On Feb 2, 2:12 am, calibra...{at}freenet.de wrote:
> On 1 Feb., 00:57, mdj  wrote:
>
>
>
> > The point I was disagreeing with was that people will always be
> > corrupt because it's human nature.
>
> I apparently was unclear with the wording but for me corruption
> is really a result and not because of some bad genes or something.
> Corrupt behaviour is a means to get some other objective (more
> money, power etc.).

I agree with that definition since I too place my value judgements on
the consequences of actions, not the actions themselves.

> > In reality I'd argue that the number of 'corrupt' individuals isnt'
> > really any higher than the number of 'criminal' individuals.
>
> Corrupt people are often criminals ;-)
>
> > Both are minority groups, and neither is useful as a measure
> > of what it means to be human :-)
>
> You are arguing with the "human ideal" which coexists in nature
> with everybody and everything peacefully. I don't - for me a
> human is a skin sack filled with water, cells and funny things
> like bones - just like any other animal.
> What makes us special is the (artificial) thing called "civilization"
> which is a *method* that has evolved to ensure and maximize
> the well-being of the people (with more or less success).
> If you don't keep civilizing people there will be jungle out there
> and instincts taking their leading role again.

I don't think so. What is a civilisation but a large community, or
colony? Those behaviours are far from being unique to humans, they're
found in thousands of species who also need no artificial means to
maintain them. It seems clear to me that the instinct to commune
developed eons before there were humans, and is thus natural.

To me, the (most significant) phenomena that makes humans 'special' is
what we're doing right now: communicating, not just in a language
(since other animals also have languages) but by using a symbolic
representation of language that can be recorded, and thus copied.

> > And it's terrible. Is this however because *we* are corrupt, or the
> > system (that evolved more than it was designed) is flawed ?
>
> This works because of three reasons: The people not wanting to
> high wages (to maximize profit or to simply exist on the market), the
> companies using these services striving to pay less and less (like
> with materials) and, thirdly, the people accepting this kind of work.
> Of course: Lots of temporary workers simply have no other choice.
> And though it is far from illegal it isn't exactly "right" either.
>
> > IMO civilisation is an emergent property of our Darwinian origins;
> > cooperation increases the chances of survival and the quality of life.
> > If I called it artificial I'd have to call myself artificial, and
> > since I'm virtually certain I have no creator, I'm forced to conclude
> > I'm 'natural' ;-)
>
> There are actually three parts one would have to answer:
>
> 1) How were you reproduced?
> There's the natural reproduction which is still number one ;-)
> There is so-called artificial reproduction as it uses test-tubes
> but the "real process" (the egg being fertilized by the sperm)
> is still natural.
> And there are certain techniques that modify the egg or genes
> to get certain results. I consider *this* artificial reproduction.

I consider this augmented. There's an element of (ahem) 'intelligent
design' in the process, but it's insignificant when compared to the
process as a whole. I'll change my position on this once a majority of
the genome can be 'hand' selected and/or a human can be incubated
without the need for a human female.

> 2) How came the reproduction process into being?
> For many this is the real question. If your opinion is that a
> higher being created this process to let man blossom on
> (the equally willfully created) earth - like many people
> believe - then this creation process would be artificial.
> Even if "God" or whatever is his name decided to let his
> "nature" (sandbox system) do the job in developing the
> process...
> If you - as your reasoning suggests - believe in evolution
> and no higher being having a hand in the decision process
> then the creation process is natural.

Indeed. I don't however 'believe' in evolution, I accept it based on
reason and evidence. That's like saying I believe in gravity ;-)

> 3) If you define yourself as the person you are now today
> with all the education and experiences you had - would you
> call this person a "naturally evolved person"?
> How much of the upbringing of a child is artificial?
> IMHO this is equally tough to answer...
>
> Civilization however, isn't a personal choice alone: Authorities
> usually enforce it (to some extent) and if you misbehave you
> may end up not being part of the civilized society anymore.
> Of course you can argue with Darwin again but being an outcast
> still doesn't stop you from successfully reproducing yourself.
> Your offspring may even better than yourself - less criminal -
> and therefore more valuable for the society...
> (I hope you don't misunderstand the part with the "you"! ;-)

:-)

As I alluded to above, the emergence of written language marks the
beginning of what you call civilisation. Ironically, this is something
the religious interpretation agrees with: "In the beginning was the
Word, ... "

It's interesting that the root word of 'Authority' is 'Author'. It's
only fairly recently that literacy became a widespread. Before then
the illiterate had to defer authority to the literate, literally!

