The dome technology would be Earth technology brought with them, not an adaptation to Planet X. And it's not a technology we "evolved to have." We evolved to have intelligence and curiosity and to have hands with an opposable thumbs. They are an invention and didn't come to us the way nest building comes to squirrels or robins, as an instinct. — Unseen

I think you are putting a limit on the potential animal life has to adapt. When humans build habitats on other planets, that isn't an adaptation to an environment made possible through genetic mutations, but when a monkey uses a rock to smash open a nut, that is?

Interestingly, the domes that you typically see in Sci-Fi as space colonies are really just an advanced form of the nests made by the squirrels or robins. Human beings build nests too. In our prehistory, they were campfires and caves, now they are houses and apartments, and in the future, they may very well be domed habitats on other planets.

Essentially, a nest is a fortified location close to resources used to protect young and rest. If you were to be abandoned on a desert island, you would certainly end up building a nest, or end up dying of exposure. It is very much in our nature to build nests.

It also seems in our nature to want to explore where we haven't been and exploit useful resources.

So, if I may ask you at the risk of getting a little more off topic, where is the line between biological changes and technology picking up the slack in everyday life? An animal driven by instinct will know exactly what time to sleep and what time to hunt, but a human needs a watch to know if they are on time to work. Is it unethical for us to make people be on time if we have to make them use a watch?

You can disagree or agree, but I don't see it as in any way central to the ethical question here in the Ethics Forum. — Unseen

I thought your point was that it's unethical to send people to a new planet that they "don't belong on". If you can't define where a human belongs, that argument falls apart.

I'm far from claiming we can't go, at least as a possibility, and assuming a LOT of problems are solved. But if we go there and live in a glass dome only going outside in space suits, we aren't really adapting to the planet in an evolutionary way. — Unseen

Isn't the intelligence required to build big domes and space suits an evolutionary adaptation? Besides, if we can build big enough to terraform a planet, (something we can't do yet, one of those problems you mentioned) then we wouldn't need domes at all.

The only real things in my eyes that separate humanity from the rest of the biosphere is a higher relative sense of awareness and the ability to learn quickly. That's something that we evolved to have, and if it allows us to walk among the stars, we should certainly do that if it's beneficial to our continued efforts in survival.

Earth is where humans can survive (assuming we don't continue to eff it up). No other place is as suited because this is where we evolved. — Unseen

Does evolution end when we learn about it? I see no reason why through natural or engineered means we can't go places in the future that we can't go now.

You're not imprisoned on Earth. Earth is your species' natural home. — Unseen

Is a child born into slavery actually free because his parents were slaves? What seems more likely is that freedom is hierarchical and we can only be free or enslaved relative to others.

Peace is hard to maintain. Don't you think? Even on a place as big as Earth we have wars. What horrors could unfold in the confines of a spaceship? — TheMadFool

I think peace for at most 200 years is manageable. Especially when war means everyone dies. Sort of a mutually assured destruction sort of thing. Even so, rules and regulations will most likely be enforced by some sort of AI or less sentient computer system. That brings up some privacy issues, but we already have plenty of those at home. It almost completes the whole "Earth Experience" for them.

I'm not saying a space mission like in the OP is impossible but I am saying it'll be very very difficult. — TheMadFool

Anything worth doing is difficult. It will probably also get easier as we gain more experience in it and develop more tech to help us. All I'm saying is that space has a lot of raw resources, and if one bad enough thing happens on Earth, our entire species dies. I think it is generally a good idea to eventually colonize elsewhere even if one or two missions go wrong in the learning process.

We all know how teaching/education fails even at the most basic levels. Isn't the world's problems not attributable to our failure to educate everyone? People come in a variety of shapes and sizes, having different likes and dislikes, and this will be a severe disadvantage on a space mission which by definition will require a unified goal and thus a homogeneous population of astronauts. — TheMadFool

In a lot of countries, teaching/education fails very little. A colony ship would likely have the very best both in method and technology, so I don't see too many kids flunking out. Not that everyone needs to pass anyway since a majority of the people there would probably be there just to colonize, not necessarily maintain the ship. Also, I wouldn't attribute the world's problems to people not paying attention in school. Not even people with doctorates know how to make unlimited energy or stop natural disasters. I would say all of our problems are caused by the current limit of what we can teach, not necessarily people not learning.

This ship will be these people's home for a good while, most likely their entire lives. Even if they wish to seek vengeance on the people who sent them, they will always have an interest in maintaining the ship, because they need it to survive.

I think it very unlikely that the people would want to seek vengeance or even feel trapped at all. Realistic computer simulations and the biosphere required to maintain the life support systems should give an authentic Earth experience. Really, the only thing these people would be missing out on is potential poverty, natural disasters, and mundane sphere-bound existence.

I see your point, and would be inclined to answer ‘no’. In effect these individuals would be born into servitude, with no say in the matter, and no choice but to continue. — Wayfarer

I honestly question if anyone isn't born into servitude. I also question if servitude is really as bad as they say. Take a very rich, very happy man for example. He was born into the upper class and lives on money his father invested. Why does he continue to live?

If he is stupid, he will live for pleasure. He will be a slave to his desires, a slave to himself.

