Yes, that's it. Ideally we would be able to use science to re-engineer the insanity out of human beings. But, um, it would be we the insane who would be doing the engineering. — Jake

Alarm bells again. Who defines insane? We agree, generally, on what insanity is, today. But what about later? Would insanity be any aspect of behaviour that’s threatening to society?

I meant moral values in the form of “if, then” statements. Intelligent people can disagree on the “right” values. A computer would need values in order to make complex decisions. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, I think we’re in agreement. I don’t think a computer can do this. However, if the answers are structured in a way that’s different from what we expect now, then a computer response may be acceptable. Isn’t the answer dependent on the question?

But can technology also solve this problem? — TogetherTurtle

Are you doubting here, or saying it might?

Your argument suggests that there is a human identity/nature ("who we are") that transcends just the description of what individual humans are doing/thinking/feeling. What do you base this nature on? — Echarmion

I am not convinced it's useful to speculate about "human nature" in a vacuum. — Echarmion

I’ve indicated something about what I base my perception of ‘human nature’ on. I added the idea of a ‘golden creature’, an idea you seem to refuse to consider, which is fine. I imagine your comment on being pragmatic about human nature related to this. Of course if one believed in God there would be no problem with this idea of a ‘golden creature’ being part of ‘human nature’. So when you say pragmatic do you mean determining ‘human nature’ on actions only, what we can see?

When you mention speculating about ‘human nature’ in a vacuum, do you mean without parameters?

I would also add to my thoughts on ‘human nature’ the idea of tool-making.

some of us are saying there was nothing wrong with the boomers. pe — Bitter Crank

I get that. Maybe, I’m confused because the animosity is so very vague and simplistic.

I did read once the idea that the 60s actually began in the 50s. Which is interesting and possibly quite true, and relates back to Joshs post about Dykan, Leary, etc.

Defining a generation is pretty difficult, I think. The 60s more so because it may have been the first generation to have been commodified, and also because it was so diverse. The radical students, for all their ideals, were a very chauvinistic bunch toward women, the Panthers were very gang orientated, the hippies were very apolitical.

I seem to have lost the thread a bit here. What exactly are we saying was so bad, the worst, about the ‘boomers’?

My question is that why does Western society display a deficit in the process of respect and regard for their elders? — Wallows

There’s a bit of generalisation going on here and the posts seems to conflate elderly with maturity. But not all of the elderly are the same, even though they all look old. Some elderly people don’t treat others with respect, or they haven’t aged well, or they have never matured.

The generalised treatment of the elderly seems to me to be similar to the generalisation of teenagers. What is there about the two that’s similar?

Perhaps their current lack of involvement helps to explain the deficiency of today's youth. — Tzeentch

I’ve no idea where you live, but things have changed a bit. Where I live Grandparents are now the unpaid careers of their grandchildren. In some cases they’re more involved with the children than their parents.

I think that technology is revealing something about who we are, different from what we imagine we are, or want to be.

Even without the existence of God and the rejection of a creator, we still view ourselves as this ‘golden’ creature. Even in the mode of being conscious of our destructiveness, of all our faults, we view ourselves as being still ‘golden’ because we are aware of it.

So we are still the creatures from Eden; both creatures of nature and higher understanding, constantly watching ourselves narcissistically. From that we conceive of our nature, which has created and then thrived in a co-operative society. This narcissism is evident in the issue of climate change when people talk about ‘saving the planet’. We might die but the planet will not. We conflate ourselves with the planet.

But we have reason to think well of ourselves, because that caring and co-operative nature has created a world in which we’ve thrived.

Will that nature be lost by crossing a line?

That line, wherever it is, somewhere up ahead of us, will be when we throw that inviolate idea of ourselves aside and embrace our new selves. It will most certainly be lost when we chose the alternative. Why will we chose the alternative? Because the problems we find ourselves confronted with can no longer be addressed by a ‘human’ nature. Technology is confronting us with questions about how we live and who we are that go beyond the morality we have lived with so far. Technology is also the tool we have for solving these problems. Would we turn away from that?

Logic alone cannot enable a computer to make a societal decision. It needs values programmed into it as well. So, what are the right values? — Noah Te Stroete

The ‘right’ values are the ones we chose. Feed them into the computer with all the statistics and you’ll get the ‘right’ outcome.

Just to add to my post on technological development; all viruses need a host.

However - are we in control of technology?

Not all technology springs fully formed out of the air. Each invention is developed from some pre -existing technology, like a virus, a meme, evolution. For example an arrow head is the progression of a sharp stick.

