just find that Hume's sceptical account of everyday causality, very true in itself, doesn't really take into account the advances of modern science, say like theoretical physics. — hwyl

Hume died in 1776; he wasn't in a very good position to account for developments in physics (relativity, all that) which began around 1900.

You missed NOS4A2's retraction.

Thanks for the correction. To error is human, claiming the error as your own is divine. Sort of divine, anyway. The gods usually don't admit to error.

Here's another tidbit about Oliver Sacks: He was "face-blind". I can relate to the -- I'm not face blind, but I certainly have difficulty recognizing faces, sometimes. There is a back office in the brain that specializes in facial recognition, and if it's not working well, people's faces don't register in memory. That's a problem for social animals.

I just read a book about a man whose father had sexual contacts with him as a child (and did the same to numerous other children). The author's personality was quite screwed up, but did an exceptionally poor job of explicating a connection between what seemed like very limited sexual contact and a life of mental suffering. Father and son were both screwed up, but were otherwise successful men. Was the man (the subject of the book) screwed up because of the sexual contact, or screwed up for other reasons? Can't tell. I wish he had done a better job of explaining.

POINT IS: illustrating psychological or neurological disturbances effectively is apparently difficult to get right. Sacks was able to vividly [from Latin Vivere - to live] depict his patients internal reality. I'm grateful for that.

Well, thanks for the thread. It's been interesting reading.

Full disclosure: I too was duped by his writing, especially the apparent empathy he had towards his patients, who may or may not have existed in the first place. — NOS4A2

I don't feel duped at all. I do feel like The New Yorker article makes possible a deeper understanding of the way Sacks experienced and reported on the world -- which was perhaps unlike the way many of us do.

If we can't take Sacks word about his patients as fact, we probably can't take his word about himself as fact either. As one of his friends said [quoting from the article] “Come on, you’re extravagantly romanticizing how bad you are—just as much as you were extravagantly romanticizing what the patient said. Your mother’s accusing voice has taken over.” And you gotta wonder about a doctor who is so disturbed by a nighttime erection that he "cools his penis" in orange jello (from the article).

Being a homosexual physician in 1960 was certainly difficult -- being homosexual at all back then wasn't easy. Sacks mother managed wonderfully to screw up her son's sense of sexuality and selfhood. I can relate very personally to the act of maternal sexual shaming and condemnation. Such parental acts can really screw up gay sons's personalities.

I've read several of his books. One, about deaf people, "Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf," is a good example (as far as I can tell) of Sack's ability to deeply relate to others, and his observational skills. The group of deaf people that Sacks wrote about had sensory deprivation (deafness) but no other neurological problems. But sensory deprivation is a significant limitation to normal human experience.

How was Sacks a sexual abuser? Did I miss something in the article?

There is an important role in society for the "skilled detractor" who takes on the reputation of famous people. They do a good job of moderating tendencies toward hero-worship. A socialist I know who was a leader of local party activities, an insightful commentator, a hard working dedicated true-believer, was also a deadbeat father, never providing support for his daughter. I could write a book about him, depicting him as a personal fraud.

Such a book would be an unfair representation. It wasn't as if the guy lived a comfortable life with stable employment, a home, benefits like health insurance, and so on. His commitment to the cause pretty much demanded impoverishment, the same way a future saint committed to the poor demands impoverishment.

Some people might accuse this fellow of living in some sort of dream world; but he was a very hard-nosed realist.

There are any number of cherished figures who could be savaged by some skilled researching maybe axe-grinding de-constructor of reputations. Some of them deserve it. Some do not.

Any reaction this @Tom Storm

I'm a agéd leftist; my experience has been that very ideologically committed leftists (Marxists) can be intolerant of other people's statements, when they don't match the ideology.

I've been denounced for disagreeing with the idea that the working class must achieve class consciousness in order for the global warming crisis to be averted. "I never want to speak to you again", he said, and he hasn't for several years. It would be just great if the working classes DID achieve class consciousness this afternoon, but our enlightenment doesn't seem to be on the horizon, and at this point, the global warming crisis is becoming present tense, rather than future tense.

Defenders of embattled ideology (which Marxists are, pretty much, especially in rampantly capitalist economies) are reluctant to agree with the opposition on anything. That said, the opposite very conservative, ultra-religious types are in the same boat. They find it difficult to grant credit to dissenters on just about anything.

Ideology is a chunk of the problem, as is personality. Some people have rigid personalities who experience pain when they have to bend, even a little. Some informed ideologues, left and right, are able to be flexible enough to agree with opposing ideas.

Group think sets in, too. Social dynamics make it difficult to wander even a little from the party line, be that revolutionary or reactionary in nature.

Why the link to a video about not having children — Philosophim

Having children is in the basic animal design -- one doesn't need a manual. Raising children, on the other hand, is just very very complicated, maybe? I mean, you suddenly have an infant, and you're committed to about 18 to 22 years of careful oversight. By the time you have figured out how to properly raise a child, you have spent at least 5 to 10 years making major mistakes and the kid is doomed to a lifetime of self-help books and weird support groups.

Hey -- I'm 79 and still working out neurotic work-arounds.

