Posts by funkyderek

8

Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Morality and Religion

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

beyond dawkins' selfish gene .... how multi-level selection might unravel the origins of moral behavior and religion .... .

taking a cue from ants on evolution of humans.

by nicholas wadeto reach edward o. wilsons office on the harvard campus, one must first push through a door with a sign warning the public not to enter.

funkyderek

As much as I admire and respect Wilson - and make no mistake, I consider him an intellectual giant, an eminently talented writer and a truly admirable human being - I think he's wrong on this one, and that so-called "multilevel selection" always reduces to gene-level selection. The latest evidence seems to confirm that:

See http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19826595.300-altruism--its-all-in-the-genes.html and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5880/1213 for the original (unfortunately it appears you have to pay for the full paper).

Whatever the truth of the matter turns out to be, I love a good scientific debate and will continue to watch this with interest.

On a separate note, I was a little annoyed to read that Wilson and Hölldobler's book on ants was coming out in a revised edition, as I've just shelled out $80 for the original, but it appears that it's a new book rather than an update. So I'm happy again!

47

When Human Rights Extend to Nonhumans

by hamilcarr in

all these supremacist notions take a long time to erode.. ideas & trends.

when human rights extend to nonhumans david silverman/getty imagesalmost human a chimp at an israeli wildlife park in april.

spanish lawmakers recently voted to grant apes some rights.

funkyderek

BurnTheShips:

That seems a strange argument for an individualist to make.
How so?

Because it's an inherently collectivist idea, one I thought would have been anathema to you. You seem to be saying that whatever rights an individual has derive not from his/her own nature but from that of his/her relatives.

Regarding the hypothetical species, we may as well be arguing the attributes of an intelligent race of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Such things are not known to exist.

Well, it wouldn't be hypothetical if they did exist, would it? In any case, while such species (intelligent apes, not FSMs) are not known to exist now, they are known to have existed in the past. If they existed now, how would we treat them? Could they have rights? I think these questions are worth considering because they show the difficulty of drawing a line where no natural line exists.

The way we erect the ethical framework regarding how we treat animals will color our future decisions. To give animals the same degree of moral regard that we give humans by granting them "rights" will increase human suffering.

Nobody is suggesting we do that. The suggestion is to give them a lesser "degree of moral regard" than we give humans but more than we give inanimate objects.

I certainly hope not, absent the presence of another intelligent species than our own, perhaps from outside the Solar System. To do so otherwise is extensio ad absurdum.

Only because you insist on rights being confined strictly to members of our own species. Nobody is talking about the right to vote or to bear arms, we are talking about the rights of conscious beings not to have undue suffering inflicted on them. Certainly only (some) humans are currently known to be capable of protecting those rights, but it does not necessarily follow that they alone should be granted them.

47

When Human Rights Extend to Nonhumans

by hamilcarr in

all these supremacist notions take a long time to erode.. ideas & trends.

when human rights extend to nonhumans david silverman/getty imagesalmost human a chimp at an israeli wildlife park in april.

spanish lawmakers recently voted to grant apes some rights.

funkyderek

BurnTheShips:

It rejects the argument that, because a mentally handicapped human being can't make moral judgments, we can just torture and kill them. The test for moral judgement is on the species level, not the individual.

That seems a strange argument for an individualist to make. You are right that the article you cite makes the claim that simply being a member of the human species is enough to be granted rights, and not being a member of that species is enough to be denied rights but it provides no real supporting arguments for that claim.

What if a new species of ape were to be discovered whose members were on average less intelligent than humans but more than other apes, say where there was a significant overlap between the intelligence of members of that species, and of our own? Or what about a human-chimp hybrid? Or a (natural or artificial) mutant chimp? Would any of them have rights?

I am not opposed to some sort of sliding scale of treatment. We have an obligation, a duty to not cause suffering without reason.

I think that's all that anybody is arguing for. The obligations on us not to mistreat animals are essentially equivalent to a right of those animals not to be mistreated. You or I may be "colouring outside the lines" with our definitions of certain words in this argument, but when it comes down to what we actually mean, I think we are largely in agreement.

Perhaps in effect, but the language and ethics it is clothed in is that of human rights. This is a category error.

Those rights used to be called "the rights of Man". Perhaps in the future we will use a term other than human rights.

47

When Human Rights Extend to Nonhumans

by hamilcarr in

all these supremacist notions take a long time to erode.. ideas & trends.

when human rights extend to nonhumans david silverman/getty imagesalmost human a chimp at an israeli wildlife park in april.

spanish lawmakers recently voted to grant apes some rights.

funkyderek

BurnTheShips:

The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked.

Perhaps "rights" is the wrong word for you then? What are those things mentally handicapped people have that mean we can't just torture or kill them? Can't we give some or all of those to non-human animals of similar levels of sentience and intelligence?

5

Need a good scan of the live forever book page 93

by 1914BS in

i have found a real good coverup story here.

so i ask anyone out there can you please get me scan of that???

tom cabeen is going to like this,.

funkyderek

And they used the same image again in 2003:

alt

5

Need a good scan of the live forever book page 93

by 1914BS in

i have found a real good coverup story here.

so i ask anyone out there can you please get me scan of that???

tom cabeen is going to like this,.

funkyderek

Here you go:

alt

And a comparison with the original:

alt

29

Your Favorite Shakespeare?

by compound complex in

william shakespeare ( baptised 26 april 1564 23 april 1616 ) was an english poet and playwright , widely regarded as the greatest writer in the english language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.

he is often called england's national poet and the " bard of avon " (or simply "the bard").. what is your favorite work and quotations therefrom...?.

cc.

funkyderek

Sonnet 130

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

59

Do not go gentle into that good night

by Hortensia in

i looked this up because i was remembering it wrong.

i thought it was "do not go gentle into that dark night" and "rage against the dying of the moon" for some reason.

that was a little confusing because the moon has a rebirth and i was wondering what the author's point was.

funkyderek

Here's an MP3 of the poem ("Do not go gentle...") recited by the poet.

80

New Aussie craze KRISPY KREME doughnuts --What is in them? WHY?

by Witness 007 in

people are driving for miles to the few shops that have opened....many pioneers leave there own congregation territory to buy some 1 hour drive away....i took a box to my witness work mates...they acted like i was giving them gold!

poor witnesses.

they do taste excellent fresh....coffee shops like "starbucks" never took off here....were not big on coffee.

funkyderek

They're still going strong in the South.

No surprise there.

80

New Aussie craze KRISPY KREME doughnuts --What is in them? WHY?

by Witness 007 in

people are driving for miles to the few shops that have opened....many pioneers leave there own congregation territory to buy some 1 hour drive away....i took a box to my witness work mates...they acted like i was giving them gold!

poor witnesses.

they do taste excellent fresh....coffee shops like "starbucks" never took off here....were not big on coffee.

funkyderek

Correction to my above post:

It also mentions "partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil" (i.e. trans fats) although it seems that this information is out of date and they now use the less heart-attack inducing palm oil (screw the orang-utans!).

It seems that in the US, they no longer use hydrogenated fats, but use palm oil instead. In the UK and Canada where hydrogenated fats are still completely legal, they're still used.

See http://www.krispykreme.com/nutri.html, http://www.krispykreme.co.uk/Nutritional-info and the associated PDF files (the one on the UK site didn't work for me, but I imagine it's similar to the Canadian one).