If he is smart, he will start to look for a reason to live. If he has a good family and friends, perhaps he would find reason in that. In that case, he lives for others. His will bends to others. He is not free, then.

If he has no friends or family, maybe he enjoys art or a certain subject. Just as the stupid version of this man, he will be a slave to his desire to learn, he can never truly be free.

No one can ever or will ever be able to do anything at any time.

Freedom, at least in what I see as the common definition, is the ability to act without constraint. You may have the freedom to do what you please, but that is not freedom in its deepest sense. If you wish to live, you wish to live for a reason. You are therefore obligated to do something because you want to live.

I imagine that many people on a colony ship will live happy, full lives. Some will not. However, I think that making an argument that "some people won't be happy" isn't effective because they very likely would have been just as unhappy on Earth.

To clarify, slavery is horrible. However, having nothing to do is almost as bad. I think it's clear that these people wouldn't be enslaved though. They also have things to do. It's the same happy medium as on Earth.

The children of such travelers didn't choose to be space voyagers. In addition they may lack the skills necessary for the mission and that would be a double jeopardy: the children would suffer for lack of fulfillment in their lives and the mission would fail. — TheMadFool

Wouldn't the parents just teach them? Even if all of the adults onboard die in a horrible accident, wouldn't we still have onboard computers to teach people and if all else fails, books? In all reality, you should be able to do anything on a colony ship you can do on Earth. That includes teaching, playing sports, falling in love, etc. That sounds like a pretty fulfilling life to me, especially when all you have to do to contribute is have a few kids. Not everyone has to be an engineer, some are just there to populate.

I’m convinced that interstellar, or even inter-planetary, habitation is impossible due to unsurpassable physical constraints. — Wayfarer

Genetic augmentations and a good amount of training could easily solve a lot of dangerous problems and minimize what we have to protect against. I think it's safe to say that the people we send to space to stay won't be "homegrown" per se, but they will certainly be genetically human.

We have one, and only one, spaceship that is capable of supporting life for hundreds of millions of years. We’re on it, and have to look after it; there’s no ‘planet b’. — Wayfarer

Personally, I believe we learned about what we might be doing to "planet a" too late. I don't blame my ancestors for wanting to live comfortable lives especially when they didn't know about any dire consequences. That isn't going to stop me from trying to both maintain and advance that standard of life for me and everyone else. Even if it means we have to leave "planet a" behind for a bit and then come back later when we can fix things.

The Voyager spaceships that we’re launched out our solar system would take tens of thousands of years to reach Alpha Centauri, not hundreds: — Wayfarer

The Voyager crafts are both very old and very slow. They were also only meant to reach the outer edges of our solar system and take pictures, not colonize or even move very fast. I don't recall if we even know where they are anymore, but frankly, I don't think it matters. They did their job, had only the requirements for their job, and shouldn't be used as a benchmark for interstellar travel.

Nuclear Fission is not powerful enough, nuclear fusion is always 50 years away and, besides, each of these have limitations due to the fuel needing to be carried aboard. — Stephen Cook

We don't need to carry any fuel on board, or at the very most much less than is needed to go the whole journey. Lasers pushing a craft forward eliminates the need for carrying fuel aboard the craft, and slowing down can be done by those particles in "empty space" you mentioned earlier. If the laser is now the concern, we already have a fusion reactor to power it. The sun should be sufficient and reliable enough to power such a device.

Then there is the issue of speed and distances involved. To be able to travel such vast distances in ny kind of plausible way (I will expand in what I consider as "plausible" later), the speed would need to be a significant fraction of the speed of light. — Stephen Cook

To reach Alpha Centauri in 100 years, only 4.5% of the speed of light is required. This is nowhere close to our current speed record of 11.08 km/s, but NASA is currently working on an (admittedly tiny) craft that will go 20% of light speed powered by a similar laser method. I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagination that with a much larger laser we should be able to reach a fourth of that with a larger craft.

In each cubic metre of space, there are, on average a few free floating, lone hydrogen atoms as well as other elements and larger, more complex, cosmic dust particles. For anything travelling at a tiny fraction of the speed of light, these particles may as well be assumed to be non existent in practical terms. But, for objects travelling at significant fractions of the speed of light they are anything but non existent. If we assume a large space craft travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, the issue of friction and build up of heat is going to be a problem. — Stephen Cook

Typically it is assumed that close to lightspeed vessels will have to be narrow and long to avoid this. However, even though that would work on the body of the craft, the sail that pushes the craft would need to be wider so that it is still pushed by the slowly scattering laser. The heat could be alleviated by going a bit slower, but the "sail" could be made of very heat resistant material. All that really matters is that the sail is light and heat resistance, so it could be made of any kind of material, and also very thin. I don't know how hot it would get, but we might have (admittedly rare) materials currently that could do the trick.

The only other viable system that has been conceptualized would be the Buzzard Ram jet whereby free hydrogen is harvested on route from the interstellar medium I alluded to above. This is still firmly in the realms of science fiction and there is no good reason to assume it will not remain there. — Stephen Cook

I recall an upcoming test on a large prototype fusion reactor in France. Let's hope it does well. Even so, I think the reason it feels like it's taken so long to get fusion power is that we have so very few reactors to test on, and once they run a test, they're out of commission for a good while. I really think that scientists just need more toys to play with, and then something like this would be possible. Of course, those toys are very very expensive, and all of the money they could ever need is sitting in the Swiss bank accounts of oil tycoons. Go figure.

