Kiwi Dave wrote on Apr 20^th, 2019 at 3:00pm:


Hmm.  Nicole has posted at the sewer that she is not this Kiwi Dave, despite the fact (which she will not dispute) that she was the original puppeteer of that muppet sock which caused the ultimate demise of any sense of democracy at the sewer where voting once had integrity.  'Kiwi Dave' set the precedent that voting can be rigged and FD was up to his eyeballs in it.  Down hill it went from there, and I used that precedent, I concede, as FD's Constitution urged everyone to do.

While I am not completely convinced that this Kiwi Dave is not Nicole, the more this Kiwi Dave posts, the more I move away from concluding it is Nicole or even Agnes.

That leaves just one contender who was aware of the history of the sewer and "Kiwi Dave" activities there, one who had bucket loads of tickets on herself about her genius, especially in philosophy and psychology.  If my memory of Board history holds true, this person was once the Mod of the Atheism MRB here, and then more latterly when Vic was doing his clean out of MRBs abandoned by the Mod, The Barnacle got the gig.

Anyone?

Care to 'fess up 'Kiwi Dave?'

See this Thread:

Link.

Quote:

PZ547 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2019 at 3:35pm:


Hey PZ,

Thanks for a well thought through reply, which although brief, raises many issues:

1) humans having, or not having, control over their genetic make-up
2) why, if “god” exists, does he create such human suffering?
3) is human behaviour the result of their genes, or their environment?

Ecological theory would hold that it’s the environment that is the cause of human behaviour. The lettuce fails to thrive because of a lack of water, not enough sun, poor soil etc. Ecological theory holds that all humans will thrive, given the right environment.

You seem to focus more on “god” and genes - your cake baker. Is it the fault of the paedophile that he is attracted to children? Can the paedophile “control” that attraction and resist his urges? If he cannot, is it right that we demonise him? What kind of “god” would create such an urge? Are these urges the result of upbringing and environment (ecological theory) or genes (biology)? 

Your well thought out post raises many questions, none of which I have a particular bent towards. I would like to see a space, on this board or another, where we can discuss the human condition, without it being Jerry Springer style, which is what the Relationships board is in its current form.

I will continue to press to take on Relationships here, however am also in discussion with another board admin.

In the meantime PZ I’d love for you to flesh out your thoughts to my response above.

Quote:



Thanks, Kiwi Dave.  Currently a storm is raging as to your identity, but to me, it doesn't matter because it's the exchange of ideas which is important and even though I have only the one ID, I accept there are those who choose a number of IDs under which to function here

For me, genes or Nature (as in the old Nature or Nurture debate) is captain of the individual's ship

As to paedophiles, sex with children is how they're wired.  If it were sex with bananas, no one would care, but we're forced to choose between the paedophile and children, so it's no contest.  Unfortunately, easy access to kiddy porn has created a tsunami of paedophiles.  It seems clear that lust for children has been just under the surface all along.  It's disturbing and I don't know what the answer is.  Maybe it demands we should decide which to dispose of -- paedophiles or children?  While we're told women are naturally disposed to wanting children, we're also told about the biological imperative which points to men being most anxious to father children before they shuffle off the coil.  So who would be most in favour of childless societies -- men or women?  And if the answer is men, and as men form the bulk of paedophiles (just using that word for convenience) would the thought of childless societies motivate men to 'control their urges' as you say?  Only one way to find out.  If you read in the Childfree by Choice type forums, it seems to be women who most want to be, or become, child free.  Either way, I believe a halt to human breeding might have a chance of resetting the world before we destroy it through over population