Man - adult human male by sex
Woman- adult human female by sex — Philosophim

Yes. Men are men and women are women. Men have penises and testicles (that produce their genetically unique sperm). Men have XY chromosomes. Women have uteruses and ovaries (that produce their genetically unique eggs). Women have XX chromosomes.

Trans men are women, and trans women are men. As radical a drag act as might be performed involving the chopping off and formation of body parts, the sex of a person can not be changed.

Now, who wears oxfords and who wears high heels, who wears a bra and who wears a jock strap is more variable. High heels started out in Louis XIV France as a riding shoe for men -- the high heel made it easier to keep the foot in the stirrup. Men noticed that elevating the heel improved the looks of their calves. When women started wearing high heels, the same beneficial thing happened to their calves. Legs look nice in elevated heels -- without regard to the many disadvantages of walking around on high heels.

Even though men are men and women are women, and transsexuals are merely in drag, I don't see any reason to make life difficulty for them. On the other hand, I don't have to believe everything they say, either.

Don't leave me — javi2541997

Fear not. I will pretty much be with you till death do us part. Or, until something else happens, like bankruptcy and homelessness, having both hands cut off by Islamic extremists, or being run over by a gang of electric tricycle-riding senior citizens, putting me in a coma.

Change is the only constant.

Thank you for all of your time and talent that you have generously given to the current (and future) ThePhilosophyForum.

Whether they are appealed to or denounced, "traditions" are not static. The warm glow of Christmas tree lights, carols on the radio, and massive commercial pressure are largely contemporary. The traditions of Christmas have been repeatedly revised and edited extensively.

The tradition of hunting (deer, geese, pheasants, whatever) is collapsing -- enough so that in some midwestern states, at least it is a matter of concern. Deer populations were once regulated by wolves; we got rid of the wolves, a "traditional enemy of humankind". Without hunting, deer populations grow large enough to become problematic, both for humans and the deer. The tradition of hunting helped keep deer in check -- a perfectly rational management strategy.

Halloween (now in progress, 10/31/25) is another tradition whose roots may go back to Medieval times, but the contemporary experience is no older than the late 19th century, and what we have now is much younger than late Victorian times. And, in keeping with criticism of tradition, Halloween has been pretty much stripped of old meaning -- "all hallows eve" was the night before "all hallows day" or as we say now, All Saints Day -- a holy day of remembrance.

An Appeal to Tradition is fairly likely to be an appeal to something that is pretty much gone.

Reason and Rationality are good things, but they aren't much help when it comes to having an enjoyable and satisfying party or giving meaning to human interactions. Yes, we could celebrate "festivity day x3827.5" but only if a tradition of doing so had developed, and it actually meant something to people. Maybe tofurkey with an undressed kale salad will be the preferred food for your dinner that day. My condolences. I'll have a RESONATING traditional roast goose, thank you, and sides which resound with connections to the past and my past like cranberries, apples, potatoes, gravy, root vegetables like rutabaga, a crispy dark green leafy salad with tart dressing, maybe even canned green bean casserole with the traditional canned onion rings on top, and the like. And more! Wine, beer, and spirits. Several kinds of pie, thank you, and fuck rationality.

It's a "new" attitude for me. I used to accept many aspects of transgender / transsexual rhetoric, but over the last decade and a half, I've gradually changed my mind.

One reason for changing my mind has been reading a number of articles in places like Quillette which reject some of the claims of trans people as pseudo-science. I never thought there were more than 2 sexes, (I don't know of any species that are anything other than M and F. True, some fish can switch back and forth between the TWO sexes, and it works for their species. Fine. Unfortunately Jack, now Mary, is not a fish. Sorry Jack. You look great in those heels, hairdo, and all, but what you are doing is basically an elaborate drag act. Some drag queens seem a bit crazy, but they have enough sense not to get their balls and dick chopped off.

I am not sure what came first: the surge in numbers of trans individuals deciding to go beyond costuming to surgery and hormones, or the rhetoric of the trans movement. Like as not, there were men and women around before the trans movement picked up steam who wanted to BE the opposite sex. Christine Jorgensen, b 1926 in the Bronx, WWII vet, received gender surgery in 1952 in Denmark.

On the other hand, using drugs to suspend puberty in children who claim to be transgender seems like reckless medical practice, if not worse. Have clinics been too eager to aggressively gender dysphoria? I suspect they have.

Everyone has to work out their personal meshugganah. Lots of people manage to do so gracefully -- whatever their situation, and more power to them. And some people don't.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Sex refers to a person’s physical and biological characteristics. The most common are male and female, but there are variations.

I don't agree that there are variations. There are two sexes: male (xy) and female (xx). Period. Evolution invented these two sexes about a billion years ago, and has stuck with early success. Genetic or developmental defects may occur which produce hermaphroditism, for example, but these defects are not a different sex.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Transgender people identify with a gender identity that’s different from what they were assigned at birth.

This is a persistent and annoying untruth. Children are not "assigned" a sex; their sex is recognized on the basis of physical characteristics. A trans person may not like it, but in 99.9% of births, sex is not ambiguous at first (or second) Dglance.