To return, now, to the issue of what is a plausible time-span for travel to another world. If we are talking about a multi-generational time-span, the following issue arises: the spaceship would need a fully functioning, ecologically self contained and self sustaining living system whereby all waste products of life were recycled and returned to the system for reuse. Here, on earth, we have an entire planetary eco system devoted to that little task. In what realms of fantasy does anyone suppose it would be possible to create a fantastically miniaturized, version of the above - where all of the energy required for such a complex living system to exist and to renew and repair itself would have to be carried on board for the entire journey? — Stephen Cook

I think this could be accomplished with current knowledge. It's only a 100-200 year trek, so we don't need too much biodiversity. Energy to provide artificial sunlight could be provided by the laser from before. A hearty mix of man-made technological marvels and possibly genetically engineered flora and fauna would be necessary, but the latter is already done today and the prior is more a matter of building big.

I think more research into various ecosystems is required though. I think we know enough to say we can do it, but not enough to say exactly how.

There are other issues of plausibility, but I'll leave it at that one since it is quite insurmountable enough as it is. Put it this way, if humans were capable of devising a space vessel capable of the above, there would be little requirement to endure the arduous interstellar journey to the next star since humans could colonize empty space in our own solar system far more easily on the back of such technologies. But, even that is highly improbable. — Stephen Cook

This I agree with to an extent. thorough colonization of our solar system would not only be required for interstellar travel but also more efficient anyway. However, when we need more resources to build solar collectors but we don't want to disassemble Earth (or any other planets, likely Mercury first), or if we don't want to blot out our own star with a Dyson Swarm or if we wish to keep our system relatively intact anyway, interstellar travel is a good idea.

Our future is not in the stars. It is in the mud. — Stephen Cook

Our (near) future is not in the stars, it is in the mud.

Why?

In the described situation, generations of humans will live out their lives in the service of the mission. They will never know what it's really like to experience life on Earth. A European vacation? Not possible. A world cruise? Not possible. Hiking the Appalacian Trail? Not possible. Being able to choose a mate from among all the potential mates on the planet? Also not possible. — Unseen

If we can create automatic systems sufficient to not only create but maintain a ship large and complex enough to keep life support systems as well as all other systems operational for at least one hundred years, we can make computer simulations of the things you mentioned above. Even current VR technology, as crude as it may be, can do most of those things in a limited capacity. In fact, since we are investing in the future of humanity, I don't think it would be too much to think that the simulations would be better than the real thing. Probably easier to experience for the individual as well.

As for not being able to choose a mate among the potential mates still back home, if this is a generational ship (which is what we are discussing) they will have plenty of mates to choose from onboard. Unless you are extremely tied up in superstition and faith, it should be easy to believe that you didn't leave your one true love behind on Earth.

The question is this: Are these people who, after the first generation, are no longer volunteers kidnap victims? Prisoners? — Unseen

When colonists crossed the ocean to the Americas, and they had children, were those children prisoners? Of course, those children could travel elsewhere on the continent, or if they had the money, even travel back. However, these ships that take us to new stars will likely be massive. If you don't like your parents, just move to the next area over. Really, most people throughout history have had no choice of where they lived. Travel was either too expensive or not practical. Even today, the choices of your parents will always change the way you live even before you are thought of. No one (except for an antinatalist) is saying that your parents were unethical because they had to take a job in New York City and now you're forced to grow up there.

Really, even if the colonists were exposed to horrible conditions, this is the future of humanity we're talking about. If one thing bad enough happens on our small corner of the universe, it's over. I think that even if it is horribly ethically wrong to send people on a journey like this, the ends justify the means to do it at least a few times.

Or are we saying to wealthy people we think they should pay more because we think that their wealth has not been fairly acquired? If that is the case then why not just take steps to prevent this unfair acquisition. Rather than let it happen and then commit some other act of (apparent) unfairness in the form of progressive taxation. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Or do they? — tinman917

I think you are right in saying we are trying to fix the symptoms of a problem instead of the actual problem. There are people who have earned every dollar they have, and they certainly deserve more reward for more work, however, there are also people who have gotten their fortune in ways that don't justify their wealth.

I think a major problem with world economics is that value is tied to level in a hierarchy instead of the importance of work. How many dollars an hour is a teacher worth? What about a CEO? Importance to society should be considered when paying people, and importance doesn't always go up with position. For sure it does sometimes, but certainly not always.

In my humble (maybe wrong) opinion, people should be paid as much as they contribute to society. Of course, that is easier said than done. Wages would certainly fluctuate by year, depending on the need for certain jobs, new fields opening up, and resource production. This would also have to be a world without corruption, where people don't or can't use authority over others to expand their authority. I do think that it is fair for everyone to be owed the equivalent of their contribution, however. If you did work equivalent in difficulty and necessity to create a boat, you should be able to have a boat.

