Occam. - 31 August 2012 10:40 AM

Wrong, I was using “desire” in its emotional sense, that the less knowledgeable seem to almost get a joy from judging others.  I’m guessing that their unconscious reasoning goes something like this:  The people around me and my job seem to point to the fact that I’m inadequate, and I don’t like to feel inadequate, so if I can put down (judge) other people, I can see that they are worse than me so I’m not as inadequate as I thought.

Occam

I think what George was talking about is that he knows that people (all of us) do what we do because of the natural contingencies that determine what we do.  (Sorry if I am mis-speaking for you, George).  Similarly, I think that we all do what our natural and environmental and historical contingencies determine that we do.  So, for example, knowing that, I (theoretically) shouldn’t judge Carl Rove for being such a conniving bastard.  (But I do anyway.)

Occam. - 31 August 2012 11:45 AM

Nah, I’ve learned over the years that I’m adequate.  It doesn’t matter to me when I run into someone who’s smarter, stronger, better looking, etc. as long as I’m satisfied with myself.

Occam

Sure. Some of us are in positions of no longer having to compete for resources.
Some can do less evil than others but we have all done evil to the losers we competed against to get to wherever we are.

Regards
DL

George - 31 August 2012 09:05 AM

Well, I don’t think we can ever get rid of “evil” but evolution is not the only way to select for nice people. Although evolution seems to be steering towards the selection of less violent people, for example, the process of natural selection under which it operates takes a long time. What we can do, however, and in fact are doing, is artificially select against violent behaviour. IOW, imprison violent people. Once in jail, criminals don’t get a chance to add to the gene pool.

I sort of agree George, but many violent criminals have already reproduced, starting in their teen years. In the US, of course.

mid atlantic - 01 September 2012 02:17 AM

George - 31 August 2012 09:05 AM

Well, I don’t think we can ever get rid of “evil” but evolution is not the only way to select for nice people. Although evolution seems to be steering towards the selection of less violent people, for example, the process of natural selection under which it operates takes a long time. What we can do, however, and in fact are doing, is artificially select against violent behaviour. IOW, imprison violent people. Once in jail, criminals don’t get a chance to add to the gene pool.

I sort of agree George, but many violent criminals have already reproduced, starting in their teen years. In the US, of course.

Good point.  If we really want to help evolution decrease “evil” behavior by future humans, we should neuter young adolescents who show a propensity for evil behavior.

Note: I don’t advocate that.

I find eugenics disgusting and I can’t agree with any form of preventing people from reproducing no matter how convenient it may seem to our future. We may prevent criminals from reproducing or even send our kids to prestigious schools hoping they will get a chance to choose from the “first grade” gene pool, but these cases seem more like a matter of consequences.

Greatest I am - 31 August 2012 08:09 AM

TimB - 27 August 2012 05:30 PM

Greatest I am - 27 August 2012 12:57 PM

Of course it works over generations but it still produces the fittest and the worse and gives advantage to the fittest while the less fit will die off.

Regards
DL

It simply produces the fittest to survive to reproduction within a given environment.  It just so happens that it has produced humans who have aconcept of good and evil.  If we want to determine whether we can “help but do evil”, (especially in our lifetime) we can’t rely on evolution to do that.

Exactly and we cannot get away from evolution and competing for resources and those who lose out on those resources will die out.

You have to find a better system than evolution if you want to get rid of evil or even for you and I to stop doing evil.
For now, we cannot.

Regards
DL

For now we can and we do make humans less evil than they might be.  We could do more.

TimB - 01 September 2012 09:59 AM

Greatest I am - 31 August 2012 08:09 AM

TimB - 27 August 2012 05:30 PM

Greatest I am - 27 August 2012 12:57 PM

Of course it works over generations but it still produces the fittest and the worse and gives advantage to the fittest while the less fit will die off.

Regards
DL

It simply produces the fittest to survive to reproduction within a given environment.  It just so happens that it has produced humans who have aconcept of good and evil.  If we want to determine whether we can “help but do evil”, (especially in our lifetime) we can’t rely on evolution to do that.

Exactly and we cannot get away from evolution and competing for resources and those who lose out on those resources will die out.

You have to find a better system than evolution if you want to get rid of evil or even for you and I to stop doing evil.
For now, we cannot.

Regards
DL

For now we can and we do make humans less evil than they might be.  We could do more.

True. A lot more.
In our divided world, we are doing quite well FMPOV but without further organization, we are at the best level possible.

Regards
DL