Cis sexual rights concern the right of the sexual identity of one’s sex. Trans sexual rights concern the right to the sexual identity of the opposite of one’s own sex. — Philosophim

Was there such a thing as "cis sexual rights" prior to the trans movement claiming "trans sexual rights"? For instance, did men and women have a "right" to a male only / female only toilet? Or was it a cultural given, backed up by laws against indecent exposure and the like, that men and women used separate toilets? I think it was a given.

A person who was born as a male or female may not claim rights that are unique to the opposite sex, in my opinion. Any person may claim rights based on their personhood, which specify numerous specific rights. The numerous subdivisions of humanity (intelligence, height, left handedness, etc.) generally do not have specific rights attached to them, do they? Inequality if endemic and it is up to the individual to deal with it. Individuals are burdened by all sorts of disadvantages (just as they benefit from all sorts advantages. Life does not distribute good and bad outcomes in life evenly. There is no "right" to have a great outcome.

A person may believe they will be happier if they can live like a person of the opposite sex. They can make the attempt, and may succeed. But they must do so within quite reasonable limitations. The limitation is that they are still the sex they were born as.

So, are trans gender rights human rights? — Philosophim

When I think about "rights", human or legal, I find it helpful to think in terms of "actual" rather than abstract. Tonight when I went to the neighborhood grocery store, the homeless trans panhandler was at her usual place. She's been there many late afternoons and evenings, since last spring. I've talked with her several times, as have others. He's had M--->F surgery (male genital removal) and when he has insurance (medicaid) takes female hormones. He sleeps outside if he can't find acceptable indoor shelter (too much risk of rape in the adult shelters). He's polite, friendly, and somewhat (reasonably) guarded.

So, are there human rights specific to her, as a trans person, that wouldn't apply to me, a gay male?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN 1945, lists the human rights. The WHO declaration, Alma Ata 1978, addresses the specific rights to health, which is defined as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being".

The listed rights in the declarations are 'universal'. Everyone is entitled to these rights, but the rights are by no means guaranteed. For instance, a person has the right to practice the religion of their choice and to vote the politics they believe are good. That doesn't mean they can actually do either one in any number of places.

This trans person has the same right to express her sexual desires as I have. My homosexuality isn't universally approved of, so there are limits--legal and extra or non-legal. Transsexuality / transgenderism isn't universally approved of, or even recognized, so there are again, limits. If I develop a disease related to gay sexual activity, I expect to receive the same expert, nonjudgmental care that someone would receive for a non-sexual disease. On the other hand, if I want medical care to achieve a physical body that is closer to the current-social-media ideal, should I expect social programs or insurance to pay for that? No. It is also reasonable for a transgender person to find some limits on what kinds of plastic surgery will be performed, or what and when some medications will be prescribed.

Why would my health, shelter, food, clothing, medical, or educational requirements receive less social provision for me than her? I support myself; she doesn't. But dependence of social programs cuts across racial, gender, age, and other categories, and a distinction is not made. People don't lose human rights because they have exceptional needs. (They may not receive needed assistance, but that's a different issue.)

I have some doubts about the legitimacy of some transsexual / transgender claims and demands, as do others. But whether they are entirely legitimate or not, they are still entitled to pursue personal fulfillment and social acceptance. I have never been enthusiastic about gay marriage; that doesn't mean that gay people are not entitled to pursue socially recognized marriage.

"Rights", after all, are not the same as approval.

I am cautiously in favor of closing down AI operations for two reasons:

It's not just a crutch -- it's a motorized wheelchair. Othopedists want injured patients to get up and walk ASAP, and the sooner they do so without crutches, the better. They certainly don't want modestly (even moderately) injured patients to resort to wheelchairs, powered or not.

Asking AI for information is a far too easy solution. It pops back in a few seconds -- not with a list of links to look at, but a complete answer in text and more. Seems convenient, but it rapidly undermines one's willingness to look for answers one's self -- and to use search engines to find sources.

We know that gadgets like smart phones and GPS navigating systems undermine one's memory of telephone numbers (and maybe names too) and people who constantly use GPS have more difficulty navigating with a map or memory. The "reptile brain" is good at finding its way around, if it exercised regularly.

That's one line of reasoning against AI.

The other line is this: We do not have a good record of foreseeing adverse consequences of actions a few miles ahead; we do not have a good record of controlling technology (it isn't that it acts on its own -- rather we elect to use it more and more).

We are prone to build nuclear reactors without having a plan to safely store waste. We don't save ahead for the expensive decommissioning of old plants. We built far, far more atomic bombs than were necessary to "win" a nuclear exchange, and plutonium doesn't compost very well.

The automobile is an outstanding example of technology driving us.

We are smart enough to invent a real artificial intelligence (not quite there yet) but we are clearly not smart enough to protect ourselves from it.

So, what happens here on TPF is a drop in a favorite bucket, but still a good example of what happens.

I'm not sure how much difference philosophy makes to psychiatry. Doctors treat diseases, and the (apparently) the most effective treatment psychiatrists have is medications. They are diagnosers and prescribers. Most psychiatrists do little psychotherapy (it's too time consuming, given the number of patients, the number of psychiatrists, and insurance payment systems). I've always felt that my psychiatrists were on the same treadmill that my internist, orthopedists, or dermatologist were on.