Something like this might also let us control inflation. Work that was valuable twenty years ago would be just as valuable now in monetary form. I think that if you are an award-winning scientist in 1980, you should be paid comparatively in 1980, and if you want to buy a new home in 2024, I would say that your significant contributions to your field should justify being able to buy that. Same with someone else who did something just as great in 2019 and wanted to buy a house in 2019.

Should we be able to alter our genetics not cure diseases but to make our selves smarter, stronger, more attractive, etc.? — SydneyPhilosopher

To avoid accusations (baseless or not) of the higher-ups of society using this kind of tech to advance themselves and close off the opportunity to the lower classes, I think it should only be done if we can afford to do it to everyone. I just don't think the benefits that come with genetic modification justify the potential civil unrest that could come from people disgruntled that their child had to die from cancer and their richer neighbors didn't.

So I do very much support using genetics to modify ourselves how we see fit, but I think it requires a post-scarcity economy to do so peacefully.

Do you ever have that narcissistic urge to be remembered for something? I feel like the Cynics were essentially narcissists in their adoration of the good and ethics. There's a tinge of selfishness in living in society whilst disregarding everything it has to offer. — Wallows

I suppose I do have that urge, but I also wish to earn it. I don't think I'm important at all right now. Also, I wish to do good things because they are good, not necessarily because I will be remembered. However, to me, if I'm not remembered for them they weren't good enough.

However, I would be interested in what Cynics considered to be good. I think an important and all too often ignored step of doing the right thing is actually figuring out what that would be and justifying your actions with that.

And yes, I think it is selfish to live in society while also disregarding what is has to offer. Perhaps you can be selfish towards yourself? If I do part of the work, I deserve some of the pay, but what if I don't feel that I deserve the payment I get?

Well, we aren't machines here. There's an element of me that desires to be like everyone else and have kids, whilst disregarding the selfish urge to not be selfless. — Wallows

Well, if you feel the need to be normal, not having kids is starting to get there. Regardless, I don't think anyone would blame you for not conforming in a way like that. It certainly isn't hurting anyone (unless your mother REALLY wants grandkids).

Yeah, I feel you here. It's apathy speaking on my part. I have to deal with it in my own terms. So be it I suppose. — Wallows

I have to wonder if that kind of apathy is good or bad. Recently I was asked which flooring to get in my kitchen and my only answer was "whatever you like". That doesn't cut it for a lot of people, and sometimes it even upsets them. On the other hand, it lets people get what they really want instead of having to worry about how I feel.

Cool, but, what do you mean by that? I'm much more concerned about my sanity than projecting my issues and passing my defective genes to a new progeny. — Wallows

Well, I looked up your profile and your favorite philosopher is Diogenes. So, how do your Cynical philosophy with contributing to society? — Wallows

I do think that most people are out for themselves, but I think that can be beneficial. If we lock what people want behind work that helps others, they will do it, and help other people whether they want to or not. Essentially, I like Diogenes because he is a great example of how cynicism can be used but often goes to waste because people disregard selfishness as evil. Also, his antics give me a kick, and I'm partial to a bit of mischief as well.

As for what I mean by leaving a more important legacy, probably helping to make a world like that.

Yeah, I'm contemplating that issue as we speak. It seems to me that I have no desire to want to have children, so that's a big issue to overcome in my world. — Wallows

If you don't want them, don't have them. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

My psychiatrist is supremely frustrated at my lack of concern for myself and others except for my mom. — Wallows

I think I share that a bit. I don't really care much about my own happiness, especially when the happiness of others is at stake. I've learned to go a bit easier on myself though. It's hard to be productive when you're unhappy and being productive helps others.

Interesting though that you didn't feel loved, and I did. — creativesoul

To some extent, having something is better than nothing, but the opposite is also true. If someone does something bad to you, you're at least part of their life. I was always just a pawn in my dad's plans. Of course, I would rather have that than leaving people guessing what didn't happen to me.

Cool. Don't feel sorry for me though. I'm good. More than good. I actually laughed at my score because I didn't think my life was all that bad. — creativesoul

I think that often people see their childhood as the norm and that leads to normalizing bad habits. It really is hard to wake up and realize that you didn't have a normal childhood. I know the test isn't perfect, but you did get an A, so I have few doubts that there was some kind of abuse there. Of course, the past is in the past, all you can do now is hope that you can be as normal as possible, (which you seem to be doing well at).

Perhaps feeling loved holds more weight for us than the other considerations... — creativesoul

I think very much so. Even if you are loved, it is sometimes hard to feel loved. At least for me. It's hard for me to believe anyone loves me, not because I necessarily do anything wrong, but because I wouldn't love me. I probably wouldn't even talk to me.

I think the evolutionary implications of such a thing are interesting. It clearly incentivizes living in groups, but also seems to encourage those who already are set to succeed. If your mother loves you, she will nurture you to make you strong, but feeling loved also gives strength. It goes to show how powerful tribal living is if love is so strong and so tied to it.

5. Not as high as yours, luckily. 9 is just insane. My stuff was already relatively tame, especially next to wherever you grew up.

Everything that you pointed out from experience seems to imply the above to some degree. — Wallows

I'm just glad I'm not complaining about nothing. He had this weird way of twisting everything so that he was doing it for the greater good and was never wrong. He was wrong often.

