Wednesday 8 February 2023

"Man Remakes Himself"? II

I disagree with those who like humanity just as it is. There is room for improvement. But no "improvement" should be imposed on a population by a government, the mistake made by Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic Institute. Fortunately, in that future history, the science of psychotechnics outlasts the outlawed Institute.

Christians address "sin." Buddhists address "wrong action," which I think is a more helpful concept. Our meditation group does not form a political party with the policy of imposing regular mediation periods in state-controlled schools! But individual members of the group are free to engage with others in what they regard as worthwhile political activities. Here we all go in different directions and I am not about to pursue that line of discussion any further here and now.

I thought that "Man Remakes Himself" might generate a series of posts but maybe we have addressed the issue adequately for the time being?

23 comments:

S.M. Stirling said...

Ah, but what makes 'wrong'? Beyond each individual's opinion.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Mr Stirling,

I agree it is debatable. There are conditions that I want to avoid:

actions motivated by greed, hate and delusion as opposed to nonattachment, compassion and wisdom;

actions that cause suffering for self and others.

"Wrong" is shorthand. I agree others can disagree about whether it is wrong. But the Way, or whatever we want to call it, is open to those who find it beneficial/enlightening etc.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

And I would oppose many of the things you advocate because I consider them hopelessly Utopian and unrealistic.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But the world is hopelessly dystopian at present. If we are to survive the current multiple crises, then we will have to do it on a different basis.

Paul.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

BTW, all that I was trying to in the combox alluded to was to restate a point of view as clearly as possible, not to get anyone to agree with it. As I said, we have to accept that that is not about to happen any time soon.

Jim Baerg said...

The sort of remaking of humanity that I would approve of is the very cautious stuff Heinlein put as the backstory of "Beyond This Horizon".

S.M. Stirling said...

Paul: dystopian? This is the best time to be a human being that has ever existed!

We have problems, to be sure, but they pale in comparison to those of, say, 1940.

S.M. Stirling said...

Paul: I might add that as an ethical nihilist, I consider all judgments of value -- good and bad, etc. -- to be purely subjective.

I have my own opinions as to what's good and bad, but I don't think of them as anything -but- opinions(*).

There's no -objective- reason to prefer mine to yours, or yours to the those of the love-child of Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.

(*) mind you, I'm perfectly willing to impose them on others, if I have the power to do so.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Mr Stirling,

I hope you are right but that imminent irreversible ecological catastrophe is not going away yet.

It is a commonplace that, if we survive, life will be very different even in the near future which is the opposite of the attitude of just a couple of centuries ago. I am optimistic that very good changes are at least possible and, if they happen, will then be taken completely for granted.

Paul.

S.M. Stirling said...

Paul: note that when human beings arrived in the Western Hemisphere, 75% of the large mammals became extinct in short order.

Pronghorn antelope here can run far faster than any living predator. They evolved it to get away from the 'American Cheetah'.

This used to be like the Serengeti, only more so, but flint-tipped spears from atlatls took care of -that-.

Human beings are an invasive weed species, besides being apex predators, and we always upset the environment.

S.M. Stirling said...

Note that -African- animals co-evolved with human beings, so they lasted longer.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Whether or not we live in a dystopian world, the things you dream of coming to exist are hopelessly UNREALISTIC because they clash with some of the deepest urges, drives, desires, etc., of human beings. People are NOT going to change the ways you would like them to, unless forced to do so. And, even then, only in ways both of us might not like.

China alone now causes MORE THAN HALF the annual CO2 pollution driving that "irreversible ecological catastrophe." And don't forget India's huge share of that CO2 pollution. And they don't give a damn about Western greenie weenie fake virtue signalling. What do you propose to do about them that WORKS???

Oh, yes, don't forget Botswana role in this!

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

What am I going to do that works? I can't guarantee what will work although we can keep arguing and campaigning for particular changes but what will happen to the world as the catastrophe, which is now well under way, continues?

Paul.

Jim Baerg said...

If people see their alternatives as between, freezing (or sweltering) in the dark, or burning coal, they will burn coal. If you don't like them burning coal you need to give them a third option.
I think that third option is fissioning uranium (and thorium).

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

We collectively have a responsibility to find a third option.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim and Paul!

Jim: Absolutely! The only realistic alternative to things like coal is NUCLEAR POWER. And the longer idiot Luddite greenies hinder switching to nuclear, the harder and more costly it will be do that.

Paul: And what do you mean by "collectively"? If you mean some kind of global committee of the whole deciding what to do, forget it, not going to happen, a Utopian impossibility. Humans being as quarrelsome as they are, you are never going to get unanimity.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

No. I mean each and all of us.

I have no strong opinion for or against nuclear power. Even if it is as dangerous as many claim, it might be a lesser evil. Those who are better informed on the issue need to sort it out.

Paul.

Jim Baerg said...

Re: How dangerous is nuclear? :
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html
Note that the only reactor accident that actually killed a bunch of people was to an RBMK reactor (Chernobyl)
http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/122016519/why%20on%20earth%20did%20they%20build%20the%20RBMK

There was one death extremely dubiously attributed to the radiation leaks at the Fukushima reactors. The fact that the tsumani that killed thousands cause reactors to melt down with 0 (or maybe 1) deaths from the meltdowns, tells me that from a healt safely POV I would rather live next door to a nuclear power plant than any other source of energy.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

But what do you mean by that "I mean each and all of us"? Realistically, people are going to disagree about both problems and how to handle them. And I don't expect all such disputes to be either peacefully or successfully managed.

I second what Jim said--I would far rather live next door to a nuclear power plant than any other source of energy. And, BTW, despite being an old book by now, Anderson's THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE gives readers a good primer on the basics of nuclear energy.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I mean each of us has a responsibility to think about it. Disagreement is unavoidable. So is conflict.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

That I can agree with.

Ad astra! Sean

Jim Baerg said...

As a follow up to my comment about 'burning coal', here is an interesting article.
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-billionaires-behind-the-gas-bans

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

I am not in the least surprised! Billionaires like George Soros and Bill Gates can have partisan agendas!

Ad astra! Sean