I would guess that the experience of practicing psychiatry is different for doctors working in busy clinics, seeing one depressed, anxious patient after another, and doctors working in forensic psychiatry where their patients are in locked wards where some patients have barely contained murderous impulses. For that matter, the experience of being a depressed anxious patient isn't the same as being one with those with murderous rages.

It seems like we tend to talk about "mental health" as an absence. I haven't heard people say "she is really mentally healthy" -- just the reverse. Well, how crazy is she? Most people must be reasonably healthy mentally, else societies would be in far worse shape than they are. And even people who have episodic illness (like bipolar) may be described as "mentally healthy" a good share of the time. And then there are lots of highly functional, effective, people who have traits that are surely pathological.

Philosophy comes in handy here to explain some of the glaring contradictions humans exhibit, and for generalizing about how contradictory we are as a species, with our often uncoordinated and/or contradictory cognitive and emotional traits constantly screwing things up for ourselves.

A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. — Philosophim

To hell with it, then.

what we do isn't "pure" (by that I mean for the benefit of someone else) but rather is ultimately just rooted in selfishness. — Darkneos

Even anonymous sex in the dark has meaning to the two (or more, I suppose) people sexually engaged. When one masturbates alone, it's for the benefit of the self. Masturbate with somebody else at hand, and it is no longer exclusively for the self.

When two people who are fond of each other, or in the initial heat of new love, sex is reciprocal. One's gratification is enhanced by the others' responses, in a pleasurable spiral.

Of course, relationships can become desiccated and chilled; ordinary nurturing acts (like preparing food) can become onerous--never mind sex which might continue as a perfunctory routine close to masturbation with nobody present.

What humans do is never ("Never?" "no, never!" "Never?" Well, hardly ever.") pure anything. No pure good, no pure evil, no pure selfishness, no pure generosity...

First we need to define man and woman. — Philosophim

1) A man is a male person because they had an xy chromosome, testicles, a penis, and a prostate gland at birth. His mature reproductive sex role is to eject sperm during sexual intercourse.

2) A woman is a female person born with an xx chromosome, ovaries, a uterus, a vagina, fallopian tubes, a cervix, etc. Her reproductive role is to produce an egg for fertilization by sperm after sexual intercourse, and harbor the developing fetus for 9 months.

3) Men and women both have sex roles which can function separately from their reproductive roles, so that they can engage in sexual activities for the purpose of pleasure. Men and women can engage in solitary sexual stimulation for the purpose of pleasure, and they can engage in non-reproductive sexual activity with same-sex partners.

# 1 and # 2 provide the minimal definition of male and female. Humans share this definition with the at least all vertebrates, but with many invertebrates as well. Plants also have sexual characteristics.

Men are males and women are females. I hope no one heard it here first. Men and women have biologically driven sex roles, and socially / culturally driven gender roles, which are considerably more plastic than their actual sex roles. However, a female heavy equipment driver and a male nurse are not less woman and man because their occupation crosses gender roles. A woman can be the breadwinner in a family and a man can be the nurturing parent and home maker, again without violating the standard sex role. That said, a very large share of the world's population follows gender roles typical for men and women in their society.

For the vast majority of the world's population, genitals and genders match. Sometimes individuals opt to perform the opposite sex's gender role as "drag" theater. Drag acts may be remarkably entertaining and convincing, but at the end of the show, the man in a dress or the woman in a cowboy's outfit return to whatever their "day-time" gender role is.

So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for?

Granted, some people think "man" and "woman" refer to stereotypical roles normally performed by one or the other gender. In their view, something is wrong with both the female truck driver and the male nurse. In Archie Bunker terms, the woman is a dyke and the man is a pansy. Still, it probably IS the case, that the woman driving the semi may be a little different; like maybe more mechanically oriented than the typical woman. And it may be that the male nurse is a more capable nurturer than many males, as well as having the technical skill to perform in a hospital setting.

However much some people may be confused by men and women working in the opposite gender's field, my guess is that their actual sex role performance is completely conventional.

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes. — Philosophim

My thinking has changed over the years. 50 years ago, I accepted the concepts of transsexualism as a valid explanation for a profound personal dissatisfaction with life as they had experienced it. As "trans ideology" has developed, I have no confidence that it is a valid concept.

Trans men and women are engaged in an elaborate "drag" performance. Usually, drag is performed on a stage of some sort, for a short period of time. Afterwards, the performer goes back to their customary style in life. Drag can be quite elaborate, or relatively simple. I can understand extending one's man/woman drag act into one's whole life, and announcing that one is now a woman or a man. I don't know why, but some people find the opposite sex's roles and ways of being far more attractive than their own sex's ways of being. BUT, the person performing a drag act, for 10 minutes or 10 years, remains the sex he or she was born with, and no amount of costuming, hair styling, cosmetics, surgery, hormones, occupational change, etc. can change that.

I don't want to suggest that there are all kinds of drag acts that everyone is engaged in. However, many people conduct themselves in roles which are quite at odds with their everyday life. Otherwise quite conventional people may be members of political groups whose programs are incompatible with their conventional life (whether that be far right or far left). Some people's sex lives are wildly inconsistent with the sort of life they lead during work hours. Some people's literary or musical preferences are a complete mis-match with their expected choices--75 year old women performing punk rock, for instance (an actual thing).