Of course, literature empowers people to disseminate ideas that are
both true and false, and in my opinion, peoples trust in authority is
where the corruption really starts seeping in.

> > As to wars, I'm yet to see an example where the protagonists were not
> > trying to enforce some misogynistic authoritarian regime. Prejudice,
> > which is one of our ugliest artificial constructions, is the cause of
> > much misery, no?
>
> Absolutely - prejudice is used as a powerful tool for much misery!
> Perhaps the most powerful of them all because it seems to work
> without the people realizing it.
> Racial, ethnical or religious prejudices - when used as a reasoning
> for enforcement of laws or justification for wars etc. you can nearly
> get every result you want. It worked several times in man's history
> - on very large scales, in "modern" times with the Nazis, too, and
> *damn* it still works: Just look at those African countries where they
> slaughter themselves and the UN does shit about that!
>
> > Not everything. Suffering is universally disliked by those who suffer.
> > Pleasure is universally appreciated by those who indulge in it. There
> > may well be as the saying goes "a fine line between pleasure
and pain"
> > but a line nonetheless exists. A line line also exists between light
> > and dark; the light bringing warmth, growth and safety. The dark
> > bringing coldness and death. You will find humans have a universal
> > appreciation of fire when placed in a cold dark forest ;-)
>
> Yes, but the position of the line is relative! ;-)

That only serves to make the actual line wider than is seen by any
individual ;-)

> > Of course, our language is full of colourful relativistic adjectives.
> > At times, the fact that we can describe something in relative terms
> > tricks us into believing it really is so.
>
> > How many of us havn't stood atop a tall building, and marvelled at how
> > the people below look like ants...
>
> Absolutely! Perspective is not only a visual phenomenon!
>
> > It's the breaking of artificial taboos that's artificial, not the
> > feeling of guilt. When you hurt another person, it's the realisation
> > of how you'd feel were the roles reversed that prompts the feeling
> > of guilt.
>
> This is were I differ fundamentally. In my book you "learn" guilt
> from your parents (socialization): They prime you and give you
> fundamental right/wrong, good/evil, black/white principles.
> In the cases where this job isn't done right (and our civilization
> is based on the people doing this job well) you know the outcome:
> People who kill mercilessly for pennies, their clan or their "honor".

Credulity is yet another adaptation that's common to the young of many
species, but none quite so pronounced as humans. The reason for it is
obvious: if you're both incredulous and naive, you'll quickly find a
way to get yourself killed, so selection favours credulity.

Of course, it's easy to abuse this responsibility as adults and imbue
the young with false information. But the fact that is is possible
isn't grounds to declare all knowledge relative. Surely you see that
the 'causal chain' of passing information from parent to child is
insufficient; it requires a "god" being to lay down the root law.
Indeed, this is probably where that very idea came from!

> They have a completely different perspective on right and wrong.
> You don't have to look into one of these infamous favelas to see
> this in action - other ghettos will do, too.

By 'they' I assume you mean a small number of individuals and not the
whole group. Clearly, if a large enough percentage kill mercilessly,
you quickly run out of people to kill ;-)

> Of course, breaking taboos is willfully done - and hence artificial,
> too.
>
> > Here you are saying: "Most people aren't corrupt, but they're afraid
> > of what will happen if they force the corrupt people to change". That
> > pretty much sums up how I feel about it too
>
> We saw that last week in Germany: The justice system has given
> an ex-CEO a slap on the wrist for tax fraud (about a million Euro).
> He got away with a fine of a million and two years on probation.
> This is a joke and there are several stories and rumors making
> the circle that his case has been delayed and the sum reduced
> by exactly that much to spare him a prison sentence.
>
> If this was the case and the verdict based on a deal - why would
> I call the judges corrupt? Because they accepted the confession
> (nowadays called "admittance") of the accused and spared the
> system an appeal - and the fear to lose the case completely.
> This - in very popular wording - sucks!

:-( We've tended to be pretty good about that here, at least with the
bigger fish. The medium size ones tend to get the treatment you
mentioned, which is a shame, since it devalues the justice system with
every 'corrupt' pardon that's handed down.

Matt
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32