Moebius

First person shooters, real time strategy games, fighting games, sports games, or racing games? You know, any games where you compete against other human beings.

There's a difference between living in solitude and individual survival I think. For instance: But then you might as well ask for being supplied with a life time supply of spam and a can opener. However it is conceivable that a person that's trained and knowledgeable in such things can live, Robinson Caruso style, by himself. Of course that's assuming that the area he lives in plentiful in resources, and he faces no competition for said resources from animals or other humans.

I'm not sure I understand entirely what you're mean by equating "instinct" with "actual knowledge". To me an instinct is something that you're born with, and has nothing to do with knowledge. Although I agree that the faculty of reason is hardwired, instincts are as well - hence what I said about a man's rationality existing concurrently with his base instincts. Which brings us to this part: Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. Or at the very least, human beings possesses a portion of our ancestor's cognitive traits. The structure of the human brain consists of three parts. The brain stem, or archipallium, is the oldest part of our brain, which controls things like hunger, fight-or-flight fear reactions, and aggression. The limbic system, or paleopallium, which controls the emotions, hormone control, and social hierarchy. And finally the neocortex, which controls the intellects. All three parts are connected by nerves, and can potentially override each other. Now I'm not neurologist, so maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject could correct me if I'm wrong. But for animals early on the evolutionary chain, such as reptiles and amphibians, the archipallium dominates almost the entirety of their brain. For older mammals like cats, dogs, and horses, they have a large limbic system. For humans however, the neocortex takes up roughly 2/3 of our brain. Now, when we talk about "the faculty of reason", what we're really talking about is the neocortex. And when we talk about "instincts", we're really talking about the lower brain functions. In essence, what I'm saying is that regardless of whatever value system or reasoning capacity you choose to acquire later in life, there is a part of your biological brain that can, when it chooses to, override or influence your thoughts (and therefore behavior). So in conclusion: No, personally I don't think so.

Yes and no. I think it's certainly possible for Einstein's genius to exist concurrently with his dyslexia. At the time I wrote that I was actually thinking about phenomenons like savants, where a portion of their genius is tied also to their "defects". Or, for instance, if being manically depressed make one a better artist or musician. I think the Dawn of the Dead movie is a bit of an extreme example, although perhaps potentially possible. However one flaw with that example is when it comes to genetic engineering, it isn't "simply knowing what you're doing", because just because you think you know doesn't make it necessarily so. It could be the case that the knowledge you possess right now, while accurate in so far as you know it, isn't sufficient information to anticipate all the future consequences. For instance the man that invented a gas engine couldn't have known that a few decades down the road it would be causing global warming.

I'm not sure why whether something is natural or not is even an issue... But some animals chew the food for their children, some teach them survival skills. I'm sure the so-called "wild, primitive savages" did also, even if we're talking about how to use fire, or how to skin a deer for clothes. Bottomline is I've never said one should not teach children because it is "unnatural" because 1) I think it is completely natural and, 2) even if it wasn't I think it should be done anyway. By the way I also agree that one should use everything at their disposal to improve the life of their children, despite not stating it one way or another in the initial post to hopefully ensure a more neutral discussion. My only real issue with artificial selection through genetic tampering is that it greatly reduces the genetic variance of the population, and in evolutionary term puts humanity in a much riskier position. For instance, if every child was artificially selected, then Albert Einstein probably would not have been born since he suffered from dyslexia.

I agree that each person is born with no innate ideas, at least in terms of ethics. In essence I think we're born as amoral beings, though with the ability to form rational thoughts. However there are certain things I think that can be considered "instincts" that is biologically rooted into our psyche. That's what I mean by "hardwired". This is something that I deducted based on my belief in the theory of evolution. If I hold evolution to be true, that would mean that killing (or at least hunting and also to some extent the desire for violence - though violence is a loaded word that may impart ideas of moral judgment) is probably something integrated into our biological brain, the same way that lust and hunger is. I believe that to be true because logically it would appear that better killers or hunters would make for better providers for food, a necessary quality for survival. So unless by being born without innate feelings you deny the existence of animal instincts, or that you accept that we are born with instincts but that killing isn't one of them, I maintain what I said to true without necessarily contradicting your original statement. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean. I agree that emotions at its most basic level is a biological response, although NOT NECESSARILY based on a chosen value system. For instance when a one month old babe laughs or cries, I don't think it's caused by his or her value system, although it's certain an automated response. To be clear though, I do not deny that our values dictate largely how we feel about most things in the world. Bottomline is this: I believe that a man's rationality exists CONCURRENTLY with our reptilian and mammalian natures, and each influences the other. Though I would agree that rationality exists independent of emotions and values. I have read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There are aspects of objectivism that I like, such as the idea that a man should always pursuit his rational self-interest, that there is a mind-independent reality which we perceive with our senses, or that the role of art is to transform abstract ideas into something that can interact with the human consciousness. Honestly as far as I can tell the only thing that we disagree with, and I'm not sure if this applies to every other objectivist, is that I believe that biology and evolution plays an enormous role in the way our psyches are formed. This is something that we can agree to disagree with, however it does rub me the wrong way when you say something like "I'm not sure if you belong on this board..."

