If you’re going to completely eliminate feelings you’re going to utterly change humanity itself.
First of all, killing a % of a population is not simple. Second, which is going to disrupt the economy more, research or society suddenly losing a chunk of population? Third, killing everyone is only rational when there is no other choice. Otherwise you’re killing spiders with flamethrowers.
How about: have a specially trained group of people who’s job it was to deal with people such as terrorists and send them into the neighborhood after them?
[quote]
Okay, a harder one, what’s best: Terminate the underachievers in school for the betterment of the social construct or teach to the lowest common denominator and leave the social construct less advanced overall? (Studies have shown that completing relativistic physics before second grade creates a more fruitful innovator, after all. [Dr Fagan, et al. 2497])
Yeah again, even with angry parents aside, killing off part of a generation of kids is not rational or reasonable at all. There is always going to be a lowest common denominator, the next group up assumes that role once the group below it is gone. And you’re always going to need someone to stock shelves. If you eliminate all of those people, who’s going to do it?
I don’t think you’re quite grasping this logic & reason thing.
My guess is an ideal would be to promote that which increases the well being of conscious creatures, based on the fact that conscious creatures near as we can tell really seem to like well being. What alternative ideals would you promote?
Sure, and I think it rational to use science to increase well being, because that’s what people want. How do you think we should use science?
Your point to who?
What are your core values? How do your morals relate to them? How do you decide between competing values and morals? You don’t think science can be a big help?
Cool, we both like well being. Now we can use science, reason, and rationality to help us determine how to increase well being.
I guess I read more into the thread title which lists “scientific methodology, reason and rationality.” Feelies are cool sometimes, but I can think of lots of examples where feelies lead you in the wrong direction, and lots of examples where feelies are really just the remnants of indoctrination based on beliefs that are demonstrably incorrect. Disagree?
Like I said earlier, it would depend on what type of scientist one was. An Anthropologist would probably want to nurture and preserve humans but a Marine Biologist might not.
As someone noted earlier, science and logic doesn’t give us values, so the OP is asking us to use those tools without values. I’m just guessing that a scientist who studies “x” is interested in preserving “x”, but that might not be true. Still, we have to make some assumption, so other than throwing the dice, I’ll say that scientists like their field of study.
I was asking you, not some hypothetical scientist.
Probably they would both value well being.
Rather than make assumptions logic and science can both help determine what peoples values really are, and how they might relate to principle value, sort though competing values, etc. Disagree?
You…don’t say? That really was my point. If you say “Reason ruled the world” as a contrast to what’s currently going on, you basically HAVE to say that feelings go away. Because as a species on the whole, we are quite reasonable most of the time. We just lash out when our panties get in a twist.
Why is it the only rational choice? If everything is a logical evaluation without feelings, then most of the “hardness” of elimination stops. You work like an ant colony and not…a human colony (heh). The good of the majority comes before the good of the individual.
Also, the point is to stop anything (e.g. HIV) before it infects a crippling amount of the population. You identify HIV and then see that it’s cure success is low, and you eliminate everyone who currently carries the disease. Even if you gave them 6 months to put their affairs in order and train the replacements, it’s still the simplest and most straightforward way to get rid of the issue. (Remember: Assume Ant Colony mentality)
That’s more difficult and less sure than a simple bomb strike, though. First, you have to train them. Then A single suicide bomber from the remaining “Feelies” (those bastards!) could take out your whole CT team. Then the Feelies would all run away because they would know they were targeted. Or they could simply see them coming and, having made preparations already, disperse. You’ve lost your tactical chance. The easiest method (but not the preferred method because we have feelings and stuff) is generally overwhelming force.
To US. Those of us that have FEELINGS. In a completely feeling-less world: Why waste resources on those that wouldn’t perform the best? You can save those resources (time, energy, food, etc) for something else or a better student.
500 years hence, I would have hoped they would be beyond the “we need shitty people to do our shitty jobs!” work. Especially if feelings get left out. Either through a collectivist/lottery based approach (it’s YOUR turn to stock shelves! Yay!) or a robotic/automation approach.
I don’t think you’re getting that to be “reasonable” without feelings is significantly different than “reasonable” with feelings.
Lets put it this way:
(Ignore extreme live-saving type events with this) Would you consider eating one of your kids? Probably not (if you would…don’t share. Ew.)
To a hamster? That’s not a problem.
Polar bear? If the mother wants to.
Other animals do it because the offspring they end isn’t their own. Some animals do it just to taste that sweet sweet cannibal flavor.
For us, it’s the feelings that inhibit that sort of thing.
From a pure logic perspective: if we end too many children, our species won’t perpetuate. However, if we eliminate the bottom 10% (Assuming there was research on sustainably managing the population that indicated 10% was the right number) of each generation, we will improve the condition for everyone involved.
(Note that I am not advocating for any of these actions, I am just saying that they are reasonable and logical if you don’t have feelings, which I think is a required extension to make the OP to differentiate from our current societal norms)
Oops, didn’t finish the thought. One of my points above was that you don’t have to say that feelings have to go away for reason to rule the world. Feelings have their use too. Talking about a completely emotionless world is just useless as talking about a world completely devoid of logic & reason. It’s possible to discuss reason and logic being prime motivators without eliminating emotion.
But it isn’t necessarily the best choice, and rationally, isn’t that what you would want? If you just kill all of them you lack a way to study the disease so a cure can be made, if we’re going with the cold logic approach. And constantly killing off populace every time something like that happens is going to cause problems all by itself. It is logical to live in a place where you might be killed if you get sick?