Fine. That's what makes life interesting and meaningful for people. And it is valid as long as their preferences are not claimed to make them "different kinds of people". In my own case, I could have pretended to be a member of a revolutionary cell, committed to violent regime change. I could have pretended to be an academic scholar, committed to (oh, some standard field of study... whatever). I could have pretended to be a radical sexual renegade, engaging in wild sexual activities. So, in my case, I was a peaceful leftist, kind of academically oriented but not an academic, and a conventionally promiscuous gay guy. I have led a sober, conventional life as a gay man. My "drag act" was very tame.

So yes, trans men and women are performing an extensive drag act. I am sure this view is rejected by trans people. But it isn't so unusual for ordinary men and women to occupy unconventional roles: women who drive heavy construction equipment; men who raise children by themselves; men who are nurses; women who are soldiers. They perform these opposite sex-roles without being confused about their own actual sex role.

People can and do form relationships with objects: a car, a house, a plant. It seems to be a natural habit of humans, say, early on with the little child's comfort blanket. Objects, however, do not simulate; a car and a geranium are the real 'it' thing. Artificial intelligence is designed (manufactured) to simulate a pseudo, false, 'thou', or at the very least, a glittering, lovely, seductive, difficult-to-resist 'it'.

The 'AI it' has all the loveliness of a snazzy new car, a new up-market house, the latest and greatest gaming system--whatever it is that turns one on. But, no matter how much we invest ourselves in various glittery, seductive, irresistible objects, they are still objects.

Companies are no more (and no less) to blame for making an 'AI it' seductive than a car company is for making a vehicle sexy. Making goods and services attractive is one of the critical pieces of maintaining GDP. AI is, after all, nothing but a product offered by corporations hoping to profit enormously, just like Google Search or a chip maker (thinking AMD, not Lays).

Consumers, users, dupes? make the mistake of interpreting intelligible machine generated text as thoughtful writing. Or they interpret the approximation of caring language for actual caring. Or, interpreting whatever they get as whatever they are seeking. The 'AI it' is a capable imitator, an impressive simulation, certainly. AI can make a better picture than I can; it can find far more relevant information far faster than I can; it's better and faster at summarizing acres of text than anyone I know. I like using the service an 'AI it' provides.

Still and all, it's just another product from a market-creating, market driven industry.

I like the term "simulated" as opposed to "artificial". The two terms are not very far apart, but (in my mind at least) "simulated" emphasizes 'the creation of an appearance which is not real'. Something that is artificial may be real; artificial sweeteners are real substances. A simulation only appears to be real (but may be quite convincing).

"AI" isn't real intelligence, as you explained.

We've all seen that SI produces remarkable output, once it is triggered. So has the Google algorithm or the Amazon algorithm, once it is asked a question. Navigation guidance algorithms are pretty impressive too - recognizing that you missed the turn, then automatically figuring out how to correct your error. These all seem "intelligent", until they don't.

Perhaps the reason why so many people are excited, impressed, and/or fooled is that they think that the SI programs ARE real, just not human.

One of the reasons why Japan and Korea are experiencing population decline, and the United States is not, is that they are very reluctant to allow immigration into their countries. They have strong ethnic identities which is fine--as long as the people are reproducing. Americans would face declining population problems as well, but for the steady stream of young immigrants who bolster our population.

There are enough people younger than 25 in the world -- 42%, +/-, to solve the problem of declining population, at least for a period of time. However, Europe and China would have to be open to admitting ethnically diverse people.

I have no idea how population will be distributed by age, location, and income in 100 or 200 years, under future conditions at least as good as the past 1 or 2 hundred years. "At least as good" is unlikely to prevail, if it hasn't already come to an end.

Global warming, rising and warming oceans, more irregular climate behavior, declining supplies of fresh water, changing disease patterns around the world, problems with food production, etc. ALL make future conditions probably very challenging and possibly catastrophic. Specific populations and economies may not just decline, they may crash. These will all affect demographic disorder.

So individual human lives being a crap shoot doesn't seem incompatible with panspermia. — wonderer1

Of course not. Seriously:

One of humankind's problems with seeding life on other planets is that our lives, our civilizations, are too short to know how such an experiment turned out and to improve on our methods. Let's say that we have already (accidentally) seeded Mars with some bacteria. It might well be at least 10,000 or 50,000 years--who knows--before the innoculation could have achieved visible success. 1000 years is a very, very long time for us; 10,000,100,000, or 1,000,000 years is too long for us to pay attention to something so slow, even if we still exist for a million years more. (Now, if seeding bacteria turned Mars green in 50 years, that we would probably notice.)

Presumably an intelligent designer of planetary life would have the longevity to monitor results over the very long term.

More likely, panspermia was/is/would be an unguided process without intelligent agents.

I do not know how far ejecta from a planet in our solar system can travel. We know rocks from Mars are on earth, and maybe visa versa. Farther out in the solar orbits? I have not the faintest idea. I don't know how likely it is that ejecta from another solar system planet could travel to even a close by solar system and bear intact biological material.

