Mar 26 2013: Instead of framing it as democracy, why not freedom? to me it makes it clearer - there are many cases where the world community should come together to free people from tyranny (iran, n korea). to free them from criminal pursuit of profit (slave trade, sweet shops). Intervene where people do not have control over their lives. The form of government will evolve from that.
additionally, to frame it as democracy, one must define the form and how it will work - our democracy, in the US, is clearly flawed. Too much influence by corporations and too much influence by the uninformed. having learned that, how can it be corrected? it seems what is badly needed to go along with a free society (to make it truly free) are means to self-correct in a transparent way and avoid being hijacked by those who bring nothing of value to the process.
you mentioned the notion of being forced as a flaw in democracy. How did you arrive at that? democracy does not imply using force. yes, some democracies use force, but that's no the same.
Mar 16 2013: Charles, Support for some of what you claim (religion linked to violence) can be found in the work of Steven Pinker. He has studied the history of violence (as well as language, and the human mind in general) and makes the point that moralistic motives are the source of much, if not most, violence, on both the small and large scale. He cites Nazism as an example.
You might find his 8 minute talk on human nature interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFDJJ1KydgE
..
My own limited few of history suggests that if Catholicism had not fueled anti-semitism across Europe for a thousand years before Hitler came long, there likely would have been no Holocaust.
Mar 16 2013: Mathew, on your issue of physical matter creating complex thinking, which many find incredible, and because our current reason based understanding of nature doesn't provide a sufficiently satisfying answer as to how this came to be, many are willing to accept or at least entertain answers which come from elsewhere, supernatural agents and such.
What's going on in nature can be used to illustrate how natural laws actually are bringing complexity and thinking into being right in front of our eyes all the time, even if we can't follow a causal thread back to time zero (assuming there is a beginning of time).
Neither the sperm cell or the egg cell are thinking humans. Yet, when they combine, they undergo a progressive transformation which builds to a human. This does not happen by incantation, there are natural forces which cause this to happen in repeatable and predictable ways. The egg and sperm combine, and sometime later you have a living being, and if human, hopefully one who's thinking is not distorted by culture.
There are innumerable examples in nature of complexity and properties emerging by way of natural processes and not one credible defensible example of any process which came into being by way of magic. Plenty which we cannot explain, and may never be abe to explain, but none for which the billions of proponents of magic have yet to explain either (assert answers yes, but not explain).
We know very little, but it seems to me that what we do know is arrived at by experience combined with reason, or at least a mind prepared sufficiently to appreciate when an answer jumps out, so to speak.
The fact that so much is not known and may never be known, or that our minds may be simply to limiited to understand nature, is no reason to cast doubt on the very process which has got us this far, that of reason itsself, of which the methods of science are a subset.
Mar 15 2013: no, none of the gods of man are real, and why this isn't obvious is a mystery
start by defining terms.
If one asks is this god real, and as part of the question gives various attributes of the god, it seems to me that it is much easier to answer because how one arrives at claims of specific attributes, and hence their validity, can be rationally challenged.
If one can't assign attributes then one has to wonder what the person is asking. It would seem to equate to - Is this being, which I cannot describe in any way, including whether it is even an intelligent being, real? seems meaningless.
Mar 15 2013: In your mind I may not be able to validly do a comparison, but it's clear to me. Many animals have some level of conscousness - they feel and can be driven insane. As for those engaged in pure science, well they are not exempt from ethics either. The notion that they are not is pure BS.
I am all for trying to keep nature in balance, and this includes preventing further extinctions of animal and plants which are on the edge, and not harming animals in general. My point was about the animals which are extinct, who are long gone, for which harm has already been done. It isn't at all clear that we understand enough to know how to introduce these animals back into nature so that balance is better restored, if that is even the objective. We already know many ways to help with nature's balance, not the least of which is dramatically reducing our footprint on this planet by way of population control measures.
Mar 15 2013: It depends... Often one cannot know how knowledge will be used, but performing research with the aim of developing specific technologies can be clearer.
Let's use, for example, an invention which is being pursued by Craig Ventor .. I believe he is working to create a form of algae which will generate oil as a byproduct of it's metabolism. I can see good and bad consequences of this - A potential bad consequence is feeding the acceleration of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere if current climate modeling is close to being correct. My guess is that he has thought of this and decided on balance he is doing the right thing and willing to risk making a mistake..If his product is ever developed and put into large scale use, and results in an overall negative, he will be considered partly responsible by many. But as someone else pointed out, intentions matter.. If he acted in good faith believing his invention will overall be beneficial, and it turns out it is not, we can't fault him. But if he is simply trading his knowledge for cash from oil companies, and hasn't put serious thought into consequences with something this obvious, then he would be at fault.
If we look at spiritual endeavors as those which brings meaning to one's life, as I tend to do, then I can't see how there is a one-to-one correspondence between science and spirituality. But neither do I think science falls outside of those activities or mind-sets which bring meaning.
Recommended - 5 minutes with philosopher AC Grayling talking about meaning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXz9if0n_I
I see science as a refinement of the reasoning process which helps us understand the world around us, to identify facts and to group those facts within theoretical frameworks which become models of our universe.
How can wondering about and exploring nature using our minds not be spiritual?
if a loved one is killed unjustly, and with technology you can bring a body to life which is identical to hers, is it her? no, it's not. She is lost forever. You cannot reproduce an individual and take back the harm that was done to her. She is gone.