Do you want to have kids, why or why not? — Wallows

My experiences have made me very indifferent on a lot of things. If my partner wants children, then I would have them for sure, but if it were just up to me then maybe when I can guarantee them a world where they will have all the opportunities they need to become successful. Maybe. I'm not too concerned with leaving my legacy behind in the form of children, I'd rather do it in a more important way.

Anyway, the real abuse was emotional neglect and the abusive tendencies of a male who did not know how to express his feelings in my view TogetherTurtle. I hope you can fill in that void. I just wallow in my depression. — Wallows

I think that hits spot on. It's weird to put so many memories and events into such few words, but also sort of comforting as well. As far as filling the void, I've become pretty ok at handling it. I don't think the weight of not having a father figure will ever just go away, but I can operate regularly (I hope) and can contribute to society so I think it's ok now.

As for you, live the best life you can. If your concern with having children is finding the right person, take your time. Take your time, but don't waste it. There does seem to be a limit in age as to where the eligible partners vanish. That is probably in a decade for you though. It would be a shame for you not to have children (adopted or otherwise) because you seem fully fit to raise them. If your concern is "knowing how to raise kids", I don't think anyone actually knows anyway. You'll be fine.

Depression is another one of those self-fulfilling prophecy things. It's very hard for me to make plans with friends at all, and forget about talking to girls. Sometimes you just have to force yourself to do things you know will make you happy, even if you think you don't deserve them. It's a work in progress kinda thing, so try and stop wallowing and start exploring. That, of course, is easier said than done.

There's only so much of that to go around. I feel sorry for the poor task (double duty) of educating and raising children in overpacked, sugar high, hyperactive kids that teachers have to deal with.

And we pay them shit salaries too. — Wallows

It is a shame how much they have to do. The salaries especially. Most of the teachers I have had deserved a lot more for just what I put them through, let alone what younger kids probably did and still do. My college algebra teacher senior year was in a bad mood at least once a week from the algebra 1A kids that had just left. I'm pretty sure most of those kids turned in their finals blank.

Now, this is the proper response, although prematurely reached for some children. — Wallows

Yeah, tell me about it.

And, that's kind of the issue with love. It's often equated with approval. I mean, my elementary teacher didn't have to love me to show signs of approval. — Wallows

Perhaps approval from the various teachers I had growing up felt nice, but love from them would have felt better. I think love is just stronger approval.

This cannot be a therapy session, but I'll just point out that 'establishing safety' is the first requirement for recovery from trauma, as set out by Judith Herman in the book linked above (Have a look, it's not too hard to read). So it is important if you are to make any changes, to ask yourself seriously what you need, to feel, well not total security, but secure enough to take the next step in a relationship, whether therapeutic, romantic, or just friendly. — unenlightened

I'll try and take the advice, thank you.

That's a very sad confession; I'm very sorry for you. Unfortunately, such insecurity has a tendency to become self-fulfilling, because the only way to test someone's love is to be unpleasant to them, and eventually, because no one's love is infinite, you will reach their limit, and prove yourself right again. — unenlightened

Ah, the self-fulfilling prophecy. I've been told by more than a few that is my greatest weakness. Maybe I'll overcome it someday.

Alice Miller was particularly interested in celebrities, and she suggested that they are driven by the need for attention, and can never get enough to reassure themselves that they are loved. Gabor Mate talks about addiction, not only to drugs, but to money, status, power, and incidentally, they are interested in much more subtle forms of abuse than are caught by the questionnaire. But let me put it this way, being abused by Jimmy Savile s not 'sweet'. — unenlightened

I honestly question if anyone ever thinks they are loved. I can speak for myself and tell you that I'm not entirely sure, but my interactions with most people imply that they are insecure in some way. It's almost as if part of our psyche is being incomplete, and if we feel content, our minds will automatically look for some other hole to fill.

I think that at the end of the day, it is ultimately our fault for not being happy, but it is also necessary for us to be unhappy if we wish to continue to change and live. If you are happy living in a trash compactor, eventually the walls will cave in on you.

5 or 4 1/2 for me.

Now if you read Alice Miller, or Gabor Mate, they will tell you that it is not just in the gutter that you will find these victims, but some of the great and the good, actors businessmen, politicians are also suffering and coping as best they can with obsessive behaviours of another kind. — unenlightened

I think the difference between the people in the gutter and the ones who become successful is interesting. Surely chance has something to do with it, but what else? The severity of the abuse might. For instance, maybe a 7 on the scale has a better chance at success than a 9.

For successful people, perhaps there is a sweet spot of abuse where it isn't too high to learn from but not so low that you stagnate. Of course, people from all levels can succeed, so everyone must have a different tolerance to abuse. Of course, there are also ways to learn that don't involve abuse, or at least what we would classify as abuse. At the end of the day, to be right in the future, you must be ok with being wrong, and at least at first, being wrong hurts.

And what of potential? It is often said that challenges make you stronger, but I would disagree to an extent. Challenges only make you stronger when you complete or win them. If you leave them alone or lose, you will only become weaker. If you lose, then you don't learn what is required to win. Sure, you learn what isn't required, but that can be almost anything and win conditions are specific.