I support eugenics, broadly speaking, and euthanasia.  People automatically yelp, most times, when those topics are raised, although I suspect more people are now considering the wisdom in both.  If I had a severely disabled child, I'm sure my opinions would be different.  But if we take a detached and overall view, surely we can acknowledge that some people would be better off if spared their miserable existence?  And it's not just their existence, it's the ruination of other lives -- parents, carers, taxpayers.  I've seen elderly parents saddled with a down's syndrome child. They live with aching worry about that adult child's fate after they, the parents are gone.  Let's not kid ourselves about the quality of care the child will receive, or about the abuse, including sexual abuse, to which they'll be subjected when left to survive in a care institution.  So the elderly parents, exhausted in mind and body, plug on, trying to extend their child's protection and wellbeing.  And it's the same for the parents of all disabled offspring. It's not Noddy Land.  The disabled are vulnerable and will be exploited when the State is all they have to provide for them.  Years ago, doctors allowed those children to die at birth.  These days they're compelled, like the parents, to go on living -- and what can be said in favour of that situation, other than that the child has lived another day

Mistakes occur in every endeavor and the greater the output, as in mass production, the more mistakes will emerge. We expect and allow for it and if a product (car or refrigerator) is faulty, the manufacturer issues a recall. The faulty item is scrapped/taken out of production.  Human breeding is the equivalent to mass production and of course, some humans are mistakes.  We don't demand or expect people to use faulty hairdryers, nor should we force people to persist with faulty humans.  Mistakes happen so why gloss over it.  Say goodbye and usher the faulty human to its next life.

As to God, I don't visualise God as an old man in the clouds, although I did as a child.  Now, I regard God to be an unimaginable intelligence. It's said that God helps he who helps himself.  That being the case, we should be furthering the human race, maximising its potential and removing all obstgacles to that potential, rather than shuffling along the same, self defeating path

still going …

Currently, humans are farmed, although they seldom see it that way. It might be an experiment which was abandoned and left to run wild, who knows

But, what is human life?  For most, it's years of being trapped inside schools being programmed to function in the world those before us established.  Children's natural behaviours are brought to heel.  The vast majority of children are forced by their peers, teachers, parents, society, to conform.  The most terrifying thought for those who govern societies is that each child should think for itself, act on its impulses and instincts.  So they have to be brought to heel, trained like seals to conform before they reach maturity, in the interests of a liveable society

Then, with most of their true potential knocked out of them and already indoctrinated into consumerism, they look around for a steady sexual partner. When they find one which returns their affection, they call it 'love'.  'Love' generally brings forth the next generation.  So humans find paid employment if they can, in order to build a nest for the raising of the young.  That puts them behind a mortgage and beneath the employer/s necessary to fund that mortgage.  Then the long list of expenses created by the offspring and the nest -- school fees, car payments, clothing, food, utilities, etc.

After twenty or thirty years at the coal face, the parents wave goodbye to the offspring who go off to repeat the process themselves

The parents are no longer necessary from Nature's point of view. They've obeyed the biological imperative and are now redundant, for all Nature wants from us is that we replace ourselves before we die

A few short years of retirement, or, these days, more years at the coal face.  Final tally extracted through aged-care and retirement homes and funeral expenses.  Ta ta.  Generation after the next.  And for what -- so the human race can continue?  And the point ?

Plants and bugs and animals do the same thing.  End result -- a planet filled with carcasses and bones

Apart from waste and some buildings, what do humans most produce?  Isn't it 'emotions'?

We churn them out, emotions.  Fear, joy, pain, suffering, hope, hopelessness, grief.  We're full of them.  We're emotion-machines.  We're at the mercy of our emotions, constantly -- irritation, anger, anxiety.  A dictionary of them.  They control us, overwhelm us, make us stupid and dangerous

It's why we value 'calm'.  The Little Book of Calm.  Some religions/beliefs exhort us to separate from our emotions, free ourselves from them.  We ask for peace, personal and world peace.  Our emotions exhaust us, weaken us, defeat us, control us

so whatever the Meaning of Life is -- it's connected to the emotions we're so rich in

