About math and science

[justTripn]

I had planned on leaving this thread alone after my last post, because it was getting under my skin. The contention that one person could be inherently more valuable than another, for any reason... I will stop right there before I say something that I cannot take back. But I implore you to re-read and reconsider your words that I have quoted above. I cannot disagree with your position on wholesale abortion. There, we are on the same page, for much the same reasons. Nor do I deny that that everyone is inherently different. Some people are born strong, some weak, some tall, some short, etc. However, given that my father, and his father, and every male ancestor I have - as well as the vast majority of the male relatives in my family, were included in the ranks of those that were considered expendable enough to be sent to the front lines, I am not sympathetic to the idea that some people are too inherently important to risk.

I am shaking my head in disapproval at that "goal-oriented" point Elessar is trying to make, especially as it pertains to women, but I will say in Elessar's defense that I think he agrees with you Black 'n Blue, because one time he brought up the "some people are too important to risk argument" premptively (so I wouldn't say it) and shot it down.

[justTripn]

This is my point. Yeah, only some people are gifted at mathematics, but a whole lot of kids in this country will never know what they are capable of because the expectations for them by their schools, their parents, and their communities are so low. It doesn't surprise me that high school kids in the US suck but at 24 they're average -- I've taught both high school and college and the big difference is that kids -- even bright kids -- can slide through to high school graduation without doing much of anything but when they get to college they're expected to actually work. And why is it so many of the scientists and engineers in this country and the students in those fields actually come from outside the country? That's something we ought to be a little more concerned about. Are we going to have to rely on immigrants for the innovation that used to fuel the American economy? What happens when high-skills immigrants decide they're just as well off staying home?

Of course, maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe this country has ALWAYS relied on immigrants or their first-generation children to fuel innovation. I remember seeing a presentation about demographics once that said the first-generation American is by far the highest achiever. By the second generation achievement starts falling back to average levels. Apparently once people are comfortably assimilated they stop pressuring their kids.

I think one reason student in the U.S. suddendly work harder in college, is IT'S EXPENSIVE and they suddenly realize, we kick them out into the big bad world and they either have to sink or swim, so they swim.

[Distracted]

I also think it's related to the introduction in elementary and high schools in the US of "No Child Left Behind", which inevitably turns into "Every Child Left Behind". IMO, every child needs to be pushed to his or her full potential instead of limiting the pace of instruction to the capabilities of the least intelligent child in the classroom. But no. Doing this would damage the slower children's self esteem. So rather than take a chance that any child might possibly fail, we have all of them do so in the long run by not learning to their full potential.

[CX]

Well if there's a goal to our civilization, then some people are more expendable simply because the reality is that some people won't further that goal as effectively as others. No matter what that goal is, the general population at large is not going to be homogenously useful to that end. Some people will be good at some things, others good at other things. Whether we like the idea or not it's cold hard logic.

Now, for nobody to be expendable, then there must be no overall goal to our civilization. If the overall goal to our civilization is technological perfection, then in the ends to that goal, less intelligent people are more expendable. Obviously they are not completely expendable because they're capable of other things that are peripherally necessary to technological imperfection also - it's going to sound harsh probably, but things like labor, breeding people who ARE intellectually valuable, and a number of other things. But there IS a hierarchy to usefulness if we're being honest with ourselves in the pursuit of goal X. It just depends on what the goal is. Not that I'm personally saying I think that is our goal, but we should realize and not shy away from the facts because they're emotionally inconvenient.

If the goal of our civilization is a non-warring one, then I think it's fair to say men are more expendable, because biochemically women are less aggressive.

Goal-orientedness mandates a willingness to sacrifice, and a hierarchy by which some are considered less necessary to the objective of achieving that goal than others.

You know, you said all that, and it really doesn't make all that much sense in the end. I don't mean that as I didn't understand what you meant, I mean that as it simply doesn't make any sense. You're marginalizing people, and in doing so you are placing yourself above all of them in order to say who is more expendable than someone else, which goes completely against the principles this country is supposed to stand for - that we are all equal. It doesn't matter if we aren't for whatever reason, because the simple fact is that everyone is different, but the principle is what this country is supposed to stand for - that people matter. It's why people like me resist the double standards that have been set up and work in direct contradiction to the principles of equality and justice. If you lose sight of that, then frankly you;re the worst kind of person there is, someone who thinks that they are inherently better than other kinds of people. That's the kind of attitude that created the feudal system of lords and serfs. That's the kind of attitude that has started wars and has been the cause of genocides throughout history.