A believer in free will would probably argue that the difference now between the person who succeeds and the person who doesn't is their own decisions. But what affects their ability to make these decisions? Outside factors. If you are in a bad situation, then only something from outside that situation can help you, because without change a stable system will not change. Even then, help that intervenes could just make things worse.

It certainly does seem to come down to luck at some point. There is so much we don't know about the human mind that would be endlessly useful in our everyday lives. I like to imagine a world where we can make everyone live up to their full potential. Of course, that is much easier said than done.

They are referring to a principle which they understand to govern the material world. If we use your definition of physical laws, then the laws will lose their character of necessity. If the law of universal gravitation just refers to a type of movement, then there's no reason why objects of mass should necessarily attract other objects of mass. — Dusty of Sky

I meant that while gravity is a real thing that we can observe, the name "gravity" simply tells me what you are talking about. It's a useful short term for when not everyone at the dinner table understands math. So the name "gravity" only exists within our minds, but the actual phenomena is what is undeniably real.

Well, undeniable to an extent. You mention that these names turn into descriptions of the past, and you would be absolutely correct. After all, we can not know and study the future. Rico may one day have white fur instead of orange, and while I will obviously be confused about how that happened, you can't blame me for thinking he was orange.

Essentially, I see science as a whole as reverse engineering nature. No one can tell you if you are right in science. Sure, a supervisor or respected elder may tell you what they know, but there is no answer key on the field. Gravity may be a whole lot of hoo-ha. I don't think it is, I hope it isn't, but if you think it is, you still have to explain everything gravity does. While flat earthers have more of a conundrum than a theory, they are still at least attempting to explain what they see.

So, what is real is the phenomena. Objects are naturally drawn toward each other. My cat is orange.

The name can be simple or complex. Gravity can be F=G(m1m2)/r^2 or just simply gravity. Rico can be Rico, or the sum of his genetic code plus his experiences of the world, plus his name, etc.

However, different people explain things in different ways. To a flat earther, what you call "gravity" is simply flat Earth falling at 9.8m/s. You can tell him his definition is wrong, and I would agree, but he is still talking about the same thing we all experience.

What we observe could change tomorrow and never change back. As so, I believe our names and definitions should change with them. Of course, I don't think gravity is ever going to change, but we can only know the past and use that to predict the future.

Accepting all of that, the pertinent philosophical question would seem to be: "Then why the hell do you have a cat?" — Janus

I suppose his equation pleases me. I mean, he did just claw me, but I still like him. Surely.

Enjoyment of Cats(Rico)-Being Clawed=Love for Rico

I guess.

Perhaps our equations are just representations of how we understand what is real. All an equation does is explain a phenomenon or system in a way that we can communicate to others. I guess you could say that the equations ARE the concrete objects, just broken down in a way we can understand them.

Ideas are still Nouns. If you think about it further, aren't all nouns ideas? My cat exists outside of my mind, but I can only observe him from within my mind. I can tell you his name, and you may be able to identify him. My cat's name (Rico) is the equation and my cat is the concrete object. Is it not correct to say that my cat is Rico? The molecules that make up his cells that make up his body are certainly more complicated than that, so if you want I could go into more detail about his features and personality and chemical makeup. You could say something like Name+Genetics+Experience=Rico. That is a simple albeit relatively accurate formula. The more complicated the formula, the more accurate it seems.

I've never attempted to explain my cat as an equation and I don't know how I feel about doing it either. Regardless, I've always seen language as the bridge between what is real in our minds and what is real in the outside world. I consider equations a kind of language. Language can be broken down to the vibrations of your vocal cords to make different sounds. That sounds like something that can be watched under a microscope to me.

Any AI that would not see humanity as a viral danger to this planet (wider range of thought)...is lacking in intelligence also. — Frank Apisa

Why would AI care about the well being of our planet? Such a consciousness would have the knowledge and capability to relocate itself to another planet or even just empty space if it wishes. The reason we see the Ebola virus as a threat and not other similarly sized organisms is that the Ebola virus can actually hurt us. If AI is as strong as we think it will be, it will either see us as ants and ignore us, or wish to guide us similar to a benevolent god. Killing us is simply a waste of time and resources.

Should we not be the 'underlings' of God, or gods, etc.? Are we not inferior to such divine power? But at the same time, without such advancement, we humans may never, in the truest sense, evolve, am I right? — Athen Goh

If gods truly want us to stay primitive, they will exercise their powers and keep us that way. Otherwise, I see no reason for us not to harness god-like power if it benefits us. Of course, this all relies on gods being real, which is debatable. So either gods are real and they will stop us if they wish, or they don't stop us and we continue OR they aren't real anyway and can't stop us. No matter the circumstances, it seems our current course is sound.

Finally, something interesting.

I propose that all "philosophy" has hitherto been an evolution of specialized language predicated on fortifying a master-slave relationship between the educated and the uneducated. — whollyrolling

I find it strange how so often, we human beings wish for a world where we can all prosper, yet we are also so hellbent on making our world unequal. Are we lying to ourselves? Is lying to ourselves necessary to get what we want? How much is our subconscious hiding?

Tin foil hats aside, this phenomenon is not only present in philosophical circles. All crafts and schools of thought typically go this route. Of course, nothing in your OP says this doesn't happen, but you also didn't mention it.

