We both have made a similar point, perhaps not intending to: Corruption is something that other people are doing. Greeks, but not Germans. New York but not Wisconsin.

All of those countries which encourage a better education tend to be "less" corrupt in terms that see it as a misery. — javi2541997

Good point. Among better educated, better employed, more secure, more prosperous populations there is confidence in collective honesty. One doesn't expect to be craftily cheated at the bank, grocery store, city office, The banker, grocer, and city official are confident in their careers' long term honest success.

Populations that are poor and precarious (all or much of the time) have less incentive to be confident in the future, and to trust in honesty. Though, in precarious populations, it will be the guys on the make who will cut the most ethical corners. How then to account for well-paid, prosperous, educated, and cultured executives at Volkswagen installing crooked equipment to defeat emissions testing? Pure greed, I suppose. Building a genuinely clean engine would be a lot more trouble than corrupting the test results.

Capitalists (as well as commissars) will avoid doing the right thing if too much inconvenience and cost is involved, and if they can get away with it.

I do not know why they tend to hide it because they tend to think being an immigrant or immigration is related to poor people — javi2541997

I didn't write clearly. By using the term "background" I meant that NW Europeans are the norm, not that they are invisible or hide their identity. If you ask someone about their ancestors, most people reveal quite a bit of specific knowledge about where their immigrant ancestors came from, and when; they are proud of their ethnic background.

What one doesn't see, because it is not needed, I suppose is many "identity maintaining events".

Greece, Italy, Spain, and SE Europe generally have bad reputations among the NW Europeans--at least that is what I gather from the news. On the other hand, the giant of German engineering, Volkswagen, was revealed to have engaged in a long-term fraud involving emissions. No crooked dealing in Norway and Sweden? Highly unlikely.

No doubt the English, Germans, Swedes, et al are 100% as capable of corruption as anyone else.

In the US, some parts of the country are considered (by other parts) to be more corrupt. Midwesterners think the NE states--New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or New England are more corrupt. On the other hand, Illinois has a major record of high level corruption, finding one governor after another going to prison. And then there is Chicago.

But the meaning of "corruption" isn't altogether clear. A strong mayor like Democrat Richard J. Daley (Chicago) who had strong union backing and a well oiled political "machine" could get major infrastructure projects funded and completed pretty quickly. Was it "corruption" or "effective governance"? When Daley was in office (1960s) NE cities and states seemed to require exceptionally long times to get anything done. Corruption or ineffective governance? Don't know. I don't know whether there is more corruption in the NE, Midwest, South, or West Coast.

It is possible that informal business practices which are not corrupt look suspicious to people who insist on contracts for everything. Favoring friends goes on in the highest circles of business and government everywhere. Why would it not? What distinguishes favoring one's friends from outright corruption may only be how crudely the favoring is done.

Most of the people tend to think that they are excellent workers and loyal citizens. Also, there is a general thought that those countries are better and more developed than ours. So this is why "Scandinavian" has a positive overall impact on our minds. — javi2541997

Minnesota's largest immigrant source was German, followed by the 4 Scandinavian groups.

Minnesota tends to rank towards the top of surveys of health, education, and general welfare and towards the bottom of surveys for poverty, crime, chronic disease -- particularly for white folks, who are 83%+ of the population. Is this because of ethnic heritage (NW European) or some other factor? Minorities (Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans) tend not to do so well.

Many people from New England relocated to Minnesota in the 1800s. They had a large role in establishing the English dialect and the public ethical framework of Minnesota (and other Northern states like Michigan and Wisconsin. The ethical framework of Scandinavians and Germans was congenial to the New England view of the world, which descended from the Puritans.

So, the upshot of all that is the Scandinavians are generally held in higher regard than, say, Italians or Lebanese who followed quite different settlement patterns and social roles (nothing negative about either is being suggested here).

There are upsides and downsides. While Germans have a reputation for being good and hard workers, they were also a hotbed of antisemitic sentiment. The German community dropped German as their public and home language during and after WWI. Antisemitism wasn't all that uncommon in Minnesota when I was growing up in the 1950s. Jews were excluded from places like the American Automobile Association (AAA), a travel group, the Minneapolis Athletic Club, and the like. Hospitals were not friendly to Jewish doctors.

What of the Scandinavians and Germans now? They have become the invisible background. There is plenty of pride when the opportunity arises, but outside of events like Syttende Mai (May 15), Reformation Sunday and October Fest, not too much notice is taken. Except for the Finns: Lately they have been on a PR drive, maybe stimulated by Osmo Venska's 20 years as the conductor of the Minnesota Symphony Orchestra and a mid-century modern church designed by Saarinen becoming a national historical landmark.

My ancestors came to the English colonies from England in the late 1600s and from Northern Ireland around the time of the Famine.

It is an interesting study of how this group, but not that one, becomes loaded with negative meaning. My guess is that "Spaniard" has pretty much positive meanings, as far as I know. I've met only a few people in Minnesota who were from Spain, so here the national name is pretty much neutral. "Mexican" on the other hand is in the process of taking on much more value-load. Whether 'Mexican' gets a positive or negative spin is (probably) related to whether the word-user views Mexican immigration (documented or not) as a positive or negative factor I their community.

At one time, Scandinavian (or Norwegian, Swede, Finn, Dane) was not a very positive term in Minnesota -- like during the period when they were arriving in large numbers. Cedar Avenue in Minneapolis was at one time nicknamed "snus boulevard" -- snus (pron. snoos) being chewing tobacco. A still popular brand of snus is "Copenhagen".