Are emotions a form of communication?  We express ourselves through emotions. Take away the emotional component and we wouldn't communicate effectively.  We're blind without a display of emotion, albeit as simple as a polite smile. We demand an emotional response from out pets -- a waggy tail, a cat's rub and purr against our leg. If they don't demonstrate their affection, we believe our pet doesn't 'love' us

So we humans need acknowledgement and approval and we return it as a rule.  We 'bond' with humans and animals.  If we're particularly close, we know when they're distressed, sick, anxious.  So, despite our appearance of separation, we are actually one thing, we are one.  Like the jellyfish which is composed of hundreds of separate organisms, despite having the appearance of being 'one jellyfish'.  It's a colony, a town or country.  Humans are a big colony, town or country with all the parts giving the appearance of individuality.  Maybe the entire human race is an animal ... one animal?

The whole mystery is beyong our ability to grasp and understand. We keep busy with the payments, the problems, the emotions.  We're self perpetuating. We try to create altered states through alcohol, music, drugs because it's too big to deal with and lives go by so fast. We link to the past and future via our genes.  We should know more and have the mystery cracked after all this time and religion doesn't help much.  We achieve moments of respite but not for long. We're actually blind as bats and deaf as well and can perceive less than one percent of everything that exists

it's called Life and we're on a train that takes us from birth to death, no U-turns, no refunds, no real explanation.  And we're told this Life is 'sacred' for some reason and must be protected and nurtured at all costs, except for when we're killing and dying in wars, which appear to be as constant as birth and death

Most of our time is spent distracting ourselves from the pain of our existence, but it's polite to always smile and appear happy

We build things, we break them. We're no smarter than thousands of years ago, we just have different stuff

Why are we here, where do we come from and where do we go?  We don't know

and that's it

We need a point, a focus, so we busy ourselves with stuff and people, to put meaning into the gaping hole that haunts us and the question, What's it all about?

The most terrifying thought in the back of people's minds is that perhaps there is no point to us or any of this and perhaps we're like an oil rig, constantly pumping out emotion

who knows.  We don't.  It's time we were given a clue, if there is one

wonder what would happen if we synchronised and all jumped off a cliff?

Aussie wrote on Apr 20^th, 2019 at 3:24pm:


Nobody cares  senile old loon.

Aussie being friendly !

Quote:

Like sands through the hour glass, these are the days of our lives.


Quote:

That’s a pretty blunt statement, PZ. So to return to our poor old lettuce which gets no sun, you are placing the blame 100% at the foot of the lettuce, giving no consideration to the environment in which the lettuce is supposed to thrive.
I have no doubt however that genetics plays a key role in human behaviour, successes and foibles.
Take alcoholism, which tends to ‘run in families’. Is there a genetic imperative to alcoholism, or is it a learned behaviour? Knowing that children ‘mimic’ their parents and key attachment figures, it could be either. Particularly because the brain is wired in adolescence towards addiction. Hence online gaming is such a concern. I will try and get some time to dig up some studies on twins separated at birth. As I said to you above, I have no bent either way: merely a curiousity.

Quote:

Ah, now we dip into the political. I agree with you.
To the best of my knowledge, the only nation that has tried to reverse population growth, is China with its One Child Policy. This resulted in baby girls born in the countryside being murdered by their parents, and I presume as a result, a disproportionate population of males.
How do you feel about the west propping up countries like Ethiopia with food and aid when they have famines? I think the country of Ethiopia now has a staggering population of 88 million.

Quote:

I have some sympathy for Darwinism, but wonder where we draw the line of just letting the babe die at birth. I have had some experience with Downs Syndrome people. They appear to love and enjoy living as much as you or I do. You want to deny them life?

Quote:

Humans are not hair dryers or refrigerators. Hence human breeding is not the equivalent of “mass production”. And what makes you think the “faulty human” has a next life? And where do you draw the line, again. You’ve already eliminated Down’s Syndrome. Hair lips? Schizophrenia? You are on a very slippery slope here PZ.