Its primary directive has been to lend a label of "lesser being" to all who exist outside its pages--based on a subjective view of what is greater and what is lesser. — whollyrolling

Is there an objective view of what is greater and what is lesser? If so, what is it?

We generally distrust outsiders, and this has been a blessing and a curse. It can help when a robber is breaking into your home but destroy otherwise healthy and beneficial relationships between groups of interest.

It has far more often than not been a domain of birthright. It has been little more than a justification of hierarchies set forth by whoever inhabits the pinnacle of those hierarchies. — whollyrolling

Perhaps this is sometimes the case, but certainly not always. All philosophers disagree with each other at all times. That isn't an exaggeration, either. In other fields such as physics or biology, a very large group agrees completely with each other, and the dissonant are in the extreme minority. In philosophy, disagreeing about even very minor points seems to be par for the course. If it was really just a big conspiracy to keep the rich from being poor or some kind of ego boost thing, you would think they would agree more on the fairy tales they tell outsiders.

That philosophy has once in a while happened upon a rational position is a Casino Royale of "intellect". It is to subscribe to the echoing voices of a few members of a dismally minute portion of civilization and to treat them as though they were the best the world had to offer at the time while it's statistically highly improbable.

It is mental gymnastics, a game of dice or straws until a position is empirically demonstrated. — whollyrolling

If you replaced "philosophy" with any other field of study or discipline, you would still get a true statement. Even though we like to think that we judge off of rationality, we most certainly do not. It is simply impossible for our slimy reptilian brains to only see what there is and not what we want to see. We have been hardwired to see faces where there are none, shapes in otherwise shapeless clouds, and meaning in a world that has offered us none.

If we really valued logical thinking and rationality, we would have long ago discarded politicians for computers and scientists. Even down to the very way we make decisions, our emotions and subjective values are taken over any kind of rational discourse. A scientist can tell you that a volcano is going to erupt and that measures must be taken to stop it, but a politician or a priest can tell you that nature is sacred and that it shouldn't be altered. Of course, it isn't objectively true that nature is sacred, or even that anything is, but you do believe that something is, yes? We are all incapable of rational thought at all or even at any times.

The fact that we learn anything is luck of the draw. It is proof that while we are better than animals in terms of knowing the world, we are far from being gods. Luckily we can use what we already know to alter the odds from the drawing.

And as for statistics. You say that these philosophers being the best we have to offer is statistically improbable, but what are these statistics? Do they state that people who can be classified as "the best we have to offer" are rare? Then why can't they be that? If they are a very small minority of the total human population, then they do qualify. Of course, so do all of the other fringe groups of people that look into different things. It might be statistically speaking impossible for me to be the president, but someone does have to be the president. It just so happens that Socrates got elected. Of course, if you don't think that he is great, that is fine, but he certainly isn't held back by statistics, more just your opinion.

Personally, I don't think that "the best we have to offer" exclusively consists of philosophers, and I think almost everyone would agree. I think David Bowie was a great musician, but he certainly didn't publish any best sellers in the philosophy genre.

A "fact" is just an opinion that a person is confident about. For example, the statement "it's a fact the Earth goes around the Sun" actually means "we're really really confident the Earth goes around the Sun." — YuZhonglu

Why am I posting this? Because I'm tired of people claiming "X is a fact.' The moment someone claims anything, they're just offering their opinion. — YuZhonglu

But you just defined what a fact is. Have you defined the non-existent? How can a fact not exist when a fact is an opinion verified by experience? Those criteria are met for claims all the time.

Surely this implies that facts are not as set in stone as most people take them to be, but I'm sure everyone around here knows how fragile our theories can be. Even if facts are only slightly more powerful than opinions, facts do carry the burden of proof.

Just don't waste saying the wrong thing about the wrong thing. There's no point in shooting one's self in the foot. — Bitter Crank

I'll try I suppose.

"Funniness" also depends on the receiver of a joke. There are some humorless, literal-minded people who don't get a lot of jokes. — Bitter Crank

When input and output aline, humor is created. If the system doesn't line up, that seems to be where things go wrong.

I was called on the carpet once for saying "Whoever set this mail system up ought to be taken out and shot." I was reported for making violent threats. This was like... 2002 or 2003. The person to whom I was reported dismissed it, saying she said that all the time. I should have reported her, I guess. — Bitter Crank

I've been in trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. In the back of my mind, I fear that I might get in huge trouble and live a lesser life as a result. Others like me have made it before, so I suppose as long as the walls don't start having eyes I should be fine.

It has some great comic scenes, but it isn't one of Mel Brooks' best movies, because (as the critics said) Alfred Hitchcock's movies are hard to parody. They aren't loaded with the 'self importance' that makes a delicious target for satire. (Donald Trump, on the other hand...) — Bitter Crank

To continue existing, I think we all have to think we are somewhat important. Of course, that can go overboard. As far as Mr. Trump goes, he is an easy target from that angle, but ease of access also invites low quality. There is a lot of satire that makes fun of satirical remarks about Donald Trump. Take this a few levels further and you can see how the layers could get confusing. It is a good way to hide how you truly feel about an issue when that has to be done, for better or for worse.