In a similar way, those animals killed because of a combination of greed and cruelty and stupidity cannot be brought back. We can bring back replacements, copies in body only, but those replacements don't in any way balance the moral ledger.
What purpose does a replacement Dodo serve? Would they be kept in captivity, on display, furthering our own selfish interests instead of the interests of the animal?
TEDCred score: +4.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Should we force democracy?
additionally, to frame it as democracy, one must define the form and how it will work - our democracy, in the US, is clearly flawed. Too much influence by corporations and too much influence by the uninformed. having learned that, how can it be corrected? it seems what is badly needed to go along with a free society (to make it truly free) are means to self-correct in a transparent way and avoid being hijacked by those who bring nothing of value to the process.
you mentioned the notion of being forced as a flaw in democracy. How did you arrive at that? democracy does not imply using force. yes, some democracies use force, but that's no the same.
A reply on Conversation: Are science & spirituality one and the same?
Well, this certainly brought clarity to the issue
A comment on Conversation: Are science & spirituality one and the same?
Mathew, what's your dog's name?
He looks to be a happy alert little chap
A reply on Conversation: Are science & spirituality one and the same?
You might find his 8 minute talk on human nature interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFDJJ1KydgE
..
My own limited few of history suggests that if Catholicism had not fueled anti-semitism across Europe for a thousand years before Hitler came long, there likely would have been no Holocaust.
A reply on Conversation: Are science & spirituality one and the same?
What's going on in nature can be used to illustrate how natural laws actually are bringing complexity and thinking into being right in front of our eyes all the time, even if we can't follow a causal thread back to time zero (assuming there is a beginning of time).
Neither the sperm cell or the egg cell are thinking humans. Yet, when they combine, they undergo a progressive transformation which builds to a human. This does not happen by incantation, there are natural forces which cause this to happen in repeatable and predictable ways. The egg and sperm combine, and sometime later you have a living being, and if human, hopefully one who's thinking is not distorted by culture.
There are innumerable examples in nature of complexity and properties emerging by way of natural processes and not one credible defensible example of any process which came into being by way of magic. Plenty which we cannot explain, and may never be abe to explain, but none for which the billions of proponents of magic have yet to explain either (assert answers yes, but not explain).
We know very little, but it seems to me that what we do know is arrived at by experience combined with reason, or at least a mind prepared sufficiently to appreciate when an answer jumps out, so to speak.
The fact that so much is not known and may never be known, or that our minds may be simply to limiited to understand nature, is no reason to cast doubt on the very process which has got us this far, that of reason itsself, of which the methods of science are a subset.
A comment on Conversation: Is God Real?
start by defining terms.
If one asks is this god real, and as part of the question gives various attributes of the god, it seems to me that it is much easier to answer because how one arrives at claims of specific attributes, and hence their validity, can be rationally challenged.
If one can't assign attributes then one has to wonder what the person is asking. It would seem to equate to - Is this being, which I cannot describe in any way, including whether it is even an intelligent being, real? seems meaningless.
10,000 gods
pick 1
or better yet
none
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
I am all for trying to keep nature in balance, and this includes preventing further extinctions of animal and plants which are on the edge, and not harming animals in general. My point was about the animals which are extinct, who are long gone, for which harm has already been done. It isn't at all clear that we understand enough to know how to introduce these animals back into nature so that balance is better restored, if that is even the objective. We already know many ways to help with nature's balance, not the least of which is dramatically reducing our footprint on this planet by way of population control measures.
A comment on Conversation: Are scientists responsible for the consequences of their discoveries?
Let's use, for example, an invention which is being pursued by Craig Ventor .. I believe he is working to create a form of algae which will generate oil as a byproduct of it's metabolism. I can see good and bad consequences of this - A potential bad consequence is feeding the acceleration of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere if current climate modeling is close to being correct. My guess is that he has thought of this and decided on balance he is doing the right thing and willing to risk making a mistake..If his product is ever developed and put into large scale use, and results in an overall negative, he will be considered partly responsible by many. But as someone else pointed out, intentions matter.. If he acted in good faith believing his invention will overall be beneficial, and it turns out it is not, we can't fault him. But if he is simply trading his knowledge for cash from oil companies, and hasn't put serious thought into consequences with something this obvious, then he would be at fault.
A comment on Conversation: Are science & spirituality one and the same?
Another angle -
If we look at spiritual endeavors as those which brings meaning to one's life, as I tend to do, then I can't see how there is a one-to-one correspondence between science and spirituality. But neither do I think science falls outside of those activities or mind-sets which bring meaning.
Recommended - 5 minutes with philosopher AC Grayling talking about meaning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXz9if0n_I
I see science as a refinement of the reasoning process which helps us understand the world around us, to identify facts and to group those facts within theoretical frameworks which become models of our universe.
How can wondering about and exploring nature using our minds not be spiritual?
A comment on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
by way of example....
if a loved one is killed unjustly, and with technology you can bring a body to life which is identical to hers, is it her? no, it's not. She is lost forever. You cannot reproduce an individual and take back the harm that was done to her. She is gone.
In a similar way, those animals killed because of a combination of greed and cruelty and stupidity cannot be brought back. We can bring back replacements, copies in body only, but those replacements don't in any way balance the moral ledger.
What purpose does a replacement Dodo serve? Would they be kept in captivity, on display, furthering our own selfish interests instead of the interests of the animal?