But I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me with which of my ideas run counter to objectivist ideals.

If every single person on this board has the exact same ideas, then why are we even here? Just so we can have a great big intellectual circle jerk?

How is it any easier to survive today as an individual? Unless you mean to live nude on the street hunting rats and house cats, any time you pay for food, rent, or gas, you're relying on others. In fact if anything we are LESS knowledgeable today about individual survival than we did as hunter-gatherers.

Does anyone here play anything other than RPGs, MMORPGs, and single player console/PC games?

But one could also argue that being nice to your neighbors does offer some survival advantages if the behavior was reciprocated, regardless of whether or not you're genetically related, since it basically serves as a community insurance policy. This is particularly true if you think in terms of the societal model that immediately followed the hunter-gatherer phase - the agrarian society. In an early agrarian society, the ability to produce food has propelled the population size from the teens into the hundreds or even thousands. However since short of the few specialized artisans and beauracrats, nearly everyone were farmers, it was always an extremely busy time during planting and harvesting. Since most times it DOES matter how soon you do it (since for instance the longer it takes you to harvest, the more crops you lose to birds, rain, or the seeds naturally falling off), mostly the farming villages took turns helping each other (I know this since most of my family 3 and 4 generations ago were farmers). This is why in most agrarian societies, there are always a large number of rituals, feasts, and festivals the revolves around harvesting and planting - it is essentially an arduous process of replacing GENES (coded life) with MEMES (coded behavior). Once the people begin to identify all the other villagers as "us" and not "them", our mammalian biological instincts takes over, and altruism works its magic. When you magnify this process further, almost everything from organized religion to fervid nationalism is aimed at memetic replication, with the societies essentially serving as competing SUPER-ORGANISMS (think Christianity vs Islam, or Capitalism vs Communism, or US vs Russia). Hence memetic (idealogical) evolution is essentially what we have now instead of a genetic one. Defined as such, I would say that altruism has in a sense left the confines of the flesh, but is still very much relevant in modern societies, much like a rock that began rolling down a snow covered peak.

Most qualities you would pick for your child probably isn't necessary for "survival", considering the infant mortality rate and life expectancy currently WITHOUT designer babies. Long-term happiness on the other hand I think is necessarily directly related to how good looking, athletic, or smart your child is. I mean what if you can create a child that is extremely happy, but also happens to be a dumb and ugly weakling? Would it then be your only moral choice to place happiness above all else? Feeding and educating your child is completely and one hundred percent natural... Even lions feed their cubs and teach them to hunt. I'm not sure where the contradiction is. By "feature" I was referring to facial features, and by "perhaps controlling his personality" I'm referring to the portion of your personality that is potentially determined by your genetics. If you don't believe that a person's genetic makeup has anything to do with his personality, then feel free to disregard that part, as that really isn't relevant to this particular discussion.

Assuming that currently there exists the technological capability to pick and choose the attributes that you want, from either you or your mate, to create your ideal child, would you do it? Would it be moral? And what would be the consequences? To be clear, this would still be a baby that you could potentially conceive with your partner. It's just that in this case you're able to choose from all the probabilities the most desirable outcome. For instance the child's sex, pigmentation, resistance to diseases, features, intelligence, athletic abilities, sexual orientation, and perhaps even to some extent his or her personality predispositions. Something that I thought about after watching one of my favorite films, Gattaca.

To be honest I think killing things is probably something that's hardwired into our brains. We're not the greatest hunters nature has ever produced for no reason. Compassion and empathy on the other hand might also have biological roots, which I assume accounts for the reasons why you're feeling bad about killing a squirrel. Objectively speaking though, I don't think there's much of a different between say, squashing a cockroach, swatting a fly, or killing a deer. The only real difference is that since biologically we're closer to a deer, we innately feel worse about killing it due to natural empathy. Likewise I would probably feel worse about butchering a chimpanzee than I would about shooting a deer due to genetic proximity. The act of killing an animal doesn't really bother me, unless in doing so we are damaging the environment in which we live. For instance the systemic elimination of large predators as it effects the ecology, or hell, the thousands of species wiped out daily from the bulldozing of rain forests. However, the intentional torturing of animals WOULD concern me, in so far as what it implies about a person's mental state, and the potential of those tendencies being transferred to a fellow human being (especially in regards to myself, my family, and my friends).