That’s heartbreaking. I have some experience with getting help on mental health issues and I wish you all the best with helping these kids. It’s hard to think about my life if I wasn’t helped and I can’t even imagine kids who have it worse than I did. Keep trying to help, but just know that being too overbearing can cause trust issues and make things even worse.

Under some, yes. I would at least take seriously enough to forward it to the police/authorities or keep it in a file in case things escalate from there. But, then, I'm a teacher, and I'm required by law to do so if it's a student/colleague/other person connected to the students and or the school. — NKBJ

I suppose that is just an effect of your employment. One of your top priorities is keeping kids safe so I can understand being a little over cautious.

However, don't be too overly cautious. I got in trouble a lot during school for stupid stuff like this because someone took it too seriously. You want to take things seriously enough to prevent danger but not so seriously you ruin some kids life because they had a slightly more edgy sense of humor than most.

Even ignoring that vague balance that nonetheless must be kept, teachers really do have difficult jobs, and I'm glad you are taking yours seriously.

But also I've already seen/heard some of the weird and deranged things students write/say to people before they attack them in the cafeteria with a knife and are then put in mental health facilities. — NKBJ

You must teach in a more hostile environment than I was taught in. Do you work at a poorly funded school, or is there just some kind of discipline problem?

How in the world is it obvious? You do realize that the Australian mosque shooter posted an entire manifesto on the internet before actually killing people? That multiple mass murderers have written long and rambling manifestos before committing atrocities? — NKBJ

I'm very aware of that, but it is about what they are writing, not that they wrote anything at all. Murderers are obsessed with how and why. They have a reason why they want to kill (motive) and a way to do it (method). The rant in question doesn't have either. Rather, the rant is just a list of falsified qualifications that anyone on the internet above the age of ten could lie about. They say that they know "seven hundred ways" of killing and that they are "tracing their IP", but that reads more like a resume than a death threat. There certainly is no motive present in the rant, and the how is kept purposely vague as to make fun of the exact phenomenon you are describing: actual death threats.

What of you? Would you take that message seriously under any circumstances? I would certainly not.

In contrast, here is an excerpt from the manifesto of Elliot Rodger, the shooter at the 2014 Isla Vista Massacre.

"On the day before the Day of Retribution, I will start the First Phase of my vengeance: Silently killing
as many people as I can around Isla Vista by luring them into my apartment through some form of
trickery. The first people I would have to kill are my two housemates, to secure the entire apartment for
myself as my personal torture and killing chamber. After that, I will start luring people into my
apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking
people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure
they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering,
and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it. I will cut them, flay them, strip all
the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other
form of torture I could possibly think of."

You can defend the stupidity required to confuse this and the message she received, but is that not just proving my point?

Here is an old joke that just popped into my head: "Why do they call it "pre-menstrual syndrome?" "Because 'mad cow disease' was already taken.")† — Bitter Crank

That one got me.

"How many Germans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" "One. They're efficient and not very funny." — Bitter Crank

This one is great too.

What are some features that make a joke funny? Is "funniness" one of them? Or is "funniness" derived from other features? It seems like the humor or comedy of a joke derives from other elements, not "funniness" in itself. — Bitter Crank

If funniness is derived from features that make up jokes, is funniness not also a feature of a joke? Semantics aside, I do believe absurdity is where most jokes start. We laugh at things we think are strange, but why do we do that? What kind of advantage does that give us over just acknowledging strange happenings and moving on? But it is also cleverness. Taking something normal and warping it into something strange through your own intelligence is something to be proud of and I suppose something that should be praised.

1) She didn't know the backstory to these things, so how was she supposed to know it wasn't real? It would only be funny to someone who understands what a copy pasta is... — NKBJ

It is irrelevant if she got the joke or thought it was funny, the problem is that she took something so outlandish so seriously. Anyone who gets up in the morning and goes to work and deals with other people should know how much of a piece of shlock this is. Seriously, if you think that Navy Seals are going to break down your door because you said that 4chan users should be put on terrorist watch lists, then you deserve to be made fun of and you certainly took it too seriously.

2) even then, it's not funny (imho, and I'm no Boomer). There's nothing witty or clever about it. It's just a profane, violent rant that is actually the kind of thing some people say who are deranged and dangerous. — NKBJ

Again, it doesn't matter if it isn't funny, what matters is that it was an obvious attempt at a joke. I don't think it is funny either anymore. As for rants people go on when they are angry, this is too outlandish to be seen as that anyway. Angry people go more into detail with what they will do instead of rambling on about their qualifications.

Now excuse me while I go watch the Honeymooners. Now THAT'S funny. :wink: — NKBJ

Haven't seen that one yet. I don't watch too much TV anymore. Maybe I'll see what it's like.

There is a fair amount of academic disagreement about what Aristotle meant by “Katharsis”. The modern usage IF the same would’ve still been applied to a quite different medium with a quite different set of aspects.

All I can say at the moment is I believe it’s something to do with the “Chorus” and it’s role in ancient Greek performances - I’ll try and express this obscure and possibly faulty perspective as best I can at some point and see if anyone can see if it’s worth anything. — I like sushi

I'm looking forward to that.

As for a chorus. I can see how such a concept could be applied to them. I haven't looked too far into the subject though. Is their commentary improvised or is it scripted?