I don't think life on earth (and elsewhere) required a primer, like a batch of organic chemicals. It seems like earth had the wherewithal to generate basic amino acids, for instance. All the elements (O, FE, N, etc.) which could be used were here. Given time, given a reasonably rich soupy environment, life will develop. It might have happened more than once (maybe many times) right here. It also might have failed to achieve a toe-hold (no toes yet) in the existing environment, and that also might have happened more than once.

Having achieved a cell of some sort containing biological functions, life could take off in any direction and proceed forward as long as the environment was reasonably stable and rich enough. The last time I looked at drawings based on Precambrian fossils was too long ago to say anything about it, but it seems like "weirdness" was a feature of earlier life forms, compared to later life forms. Weirdness should be expected.

The initiation of life processes was a crap-shoot, and organisms have been rolling the dice ever since.

"Scientists are now seriously asking if humans were seeded by aliens. Here's why" — RogueAI

I don't care whether life on earth was seeded or just happened in a warm little puddle. In either case, life is here, as likely or unlikely as that may be in the universe. Most likely there is life elsewhere as well, perhaps very different than the life in which we are participants. Whether we are the only life in the universe, or whether the universe is crawling with life--either way is amazing.

should guided evolution also be taken seriously — RogueAI

I reject intelligent design and guided evolution because, at least in the case of humans, we seem to have various problems that the ever-so-wise agents of intelligent design and guided evolution should have been able to avoid. (Or the intelligent designers and evolutionary guides were sons of bitches who knew damn well they were putting bad code in the Big Plan.)

Also, @RogueAI this isn't a sorry, sorrier, or sorriest thread.

Both of you raise well reasoned objections to my post about hate speech which I have referred to the Department of Opinions to be Reconsidered. In the meantime, I'll try to avoid hate.

My problem with hate speech laws is based on just what I see here in the United States. It isn't a "hate speech law vs unlimited free speech" problem. It's a problem of using "hate speech" as a lever (or hammer) against individuals or groups who have offended others, or expressed unacceptable political opinions. Being offended by speech is not the same as being injured by speech. There should be little to no protection against being offended.

The problem of unambiguously hateful speech (as opposed to offensive speech) is that it inflames other people and can lead to harmful, injurious behavior. Keep it up long enough and it will lead to harmful, injurious results.

So hate speech laws are appropriate for unambiguously hateful speech. It's ambiguously hateful, offensive, annoying speech where hate speech laws are inappropriate.

According to Google Ngram (a word/phrase frequency application) "hate speech" did not register as a phrase used in print until 1990. Its rise to prominence follows the classic "hockey stick" pattern -- slow at first, then straight up.

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like.

Thanks for the video. That San Cristobal is a high crime / dangerous neighborhood doesn't jump out at one. One would need to hang around the place at night, but there are signs that are problematic.

The housing looks like "public housing", as opposed to privately developed residences. Public housing in itself is a social good, but if it isn't managed carefully, it can turn into concrete jungles. For instance, it's critical to have a balance of adults and children in the buildings. Too many children and too few adults spells trouble. It's important to screen out problematic tenants. The buildings have to be maintained in good condition. Etc.

Chicago's public housing turned into a nightmare and the most of the buildings were torn town. New York City's public housing didn't. It stayed good. Why? Better management and a commitment to long-term maintenance.

San Cristobal has a lot of repetitive concrete/brick buildings located in close proximity. It isn't brick and concrete per se that are problematic. It's the way the buildings either support community or impede it -- or even destroy - it that matters. Again, New York is a crowded city. There are some very desirable and crowded neighborhoods made out of repetitive brick and concrete.

It is difficult to tackle all the problems that make up "high crime" neighborhoods. There just aren't enough social workers, enough jobs, enough public programs, enough therapists, enough of everything. Glad you are not living there -- you were just visiting, right?

Javi's "walk on the wild side"...

In 1625, Francis Bacon famously wrote, "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man". In order to be a well rounded man, one needs to read, engage in conversation (speaking and listening) and in writing.

I would emphasize practice: One needs to write, receive criticism, and judge one's own work, again and again, If one doesn't read and converse, what would one have to say? Well, there is one's experience to write about, or one's imagination to spill out in ink, but that should be informed by reading and conversation.

Here's a poem I think is "classic" by John Donne, poet, scholar, soldier secretary and priest. It partakes of the routine misogamy and double-standard of his time (16/17th century), but what's true for a woman is/was even more true for a man.

Go and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging,
And find
What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.

If thou be'st born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return'st, wilt tell me,
All strange wonders that befell thee,
And swear,
No where
Lives a woman true, and fair.

If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet;
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet;
Though she were true, when you met her,
And last, till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three.

George Herbert's Love III is another classic from around 1630.

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lacked any thing.

A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

It's about God's love and I won't quote any more 17th century poetry for a while.

Did you ever read any of these? — javi2541997

Only the Odyssey and parts of the Iliad; Metamorphosis, Candide; several Dickens, Mark Twain, Henry James, Dr Zhivago by Pasternak. None of the rest; I've never liked Hemingway. I read Don Quixote, once upon a time.

