[syadasti]

but are you suggesting 'abnormality' equals defective? isn't 'abnormality' a necessary ingredient for evolution, or just 'acceptable abnormalities', where that can be more accurately defined as 'successfully sustained abnormalities'? think ghengis khan, not chaka khan

In our case a social animal which behaves antisocially can't be considered viable in the long-term (Khan's genes/culture failed in the long-term). On a spectrum a mutation is either viable and enhances its transmission in the species, neutral and expression remains flat, or negative and disappears. The fact that many are paired with others complicates things.

Famous related experiment (from the Soviets of course): Taming the Wild

Also from the mentioned criteria (biological, environmental, or developmental), genes are the only thing that can be passed down unless becomes part of a culture via something like religion which would see similar concepts at play.

Genes are like the social constructs of government, language, and religion - never static or absolute.

 

[Dogboy]

i just have difficulty embracing morality based upon atheism b/c of the lack of internal accountability for 'sin', or whatever it's called -- 'extra-moral behaviour'?

It's simply right and wrong. There is no need to frame it as 'sin'.

 

[$tinkle]

In our case a social animal which behaves antisocially can't be considered viable in the long-term (Khan's genes/culture failed in the long-term).

timeline going to zero, so will ours. will that then(?) be viewed as 'failure'?

On a spectrum a mutation is either viable and enhances its transmission in the species, neutral and expression remains flat, or negative and disappears. The fact that many are paired with others complicates things.

entropy sees what you did there

i would tend to believe there have been viabilities useful for advancing the species that have been snuffed out; can we tick off the number of geniuses who were only revealed as such after surviving societal pressure to have them terminated? we've all seen the pro-life bullets. good thing hawking got sick after he became "significant". who knows what would have happened the poor bastard if he were burdensome in his youth

Also from the mentioned criteria (biological, environmental, or developmental), genes are the only thing that can be passed down unless becomes part of a social culture via something like religion which would see similar concepts at play.

or state policies
i'm thinking of euthanasia, and other 'legal' acts which are anathema to most religious dogma

in those cases, morality is highly subjective

It's simply right and wrong. There is no need to frame it as 'sin'.

yes, but where is the accountability? using the example of 'mind-crimes', or acts b/t consenting adults, where is the impetus to enforce morality? would you not care if your spouse is running around on you, even if the risk for disease & disclosure is mitigated?

where does charity come into play? if i understand the atheistic definition of morality, charity falls well outside of obligation, & may even subvert the natural culling of the species, impeding positive transmission of viable traits. is there an equivalent to jesus' teaching: ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

 

[jimmydean]

Either way, it's belief in something that doesn't actually exist.

Rep is owed to you, sir.

 

[syadasti]

Stinkle, in the Khan example you completely missed the concept of the timescale/generations required to rule whether certain traits and cultural values were viable in the long term. Humans aren't as easy to study as fruit flies.

There is obviously interplay between the physical and mental factors that shape social beings - they don't exist in a vacuum separate from each other. Greater than its individual parts can be seen in everything from the simplest AI computer programs to insect colonies all the way up to the pinnacle of human societies.

 

[$tinkle]

got all that, but i'm not so sure we can say khan legacy has failed (i infer unviable == failure), as we're still studying it & talking about it today. his actions (such that they are his originally) echo into our legacy, shaping various modern doctrines, b/c as you've correctly observed, they don't happen in a vacuum.

we can't say aol & compuserve weren't viable in the long term while simultaneously acknowledging their influence today. just b/c nothing is badged in their name doesn't mean that branch of the vine has terminated.

do you see the futility of it all, since playing out your view, it must all end in a whimper? put plainly, hope cannot spring eternal without an existential rubicon to cross.

 

[syadasti]

We can say with certainty our current traits and social norms share few unique traits from Khan. There obviously will be some small legacy but his modern relevancy is minor at best.

 

[$tinkle]

so the khan legacy will asymptotically approach zero for the duration of mankind (after which we're talking step function). same should also apply universally for everyone.

i no longer find myself encouraged by this thread

 

[syadasti]

so the khan legacy will asymptotically approach zero for the duration of mankind (after which we're talking step function). same should also apply universally for everyone.

i no longer find myself encouraged by this thread

On the topic of grand delusions, how relevant is Zeus/Jupiter today?

 

[$tinkle]

On the topic of grand delusions, how relevant is Zeus/Jupiter today?

less relevant than this:

 

[kidwoo]

when this right wing fundamentalist is clamoring for more gun control, i think it's fair to say the debate has run its course

Well to be fair, you're crazy but you're not stupid.