level in the US), plus I read about things. And, one of my best friends is a biologist, so I do have discussions with him over it (and I do understand what he is talking about). So, yeah, I would say my understanding of biology is greater than the average person.

Well, Knick, Mike probably thinks he is more knowledgeable in the area of law than third year student of MA law studies (namely moi). Scratch that, he probably thinks he knows better than everyone. He was infamous for being Instant Wikipedia Expert back at BL.

I'm not sure exactly how studying law makes you qualified to comment on Biology....

And, no, I don't claim to be more knowledgeable in the area of law than you. I just don't care what the legal position on the matter is. The law is not morality, and nor does knowing where the law comes from make that law necessarily right.

[Kat]

Morality is not genetic, Mike. It is memetic. We are not born with instilled moral code as you can flexibly mould infant in that matter.

I'm not sure exactly how studying law makes you qualified to comment on Biology....

I read sources.

Haldane pointed out that the altruistic behavior could only survive if it helped survival of people related to our by genes, like for example saving a nephew drowning in a river even if it could cause death of the savior.

[Cherry Lover]

Morality is not genetic, Mike. It is memetic. We are not born with instilled moral code as you can flexibly mould infant in that matter.

Our actual moral code is not genetic, no, but the existence of morality itself is. We're born with the capacity to develop a concept of right and wrong, and a very loose concept of what exactly is "right" (i.e. "not harming others", in a broad sense). How we're educated affects the development of the details, but not the basic principle.

I'm not sure exactly how studying law makes you qualified to comment on Biology....

I read sources.

As do I....

Haldane pointed out that the altruistic behavior could only survive if it helped survival of people related to our by genes, like for example saving a nephew drowning in a river even if it could cause death of the savior.

Right, and everyone on the planet is related to you in some manner, so that is hardly much of a restriction....

Further, whilst that is the original reason for it evolving, that is simply the cause of the base emotion, not necessarily an explanation for everything we do in response to it. As has been pointed out several times, the way we interpret that emotion and what causes it is also somewhat determined by society, particularly in situations where evolutionary pressures are lesser (i.e. in richer countries).

[Knick]

If you understand what evolution is, then please give a definition. It would be a good way to see if you actually know what it is.

Also Kat, I am a senior biology major, I have gone to more biological seminars and read more papers then probably all of you. This is not Wikipedia knowledge. Although Wikipedia is a good way to find articles and direct sources it is not where I am pulling this from.

Also morality is completely a social construct. There is nothing to imply it is a biological trait. The ability to determine right and wrong comes from human's reliance on a social system to function. One who does not have a social system, such as wild people, will not have any definition of those terms or way to distinguish it as a concept.

[Kat]

As do I....

It depends what sources you read. If you tell me it's from Wikipedia, I'll roll on the floor laughing.

Our actual moral code is not genetic, no, but the existence of morality itself is. We're born with the capacity to develop a concept of right and wrong, and a very loose concept of what exactly is "right" (i.e. "not harming others", in a broad sense). How we're educated affects the development of the details, but not the basic principle.

There is no basic idea of good and evil ingrained in our genes, because morality is ultimately subjective. People develop morality because they tend to copy behavior of others, there is nothing particular in that mechanism that leads you specifically to developing morality.

Knick, never said you are using Wikipedia knowledge. Myself, I ignored Wikipedia completely, and just looked for sociobiologists who wrote papers on evolution of altruistic behaviors.

I very RARELY visit Wikipedia. I'm used to reading books, online or paper.