Since in a hunter-gatherer society, a man's chance of survival greatly increases when belonging to a group, it made sense for altruism to develop as a value that benefits all who buys into it. What Rand said was that such sentimentalities are a relic of our past that has survived into the modern world, rather than an inherent and self-evident part of human nature. Examples of a prehistoric man being more physically dependent on others would be in a hunt, where a group of men can take down larger preys more efficiently than a single man could by himself. Or when gathering, in which a group of men can acquire more essential foods and herbs in shorter amounts of time. Another scenario which probably occurred quite frequently would be if a man was hurt or sick, he could rely on the tribe to provide sustenance long enough for him to recover. However a theory more inline with the modern theories of evolution would be that in a tribal setting, where all members are likely to be genetically related, a man is essentially ensuring the survival of his own genes, at least in part, by protecting others that are related to him by blood. I hope this somewhat answers your question.

StarCraft, WarCraft III, CounterStrike. Also the Tekken series, Super Smash Brothers Melee, and Tetris for consoles. Personally I prefer competitive games that test your skills against others, be it strategy games, FPS games, or fighting games - even if I started out horribly bad at them. For some reason I can't seem to stay interested in any single player games for more than a month. RPGs also get boring for me after I've played it once over. However I especially dislike games that requires you to repeat similar tasks repeatedly for hours on end (read: MMORPGs). Sure it can be fun from time to time if you play it with friends, but only in between vast hours of grinding. Oftentimes I hear people say that it's the most playing time per dollar you spend, but the problem with that is most of the time I spend playing I'm not actually having fun since I'm just repeating the same things over and over.

To me the act of accepting welfare isn't inherently moral or immoral, regardless of whether or not you have taken "more than your share" relative to the amount of taxes you've paid. Furthermore, the "(im)morality" of the welfare system itself is irrelevant to the question of whether or not to accept welfare, at least from the perspective of the recipient. The only issue at stake here is the "WHY" with regards to accepting welfare. In other words, if you're on welfare in order to mooch, then the act is immoral. But if you're on welfare in order to get back on your feet (which incidentally is the way welfare is meant to be used in the first place), it is simply a logical matter of you acting on your rational self-interest, utilizing the available resources at your disposal, regardless of the end amount that you ended up receiving from the system.

Steve, I also subscribes to an evolutionary perspective. I agree that cognitive development was possibly the most important step in the evolution of our species. However with regards to this statement: While I agree that in the post industrial society, a very specific set of cognitive attributes became highly valued, I also think that it is unlikely that these attributes are a result of natural selection. Very simply, for natural selection to work, it requires the elimination of organisms prior to the reproductive age. While there may be economic and status differences between a surgeon and a janitor, neither of them are likely to die off before procreation. In fact, if taken further, I would argue that there really hasn't been ANY selective pressure that's based on intelligence since the advent of an agricultural society, at least based on cultures on the Eurasian continent. Most of those cultures both ancient and modern has consistently produced enough food to sustain a large enough population to tolerate people of varying intellectual capacities. As far as I can tell, the only real selective factor biologically during recorded history has been an individual's tolerance to diseases (ie. bubonic plagues, small pox, malaria), which has more to do with a body's biochemistry than its cognitive capability. Furthermore, it would seem to me that a person living in a hunter-gatherer society, would utilize mental abilities like spatial perception, problem solving, multi-tasking, and memorization, far more often and in a life or death situation (read: naturally selected) than an average individual living in an industrialized society. Hence it seems strange to me that when we discuss "achievements", particularly of an entire race of people, that we should predicate it on the assumption that it is due to their overall intelligence. Many of you have probably read or heard of a book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, which follows a similar line of reasoning. The central theme of the book is a discussion of how the world became dominated by Eurasian cultures, and the author essentially refutes the idea that it is based on an inherent genetic disposition, or even an cultural superiority, using evolutionary and anthropological evidence and observations. I read it far too long ago to recall all the individual themes, but for those of you interested, the book is presented in a lucid and logically coherent manner, a worthwhile read whether you agree with him or not.