Speaking on the subject of warfare, since that is what started all of this off, it shouldn't just be about who is more expendable, it should also be about our commitment. How much more committed would this country have to be if women served in combat roles?

You try to use logic to say that men are more expendable, and genetically speaking, that's true. But by doing so, you reduce people to their reproductive organs. Does that really make sense to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me, because it seems to me that the vast majority of people spend the vast majority of time doing things that don't involve reproduction.

[blacknblue]

I am going to get preachy here. Fair warning. I have said this all before, but I am going to say it again. Feel free to skip over this if you get bored.

Ultimately the bottom line purpose of life is to survive long enough to reproduce effectively. By reproduce effectively I mean, create the next generation and get them raised up to the point of being self-sufficient.

That's the bottom line purpose. Survive and reproduce. Everything else is window dressing.

Technology? Tools that we developed to expedite survival. Customs? They are standard operating procedures that we worked out to streamline daily activities. Our entire civilization exists for one purpose and one purpose only, to help us survive long enough to get the next generation up and running.

Anything that expedites that process is good and needs to be conserved. Anything that interferes with that process is dead weight and needs to be pitched. That is the ONLY purpose civilization has.

[Elessar]

^To BnB's post... I respect that opinion, but it is an opinion. My argument would allow for that, because I simply argue that the goal has to be determined and then you know what you have to do after that. Your argument would fit into mine, where 'survival' just becomes the goal.



**Let's be clear first because you introduced some genocide examples, that I'm not talking about "superiority" in a broad, all encompassing kind of way. With respect to people, I'm talking about superiority AT certain things. For example, whites are superior to blacks at not getting sickle cell anemia. That's not racism, it's documented biological fact. African Americans are more succeptible to it. There are diseases that Israelites are more succeptible to, diseases that asians are less succeptible to. I can tell you THAT for a fact because a GIGANTICALLY smaller proportion of asians suffer from color blindness than Europeans. But the point I make has nothign to do with generalizing a person into a number like 42 and saying that Bill is a 42 and Bob is a 45 so Bob is better and Bill is expendable. No no. It's about saying, "We have 1 minute and 15 seconds of oxygen left and Bill can rewrite the navigational code to get us home and Bob can't and we only have enough oxygen for one of them. Sorry Bob."

You're marginalizing people, and in doing so you are placing yourself above all of them in order to say who is more expendable than someone else, which goes completely against the principles this country is supposed to stand for - that we are all equal.

That's not really our founding principle - our founding principle is that everyone should be treated equally under the law. That really was the original intention, in fact I think that was the original language. We're not the first kids on the philosophical block, and the introduction of and subsequent criticism of the idea that we are all created equal in ALL ways (as you are suggesting) is ridiculous, and has always been considered ridiculous by writers and philosophers throughout time. Even religious leaders have written about how we are not all equal but that it is the love of God that compels people to threat those with less or less fortunate with the same dignity and respect. It's contradicted by a hundred different natural examples. Babies that are born with a debilitating disease - are they equal in all ways to a kid born with the genetics that'll let him run a 5:00 mile? Of course not. Does that mean the diseased kid should be thrown off a cliff? Not unless you're a Spartan and that kid's fundamental PURPOSE for living is going to be physical combat. We don't have to pretend people are equal just to rationalize treating everyone equal. In fact, if we act like we believe everyone is equal, it cheapens our behavior towards them because it's as if if we looked at them AS the unequals that we all are, we somehow wouldn't be able to muster the grace and humanity to treat them as well as we know we should. Like if I were to admit to myself that the kid I see walking to class every day is crippled because I can tell he has cerebral palsy, that I suddenly wouldn't be required to treat him the same as anyone else anymore. That's crazy. We as a society don't need to follow an illusion of universal equality just to believe that it's right to treat everyone with dignity and respect.

It doesn't matter if we aren't for whatever reason, because the simple fact is that everyone is different, but the principle is what this country is supposed to stand for - that people matter.