There are too many great books for anyone to have read more than a small fraction. Life is short and there is only so much time to delve into more than a few. And that doesn't include very significant books which would not be a wonderful read--like Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe.

I'd consider Dune a classic; I've reread it several times, and of course the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Most science fiction doesn't rate "classic" to me because normally I do not reread them, unless I had forgotten that I had read it before. Sort of like movies you don't remember you have already seen until... half way through.

What about individual poems -- can they be classics along side novels? I think so. John Donne (15th/16th century) wrote wrote a number of poems like that. So did Shakespeare; so did a lot of poets.

Then there are musical classics -- from far past up to yesterday. A lot of music falls well short of "classic" in the sense that nobody has been interested in it for maybe 500 years or since it fell off the current hit charts.

I liked the essay; for one thing, it provided another word for my list of words rarely used in English -- pulviscular, "dusty or resembling a fine powder". Google's AI referenced a Calvino essay.

Might "a classic" just be called "a great book"?

Each of his several definitions of "classic" will satisfy some people, leave other people indifferent or annoyed.

#5. "A classic is a book which even when we read it for the first time gives the sense of rereading something we have read before."

I like that. Several excellent history books I've read or am reading, from "The British are Coming" to Stephen Greenblatt's "Dark Renaissance: The Dangerous Times and Fatal Genius of Shakespeare's Greatest Rival" (just published 9/9/25) fulfill definition #5. They summon memories from college reading and lectures not thought about for decades; they tie together bits and pieces of readings about the topic; they extend insights, etc. Greenblatt's grim description of 16th Century English society (burnings, hangings, disembowelments, poverty, filth, the rigid exclusion of the many from any prospect of advancement (which is why Chistopher Marlowe, son of a poor shoemaker, is so exceptional), are stuff I haven't thought about since English major days in the 1960s.

A classic reinvigorates one's thinking on a topic. So, The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777 by Rick Atkinson has reinvigorated my thinking about what the American Revolution was really like -- how grotesque at times, how bloody, how savage, how dicey, how good luck or bad luck figured into so many events. I also have a better understanding of why the British didn't want to lose the colonies -- they were terrific money makers for Britain's ruling class.

I would nominate 15th century Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as a Classic I have re-read and enjoy studying, and Samuel Pepys diary 17th century diary. Both are fun reads worth returning to. I'd count John Skelton's 16th century work too -- like the Tunning of Eleanor Rumming. Not a pretty lady she.

Her lothely lere
Is nothynge clere,
But ugly of chere,
Droupy and drowsy,
Scurvy and lowsy;
Her face all bowsy,
Comely crynkled,
Woundersly wrynkled,
Lyke a rost pygges eare,
Brystled wyth here.

Wondrously wrinkled like a roasted pig's ear, bristled with hair! Maybe not Milton, but I haven't read Milton in a long time. Classic? Sure.

True. The "now" of a basketball game or tennis match is very short. The now of a marathon, not so short. Broadcast baseball games seem to have an interminable now -- God! When is this thing going to be over!!! Cricket I suppose has as speedy a now as molasses in January.

"living in the here and now" sounds like just one more cliche from authors making money in the self-help trade. Not that I have anything against "being in the present moment". What exactly is so great about being in the here and now of scrubbing the bathroom? Or of balancing one's checkbook? Or of having a bad headache? Etc. Quite often (in the real world) the here and now sucks!

I spent an evening with Richard Alpert, aka Ram Dass, at St. Catherine's College quite a few years ago @Wayfarer. It was lovely. Listening to something wonderful by Schubert, or biking in Wisconsin in perfect fall weather; or reading a really great book about how the continent of North America was put together have all been splendid. When one is doing something very enjoyable and worthwhile, one wants to "pay attention" or be present in that experience.

As far as the past goes, William Faulkner was right: "The past is never dead. It's not even past". (I haven't read the book where he wrote that. That's OK. It's still true.) That said, perseverating over past events doesn't help the present or the future. "Don't worry about the future" has always struck me as bad advice. True, the troubles of today are sufficient unto themselves, per Jesus, but there is no point in making tomorrow worse by what we are doing in the present moment--per Bitter Crank. So do worry about tomorrow at least a little, please.

NOW is always a juggling act with the past and future. How big is it? The "now" of my brain is a few minutes long, maybe. The "now" of geology lasts for centuries. The "now" of history is slow and spacious, until it suddenly switches to dizzying speeds. The "now" of a pop song on a 45 rpm record used to be about 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

Jack, I spent many years in the unpleasant present you seem to be occupying. Like you are doing, one endures; one questions why; one wishes life would be better. And periodically life does get better, at least for a time. Unfortunately, and it really is unfortunate, life just isn't organized around our being happy.

Yeah, and can you force people to behave? Without violent indoctrination? Without capital punishment and constant fear of death? No, you cannot. — Outlander

A depressing--and not at all realistic--response.

A "conscientious cooperative civil society" isn't forced -- it is reared from childhood. You have to teach children -- who become adults -- how to behave.

Does this result in perfect compliance with the law under any and all circumstances? Does this absolutely prevent violence under any and all circumstances? No. What it does is result in a LOW level of unlawful and violent behavior.

Do such societies exist? Certainly they do. Most of us live within such societies.