I wish I could be white.

what do you mean by alarms? — TogetherTurtle

Because I’m not sure if everyone’s desires are good for everyone else. It may also be unrealistic to expect all your desires to be fulfilled and lead to problems down the road for others.

I think that it is the way we realize these desires that can be unhealthy. Having them in the first place can’t be unhealthy because that’s just how we come out. — TogetherTurtle

I don’t know if I can agree with the idea about all ideas being healthy. Yes in a healthy individual, but otherwise trouble.

Theoretically someone with every desire they could possibly have fufilled would always be happy. — TogetherTurtle

Oh, oh. Alarms!

Yes, a more proficient mind.

Not all of our desires are healthy, nor should all of them be realised. Technology can realise the most powerful, influential and possibly destructive forces we can imagine. The atomic bomb served what desire in who?

You say that technology has created a want for new materialistic items. — TogetherTurtle

Not necessarily materialist items. But you’re right that technology does make the desire material.
So I have to think about whether technology can create a desire that wasn’t there in the first place and how this relates to my post.

For instance:

The Soweto uprising, a series of demonstrations and protests led by black school children in South Africa that began on the morning of 16 June 1976.

Our desires change all the time from generation to generation.
— Brett

Can I have an example? — TogetherTurtle

Yes. My father never desired a mobile phone.

To my point, I think it's pretty clear what ethnicity and gender took part in the society that you delineated — Maw

I shouldn’t have to do this, but here goes:

The March on Washington. It was organized and attended by civil rights leaders such as A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr.

On March 7, 1965, the civil rights movement in Alabama took an especially violent turn as 600 peaceful demonstrators participated in the Selma to Montgomery March to protest the killing of a black civil rights activist by a white police officer and encourage legislation to enforce the 15th amendment.

The Black Panthers, also known as the Black Panther Party, was a political organisation founded in 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.

The Young Lords,Young Lords Organisation (YLO),Young Lords Party, and later again Young Lords, is a national civil and human rights movement. It was officially transformed from a Chicago turf gang under the leadership of Jose Cha Cha Jimenez on September 23, 1968,

The women's liberation movement (WLM) was a political alignment of women and feminist intellectualism that emerged in the late 1960s.

The National Farm Workers Association (later the United Farm Workers union, UFW).

During their medal ceremony in the Olympic Stadium in Mexico City in on October 16, 1968, African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos each raised a black-gloved fist during the playing of the US national anthem, “The Star- Spangled Banner”.

Malcolm X. Muslim Mosque, Inc. (MMI) and the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) to emphasise Pan-Africanism.

Nor were the events of the sixties and seventies specifically American. It happened all over the world.

How civilised you are.

Okay, let’s just say ‘food and shelter’ is a need, not a desire, forget ‘warm’ or ‘good’. Without it you die. Go and try living like our ancestors, see how long you last?

They were still comforted by the same sensations you and I are. — TogetherTurtle

Sensations are not part of this discussion. It’s need and desires. My needs aren’t to much different from my ancestors, but my desires are. Our desires change all the time from generation to generation. Often they make no sense, often they cause complications. We confuse need with desire. Technology now serves our desires, maybe even feeds them, maybe, one day even creates them.

White, Male) Baby Boomers benefited greatly from the New Deal and post-War economy and then fucked it up for younger generations, so they indeed suck — Maw

No, it was aimed at Maw.

The end goal I see for most people is satisfying their desires. — TogetherTurtle

I might have to separate ‘desire’ from ‘need’ here. We might infer that we desire a warm home or food, but in fact it’s a necessity for survival. We are obviously already confusing ‘desire’ with ‘need’.

And that’s an important distinction for me, because technology now both creates our desire and feeds it. I know it’s the human hand behind the technology, but the things we are beginning to desire are far removed from who and what we have been, and a long way from what we need.

This also raises the question, can the problem create the solution?

Then, would you also agree that coal powered energy is furthering our goals, whatever they are ( are we going to define those goals now or make them up as we go) and is ‘no compromise’. What about nuclear weapons or energy?

And why not?

I get the distinct impression from some that ‘baby boomers’ really means ‘privileged white males’.

I don’t think I mentioned anywhere in my op the idea of total rejection of technology.

What I did mention, as a concern, was the idea of placing more faith in technology than ourselves, and technology influencing who and what we are. The simplest aspect of this would be social media and how its use influences society. A more serious aspect of this would be China’s idea of ‘social credit’, something only possible through advances in technology. I don’t think I need to mention all the examples I could mention out there about the advances of technology into our lives. Artificial Intelligence is developing swiftly and some people are ascribing more and more autonomous traits to it: that it can create, that it can think.

The more we get used to it the more we rely on it and the more we let it determine aspects of our life. At some point we will cross a line and begin to lose control of how we use it. Maybe we’ve already crossed that line.