Possibly. But again you’re killing off populace just to get rid of one problem. You can’t continue to do this or you run out of populace. And if the feelies find out that’s how you deal with that situation then don’t be surprised when they start moving into more populated or more important areas.
Define ‘best’. Now how many of the best do you need?
Do you really want the best stocking shelves? That doesn’t seem like a rational use of their time. Who’s going to maintain or build the robots doing the shelving? The best?
But this would cause it’s own problems. How many people would stop having children if they knew that he or she might be killed off if found to be deficient? Do you control who can have kids and who can’t? Do you require reproduction?
Basically, I think that just because a solution is the most straightforward and simplest of several options it doesn’t mean that it’s the best one. I think that just killing off any human who produces an inconvenience isn’t really going to be all that beneficial in the long run.
The West is a whole bunch of tribes, some very different.
Your tribe A and tribe B scenario has an excellent example in the real world. Tribe A was Germany, Tribe B was Poland. How did that work out?
I think the evidence seems to suggest that “the best” benefit from not having a relentless, fixed focus on their area of expertise. A physicist can ponder the subtleties of QM whilst picking cabbages in the field. Logically, I believe that distribution of labor makes more sense than division of labor, especially considering issues like repetitive stress syndrome.
We are accustomed to what we know and tend to think a world based on reason and rationality would be patterned after that, but if we really want to solve the problems we have based on reason, we would need to be prepared to jettison some of our traditional paradigms if reason indicates we should try that.
It seems sensible that a society where people are stepping on each other to the least degree would benefit the greatest number of people and lead to optimal stability (probably a good thing, as long as it does not lead to suffocating inertia and ennui). “Well being” needs to be looked at in the broadest possible terms, not just as a synonym for “comfort”. Without some amount of suffering, I suspect humans would become too complacent. The broadest, most even distribution of joy and pain would seem like the best strategy (though I certainly could be wrong about that).
This is where I got my crack about mad scientists from. Do you have any evidence that real scientists only care about their fields? Did Einstein? Does Dawkins? Maybe a marine biologist wouldn’t care about people - if he was a dolphin. There happens to be a marine biologist in my writing group and she seems to care about humans just fine.
My point was that this is the world we already live in. If you let emotion have any say, it exaggerates.
Look at it in terms of the “Eggs are [good/bad] for you.” research. Scientists do some research and say “Hey, eggs are awesome!” and a bunch of people go and buy eggs, emotionally, based on headlines. It makes sense, after all, you ate eggs since you were a wee one and they are tasty.
Next research comes out, and eggs are marked as bad. Another bunch of people avoid eggs like the ovoid plague they are. After all, they wouldn’t have gotten fat if something insidious like eggs hadn’t destroyed them on their insidey parts.
Emotions are those things that give you “gut” feelings. It doesn’t wait for all of the data. So if you reign by logic and reason, you need to inhibit the short circuit of logic and reason that’s within our own brains in some way. If you leave emotions/feelings in the mix, you basically keep the status quo that we have, today: Mostly reasonable, but a little bit crazay.
If the disease doesn’t exist, anymore (because all of it’s hosts are dead), there is no need for research, though. If research is paramount to the Brave New World, then you could also corral them in a research facility. But that’s functionally the same. In most cases, I doubt you could be a lab rat AND stock shelves (or whatever your labor lottery comes out as.)
We already do this with animals, though, and have for thousands of years. You eliminate the weak and diseased (or the thin if you want fat cows, etc). Controlling the heard is a mark of reason and logic, especially if you are trying to elevate for some key bits (brain power and not tasty meat in the case of humans…I hope.) So, if we were beholden to reason and logic, it would make sense. Like I said, act like an Ant Colony and not a Human Colony.
We could “cull the herd” to levels that make sense and keep the top percentage going forward. Procreate like mad and eliminate those that don’t fit the bill (or, potentially, build the perfection in a test tube at the rate that’s needed.)
The best is what society needs. Do we need intelligence to expand to the solar system? Beastly muscles to dig underground? Both? Keep those that match the criteria and discourage those that don’t. I prefer the neatness of death, but you could certainly make the new “subhumans” a slave force…if you really want to.
If we go to a lottery system: yes. If the robots need maintenance, and you pull the maintenance straw, you get to maintain them. Unless there is an issue of critical importance. But count in your mind without research: How many critically important issues have come up recently that weren’t politically or media-made? Then there’s the issue that the bulk of human need is basically mundane anyway. A super smart mind might be best in, i don’t know…researching HIV, but you can only do that for so long before you burn out.
Where would we be, I wonder, if Einstein hadn’t spent time working at the patent office, free to let his mind wander while his brain auto-piloted the paperwork in front of him.
Honestly…look at China. Female newborns are killed every day by their parents because it’s not a boy. And we haven’t moved to the magical 500 years in the future where logic and reason are the only things we care for.
If we lose emotions, we would probably reproduce fine and be okay if we lose a child to being under whatever % is chosen.
It depends on how it’s used. I was using extreme situations because those are the situations that hurt the society as a whole. HIV, terrorism. And then I introduced that we could just keep going because other things hurt the society, such as dumb people.
Logically, there’s no reason to treat humans any differently than the cattle that we manage as a complete group. Breed for the best and all that.
I think I need to stop. I’m starting to feel like a new Hitler. Eugenics is bad, mmmkay?