You're mistaking my argument as a GENERAL one. I didn't say people don't matter period. I said that in a goal-oriented environment, you have to make choices. If you decide from the get-go that in undergoing some particular endeavor that you have a GOAL in mind, then continuing on the path to that goal is going to require sacrifices, that's just a reality. I was simply saying that sometimes people can actually be those sacrifices, and I don't mean on a daily basis or in a hum-dee-dum kind of casual fashion. But in extreme situations where lives are in the balance, it IS sometimes necessary to be able to prioritize lives.

It's why people like me resist the double standards that have been set up and work in direct contradiction to the principles of equality and justice. If you lose sight of that, then frankly you;re the worst kind of person there is, someone who thinks that they are inherently better than other kinds of people.

Your mistake here is to assume that I believe myself to be above the ideas I just argued for. You're wrong. It's actually more about realizing that in many situations, I'm the one I'm talking about when I talk about someone being expendable. That's the point of the argument that there are some things that not everybody is going to be good at. There are things I'm not good at. If I was in a shuttlecraft and we were rapidly losing oxygen and there were four space suits and 5 people and they needed someone who could re-write the code for the navigational system and I didn't have that skill, I knew nothing about the coding language, then when it came right down to it, a decision may have to be made about whether it's me or some guy who CAN achieve that, if say he's the only other one who can. Now, there may be mitigating circumstances that make me valuable in other ways, but the point stands that there do exist sets of circumstances under which it is necessary to prioritize people. Like I said, I think people just balk at it because it means oneself can be in that position. I don't sit here and say this and pretend like it would never be me. Like I'm the one making some proclamation that everybody else would have to live by. It includes me.

That's the kind of attitude that created the feudal system of lords and serfs. That's the kind of attitude that has started wars and has been the cause of genocides throughout history.

That's total BS and you know it. I'm talking about merit based or capability based determinations, you're talking about birthright and nobility and genetically motivated racism. And you're still not getting my argument of goal-orientedness. If there is a village of 5,000 people suffering a famine or a food shortage or starvation and they had some x amount of food supplies to get them through a harsh winter before they could hunt or plant again, and it is determined beyond the shadow of a doubt that some clan minority in the village has a genetic marker that means they won't survive more than another 2 years anyway beacuse they'll succomb to some terminal genetic disfigurement and it is decided that the goal is survival (IMPORTANT POINT because this goal is not presumed, it has to be decided) then YES, the logical course of action would be to ration food with a priority on OTHERS because you have to look at what's going to further the survival of the village, IF, IF IF IF, it is decided that that is the goal. If it's decided, or its felt, or however you want to phrase it, that 'doing the right thing' or 'looking after your fellow man' is the important thing... then the village will ration food out equally and those who are going to die young and not be able to further the village's population will die early and the village will simply have to accept the possibility that their fate may be the death of their village. I'm not condemning or condoning EITHER decision, the point is choosing what's important and making a decision accordingly. The simple fact is that sometimes choosing a decision means sacrificing.

Speaking on the subject of warfare, since that is what started all of this off, it shouldn't just be about who is more expendable, it should also be about our commitment.

Committment figures into any combat decision about men's lives, no doubt. But a combat commander who is just die hard "We dont' leave people behind!" and gets men killed, well, there's not always a right or wrong answer to that conundrum, but if he were to decide to leave a man behind rather than risk his entire 30 man platoon, who are you to say he was wrong? Maybe he would've come back with no men at all, or maybe he woudln't have come back at all. The most important thing about combat leadership is decisiveness and integrity, and if you have the option to go back for a man and it is your judgement that there is NOT exceedingly high risk for more fatalities by going back and that teh mission can be completed, you do it, but you don't just charge in there because your commitment is high. That's how you get dozens of people killed on a fool's errand, and all for the sake of one young man's family who is going to have to hear that he was killed - but is it better to back for the sake of honor and principle and have to then write letters to 30 young men's families?

You try to use logic to say that men are more expendable, and genetically speaking, that's true. But by doing so, you reduce people to their reproductive organs. Does that really make sense to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me, because it seems to me that the vast majority of people spend the vast majority of time doing things that don't involve reproduction.

Again, because I said if the goal were peacefulness then men would be eliminated, you think I'm making a statement or asserting an opinion - I AM NOT. I know you say you get what I'm saying, but you must not if you are arguing against what you percieve to be my point that men are expendable, because it isn't my point.