I know that spears and bows and arrows are technology (god, how tiresome it is to have to say that), and I know that making an arrow head enabled us to kill and consume more protein, etc., etc. (Again, so tiresome). But the arrow head didn’t have the ability to change who we are so swiftly and at such a young and impressive age. Nor did we ascribe superior thinking to it.

So, I go back to my question, will we make a pact with technology in exchange for security?

Thanks.

Sorry, part of my headline dropped off.

Hyperbolic and confusing. It sounds like you’re hiding in the jungle from technology.

Jesus fucking christ, are you really going to claim that Boomers solved racism in America? Yeah, try and claim the Million Man march for the boomers, just to see how black folks react to that one. — Akanthinos

What an odd idea. You think baby boomers were only white.

Regarding my use of analogy - your comment is fair enough. What are we after but clarity?

My post regarding the meaning of economic was to indicate agreement with you about using the term too loosely.

What I meant by ‘keeping the wolf from the door’ was the idea that everyone is entitled to food, shelter and clothing (possibly there are some other essentials that don’t come to mind), the minimum a person or family needs.

My point about that was that some people don’t have the skills to survive out in the economic world; they can’t compete with others. We all know the reasons why: their environment, their abilities, their upbringing, etc. Though its true some do overcome their circumstances. An education doesn’t seem to happen for them, even though they may attend school. They won’t get jobs; they may get some sort of work, or find ways to get money, but they won’t develop skills, improve their situation or develop friendships that enhance their lives. Is there any point in keeping them in school when all it amounts to is some sort of daycare to keep them off the street?

Which brings me to the first essential requirement of education; they have to be able to function in the world on an economic level. Without that there’s no opportunity for self awareness, growing confidence, self esteem and so on. Whether they’re victims of the system, or fodder for capitalism is irrelevant, because if they can’t take part in the economy then they sink to the bottom very quickly. To ignore that fact is to condemn them to a life of constant struggle with little hope of developing as a person. And isn’t that what so many here have said; education is about developing the potential in us.

Did what?

Same thing. Analogies exist for a reason.

Economic well-being - no fear of the wolf at the door.

Yes, I agree. We are using it a bit loosely.

“Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.”
Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics

You know it was on the list. Of course not everyone thought it was a bad thing. That’s why so many made it an issue.

As a baby boomer, I would suggest that our primary crime was that we knew better about many things, such as the environment, war, the bomb, consumerism
— Jake

Interesting how racism never made that list. — Anaxagoras

You know it was on the list. What sort of thing is that to say?

White, Male) Baby Boomers benefited greatly from the New Deal and post-War economy and then fucked it up for younger generations, so they indeed suck — Maw

That’s a big statement, and also an incredible generalisation.

‘Baby boomers’ is such a loose, inaccurate term. It refers to people born in a particular period, that’s all. But somehow it’s come to mean something about their behaviour and attitudes. It was a period of great diversity among people that age. Some of them got mortgages, some went university and got their degree and went on to work in the corporate sector, some dropped out and went and lived on communes and tried to develop a different way of living together, some committed themselves to resisting the government and big business, some entered politics, some became writers and recorded the times, some formed groups that sought to make change with bombings, some formed a united front against police harassment in the ghettoes, some went to prison, some went to Vietnam, some didn’t and went to Canada, some developed ideas about women in society, some about gays in society, some worked on the space program, some went to Africa to do volunteer work, some went to Cuba to join the revolution, some hoped there would be a revolution in America, some went to Salvador to help and were raped and murdered and left on the side of the road, some raised families, some hoped the next generation would be better. Get it!

Edit: But it’s quite clear where we did fail.

Well, once again I’ve managed to muddy the waters of my thoughts.

I wasn’t actually referring to myself. When I talk about my interest in the image I mean something of interest to myself, outside of myself. Though I’m aware of the representationslist view that objects in the world are reflected by ideas in the mind.

For instance, the subject/image of Bob Dylan. I’m not interested in what he eats, where he lives, or even what he thinks, which is what I refer to as the reality. I’m interested in the image/idea of Bob Dylan that he has created for himself, and the one we perceive, which is also a reality and the one that interests me.
So the world, everything that makes some connection, is interesting in relation to that idea of who or what he is. In this case a conduit for American music going right back to folk music, but influenced by all aspects of history.

When I asked ‘Who am I, what am I?’ I meant it in the sense of what branch of thinking, philosophy, ideas, etc, would this way of interacting with the world find itself.

The fit on the philosophical spectrum is....transcendental idealism. — Mww

Thanks for that. Does my explanation change anything?