Many of us also live within societies which are fraying, owing to excesses of free enterprise in such businesses as gun manufacture, gambling, illicit drug use, and the like.

I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." — RogueAI

You didn't say that, of course; Kirk did. And it's specious. Having a gun never protected "God-given rights", other than the holy sanctity of private property--and then only maybe. What best protects civil rights is a conscientious cooperative civil society.

But I wonder whether Kirk had any limits to this sort of justification. In 2023 44,000 people died of gunshots. That's quite a few. Year after year, 40,000 here, 38,000 there, it begins to add up to to a sizable city.

We get used to the statistics of excess deaths -- those above and beyond what are the result of natural causes, like heart attacks, cancer, and strokes.

Americans feel they are entitled to do what they want to do, carry a loaded gun into church, drive the way they want to drive, take whatever drugs are on offer, and so on. 39,000 people died in auto accidents last year--quite a bit less than used to be slaughtered on th highways. In 2023, 80,391 people died of drug overdoses -- down from 110,000 in 2023. Are these acceptable numbers to justify "freedom of the gun", "freedom of the road", "freedom of the drug"? Taken together, guns, cars, and drugs killed roughly 160,000 people last year. I consider that a monstrous cost for a policy of non-interference in lethal activities.

This thread reminds me just how little I know the lot of you. — Outlander

Of course! The lot of us actually disclose very little pertinent information about our drab wretched lives. Some people here seem to feel they might be giving away private information if they acknowledge which continent they live on.

Charlie Kirk is a complete unknown to me. Every day anonymous strangers are killed whom I cannot mourn.

As for The Malcolm X issue of ballots vs. bullets, I am strongly in favor of 'the people' organizing themselves to engage in effective politics for the best interests of the country. "Best interests" will be contested, of course. What's in the best interests for small farmers might not be what is in the interests of urban dwellers. It seems quite clear that the legal framework in which gun manufacturers operate (very weak product liability, for example) is not in the best interest of anyone except gun manufacturers. (Gun manufacturers contribute much less to GDP than pet food manufacturers. The economy can flourish without gun makers!)

The 2nd Amendment / gun fetishists have grossly distorted what the constitution claims, and have in the process created a major menace. Sure, someone's decision to shoot up a school or kill some notable person may be highly irrational, but the more significant fact is that an irrational person someone contemplating mayhem will have no difficulty finding a well-stocked gun shop.

So, no sympathy from me for 2nd amendment victims of gun violence.

Perhaps we will reach a sufficient level of national disunity that we will be faced with a civil war. When and if that day arrives, we can get a gun, join a local militia, and blast away at the designated enemy. But we are not at that day now, and we do not seem to be on the verge of that day.

Vigorous, focused, competent political activism is still a better bet for a civil society, good government, honest business, and a free citizenry.

No advice from me on where you should go. Given the thread, I will note that if one did not exist, housing choices would be much simpler. I can only hope that everyone who didn't get born is not living in a poorly managed city of the non-existent where there are neighborhoods of nobodies ranging from elite ocean-side gated neighborhoods to third-world shit holes.

Most cities have bad areas, and they shift over time, so what might have been a nice neighborhood is now gangland. In Minneapolis, the area where a lot of shootings, drug dealing, drug doing, street crime, thieving, etc. etc. is creeping closer to my neighborhood which has seen low rates of crime for a long time. "Uptown" used to be a slick shopping and sort of bohemian housing area, next to the high end housing surrounding the string of large lakes. The up-scale housing zones are doing fine, but Uptown has hit the skids, partly a victim of urban renewal projects which can be extremely disruptive. The bookstores and coffee shops are gone, along with the vintage movie theater, several nice restaurants, and so on.

Unfortunately, neighborhoods that are bohemian, charming, cheap, and colorful have a higher chance of sinking into a slum because it is cheaper and probably socially more tolerant than areas which have much more to lose financially.

I don't know where I would move if (when) my present neighborhood becomes unsafe. Given my age (79), I'd have to look for affordable senior housing.

I suppose there are ways to survey possibly renting in other parts of London without having to traipse through 100 miles of hallways, subway rides, and streets looking at different places? Websites? Free rental agencies? City agencies?

Moving is tough. It's hard work, it's stressful, it's risky (always a gamble on the next landlord, next neighborhood, etc.) and it can be expensive. On the other hand, living in a neighborhood becoming a high crime area is not great either.

my individual ipseity — Moliere

I was doing so well without having heard of "ipseity". Now? The future is uncertain. A new word can cause the world to veer off in unexpected directions!

Perhaps you should live someplace else? Of course, I know that circumstances may preclude just casually moving from a neighborhood with gangs to a nicer, safer neighborhood. But do what you can. We don't want to lose you to a knife-wielding thug. (In the USA they just shoot you, which is usually more lethal.).

I've lived in some seedy, dicey neighborhoods and did get threatened at knifepoint on a couple of occasion, and barely missed worse. Other than moving, can you make a change in when and where you go? Are you more at risk later at night, and can that be avoided? Can you take any self-defense moves -- mace, a whistle (I don't know what the efficacy of whistles actually is), a gun? Oh sorry, you live in the UK. Might you attend a self-defense course?