Like I said before, your only argument in this case is that I'm "reducing people to their reproductive organs". And yes, in this respect, with respect to the goal in mind, I am. Does that make my argument incorrect? Or does it just make it tickle your sense of right and wrong and make it seem wrong? It makes it seem wrong. But wrong is not the same as not correct.

If I'm making an opinionated argument, I suppose it would have to be that in some situations, trying to follow right and wrong to get the correct answer to a question when there is an objective to be achieved is like trying to draw a map when all you're given is one of those huge children's crayons and a cocktail napkin. You'll get somewhere but it won't necessarily be where you were trying to go. If you can be satisfied by that, then fine, good, great, grand, nothing wrong with that. But you have to go into that situation accepting the fact that you're using a blunt instrument to solve an intricate problem.

[blacknblue]

An opinion? Interesting.

Natural selection will prove that my "opinion" is verifiable fact.

Any civilization that preserves those aspects which expedite survival will succeed. A civilization that conserve those aspects which do not expedite survival or, worse yet, actively interfere with survival (e.g. ancient Rome or ancient Egypt) will fall.

[CX]

Since I'm big fan of keeping things simple, I'll just reply to a few things out of that monstrosity of a post (more does not mean better, Elessar ).

That's total BS and you know it. I'm talking about merit based or capability based determinations, you're talking about birthright and nobility and genetically motivated racism.

No, I'm not, and it's not bullshit. The US is actually moving towards a new kind of serfdom, where the lords are the people who have money and can actually afford an education, and the vast majority of people who don't. The fact of the matter is, what you're discussing isn't all that different, because you are marginalizing people. At the end of the day it's protect the "smart" people and frak everyone else, they're expendable bullet magnets. That is not the kind of attitude one should have towards people. It's one thing to make a crack decision when you have no other choice, it's another when you set out with the idea that anyone is more expendable than someone else.

Committment figures into any combat decision about men's lives, no doubt.

Did you feel that breeze? That was the point going over your head. I'm talking about the commitment as a nation to engage in any kind of military action. There's a lot of resistance to the idea of women fighting alongside men (or at all, for that matter) on the basis of ye olde gender roles and ideas of women being these gentle creatures who need to be protected, while basically shrugging their collective shoulders at the idea of some young farm kid taking one to the head because he "died for his country". So maybe if there were young girls serving in combat roles, we as a nation might not be so quick to rush into places where frankly we probably don't have any business going. It might be wishful thinking, but that isn't even my main argument for the complete integration of women into our military. No, that one would be the one about not reducing people to their reproductive organs.

As for the rest of that, you realize that I was trained as an officer, right?

Again, because I said if the goal were peacefulness then men would be eliminated, you think I'm making a statement or asserting an opinion - I AM NOT. I know you say you get what I'm saying, but you must not if you are arguing against what you percieve to be my point that men are expendable, because it isn't my point.

Look, call it what you want, I'm arguing the point. How's that? my point is that you're trying to use a type of logic that frankly doesn't make much sense. If you really want to be logical, give me a logical reason why women shouldn't have to register for the draft or accept the same consequences that men do when joining the armed forces (as in being sent where they're needed and possibly into combat) that isn't based on their reproductive organs. And to give you fair warning, I've heard the strength argument before, and it really doesn't hold that much water when one considers the realistic needs of someone serving in the military. Yes, the average man is stronger in the upper body than the average woman, but does the average woman really need the extra strength? If the answer is yes, then maybe someone needs to rethink just how much crap a soldier needs to carry with them, and do more to make those loads lighter. And besides, asserting that women are all weaklings is also saying that men are all big and strong when they're not. I'm kind of a weakling myself, and it was a constant worry of mine that I would fail the PFT each time it came around. I actually ended up in remedial PT at Field Training, which actually had the effect of making my weekly PFT scores go down, but that's another rant. Plus there were other male cadets who were weaker than I was, and who I doubt could carry 50 or more pounds over any kind of distance. But then, that's why when you see a Humvee or a tank drive by they all have their packs strapped to the damn thing. The point is that there needs to be a realistic standard set and either someone, man or woman, passes, or they fail.

Like I said before, your only argument in this case is that I'm "reducing people to their reproductive organs". And yes, in this respect, with respect to the goal in mind, I am. Does that make my argument incorrect?

Yes.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Since my nom de cyber is Kevin Thomas Riley I am reminded of the TOS episode The Conscience of the King. You know the one about Kodos the Executioner on "my" home world of Tarsus IV.

Just a thought...

[blacknblue]

Either every human life is equally precious beyond any possible price tag that could ever be assigned. Or every human life is expendable and there is no moral argument to be offered against every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. You can't have it both ways. It doesn't work. It has been tried, and tried, and tried, and tried. It Does Not Work.

If you have a society where one type of person (rich, or of the proper color, or or the proper religion, or living in the proper area, or the better educated) is inherently superior to the other types, then what? You have a case where the have-nots DO NOT CARE if they kill, maim, rob, or otherwise destroy the upper crusters. Why? Because they do not have a vewted interest in maintaining the status quo. They have nothing to lose because IT IS NOT THEIR SOCIETY.They, the have-nots, are not members of that society, they are appurtenances. They are possessions, furniture, tools to be used and discarded. Of lesser worth. Therefore, why should they feel any obligation to their "betters". The answer of course, is that they shouldn't.

In America, they didn't. That's why they came here. A bunch of rebellious bastards made a break for it. They came here, settled in, shoved the rightful owners our of the way using scams, brigandage, intermarriage, biological warfare, murder, and plain out overcrowding. Not because they were any better, and not because they had any planned out purpose either. But just because that was the nature of the beasts that they were. And when their "betters" back in the Motherland demanded their Divinely Anointed tribute, they told them where to stick it.

We do not have a system of laws that say everyone is equal under the law because we are morally superior. We have such a system because it was the only kind of system that the ragtag pack of rebellious brigands, revolutionaries, unhung horse thieves, escaped slaves, moonshiners, tax dodgers and general mischief makers would tolerate. It wasn't planned. It just happened that way. Because our ancestors would have risen like the pack of wild animals that they were and torn any other kind of government to pieces.

We can't change it now. If we try, we will end up in the same shape that every other culture did when it self-destructed from within.

[Alelou]

We do not have a system of laws that say everyone is equal under the law because we are morally superior. We have such a system because it was the only kind of system that the ragtag pack of rebellious brigands, revolutionaries, unhung horse thieves, escaped slaves, moonshiners, tax dodgers and general mischief makers would tolerate. It wasn't planned. It just happened that way. Because our ancestors would have risen like the pack of wild animals that they were and torn any other kind of government to pieces.

Nicely put, though I can't help thinking this wouldn't go over well on the campaign trail.

However, the founding fathers were, to a great degree, men of property or prosperous in trade. I'm not saying there were not idealists among them, but a cynical person could look at the revolution and conclude that what it really came down to was that the ruling class here wanted a better shot at dividing up the new world than the crown and ruling class there was giving them, and in return for that they were willing to give the common man slightly more freedom than he already had as a British subject. They also wanted to be able to push those inconvenient Indians off the land without any pesky British treaties to stop them...

[blacknblue]

The "Ruling Class" here was in a distinct minority and had just been given a very plain lesson in how the great unwashed over here react when shoved. Reading their personal notes you can easily see that many of the founding fathers were dubious at best about the idea of democracy. But they didn't see any other option.

[Alelou]

Yes, but even so I believe they restricted the vote to white men with property, didn't they? That's a fairly limited definition of democracy. Luckily it got expanded over the years.

[Escriba]

We do not have a system of laws that say everyone is equal under the law because we are morally superior. We have such a system because it was the only kind of system that the ragtag pack of rebellious brigands, revolutionaries, unhung horse thieves, escaped slaves, moonshiners, tax dodgers and general mischief makers would tolerate. It wasn't planned. It just happened that way. Because our ancestors would have risen like the pack of wild animals that they were and torn any other kind of government to pieces.

Well, I was going to give a speech about the legal system and the theories about it from Plato to Kelsen, with contributions from Machiavelli, Bodino, Hobbes, Kant, (even Beccaria,) Humboldt, Savigny (and Thibaut of course, one can't come without the other), von Liszt, Gneis, Feuerbach or Heller. But it's too boring even for me

Long story short: we have a system of laws that are the same for everyone because we don't like others to do nasty things to us. I can't kill because I don't want to be killed. I can't rob because I don't want to be robbed. Quid pro quo. Making these basics the same for everyone creates a tolerable civilization.

Just my two cents.

[blacknblue]

THANK you.