In the novel, Mama's Bank Account, Kathryn Forbes depicted life in the Scandinavian community of San Francisco in the early 1900s. The middle class San Franciscans looked down their noses at the unwashed Scandinavians.

Now, of course, Scandinavians are the ones looking down their noses at the latest unwashed arrivals.

English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam. — javi2541997

'Gypsy' seems to have been derived from:



The word was, at some point, subjected to 'pejoration' -- taking on a negative meaning. Apparently it was in the late 19th century.

"Jew" has been used in English in the same way -- as a verb meaning to drive the value of something down during bargaining. Jew, of course, is an ancient word (Hebrew/Greek/Latin/French/English) referencing the people who are the principal topic of the Old Testament.

I think Americans realize now just how little say they have in anything their state does — StreetlightX

If only that were so. True: American citizens have little say in what their nation-state does. This applies across the board around the globe. It's true for Australians, Bangladeshis, Chinese, Danes, Egyptians, Fijians, et al. The consent of the governed is a pious fiction of critical importance. The more powerful the state, the less say of the citizenry.

I'd like to see the population get to the point where almost nothing the US military does is supported. — Xtrix

The population at that point would be much closer to a general revolution. We would be closer to the collapse of the governed's consent. Now, that might be a good thing, depending on the shape the revolution took. Were it to bring about @the wonder's "teleological project of anarchism, which I define as "libertarian socialism" that might be worth dreaming about. No need to detail how badly a revolution might turn out to be.

Remember, too, that the economic system at the heart of the United States prevails around the globe. A revolution in the US wouldn't automatically bring about global liberation. Anyway, tasing about a revolution in the USA is ridiculously premature.

there will always be pretexts for war — Xtrix

Indeed. I'm generally against war, but can't we at least start with an honest and frank cost-benefit analysis--beyond how much military suppliers will make? Congress should be a much more tight-fisted grantor of largesse to the military. Demand and get detailed explanations of how spending $5,000,000,000,000 in XYZ target country next year is going to benefit say, Des Moines, Portland, Abilene, and Ft. Lauderdale? Don't see any reasonable benefit? Then don't give them the money. Even ask them how spending 5 billion dollars is going to benefit the average person int XYZ target country? Not going to benefit them much? Then don't give them the money.

What do they want? Just a guess...

They want a society that works for the benefit and wellbeing of its citizens

food in the markets, clean water
the absence of marauders (any stripe) prowling the streets
access to whatever cultural resources they like
an effective education system roughly K-16, or its local equivalent
a working economy (based on the usual goods and services)
an honest effective government
the ability to exercise personal executive agency

Stuff like that.

Can they have it? Given time, and an absence of violent conflict and disruptive interference from outside agents (al Qaida, Pakistan, US, USSR, China, et al) perhaps.

StreetlightX, you really should open a new post about the follies of the US. — jorndoe

Streetlight needs the new catagory, "Philosophy of Hating the US", shortly to be added as his personal comfort station. If you need/want the latest edition of his views on how piss poor and shitty the USA is, that will be the go-to toilet stall for his content.

I've been reading Climate Wars by Harald Welzer and Bright Green Lies by Jensen, Keith, and Wilbert. Depressing. Welzer notes, several times, that "Violence is always an option." Not a new insight, but will probably be part of the climate picture. Green Lies asserts that we can not use technology to solve the problems that technology has caused. There is no salvation in solar or wind power because fossil fuels are deeply embedded in the life cycles of these products.

From what I have read, Bright Green Lies speaks an unbearable truth: In order to roll back CO2 levels (not just limit them) we must commit to saving and enhancing the natural environment. We cannot do that and save civilization at the same time. The authors present a number of things that can be done. Plant more trees, of course; a lot more. Re-establish the once vast prairie lands roamed by grazers (cattle will do, I gather) which were plowed up and now support monocultures of corn, soy, rice, cotton, etc. Enhance the rights and education of women. And so on.

My own phrasing, reached several years ago, is that we have to stop consuming. When we stop consuming, the economy will crash. Chaos and carbon reduction will ensue.

The Bright Green Lies people, et al, think they have found a way out. That would be great if they had, but there are 8 billion people to reckon with, IF one thinks one has found even a remotely palatable solution. Feeding, sheltering, and caring for even a declining population of 7.9 billion rules out regenerating all of the natural systems which can absorb a great deal of carbon. We should regenerate as fast as we can, of course, but...

One's eyes glaze over reading solutions which might be feasible IF all 8 billion people agreed at once. Even if they all agreed, the sequelae would be worst than unpalatable. A good share of the 8 billion (like citizens of the G20) need to just disappear and take our tech with us. We, being the biggest consumers, are the biggest part of the problem. Or everybody else should disappear and we'll turn their formerly occupied peasant nations into unoccupied grazed prairie, forests, wet lands, and peat bogs.

So, every day I wonder, "Are we totally and finally screwed, or not?

Their last test was the best so far, but it's much too soon to even shop for the Champaign, leet alone popping the cork.

Their lack of resolve is a symptom of that our presence there can only have been carried out cynically. — thewonder

hmmm, not sure I agree.

the blame for the past forty odd years of political fallout in Afghanistan rests solely on the shoulders of the network of influence that comprises political power in the United States and the response to that power and its effect on the world on the part of American citizens. — thewonder

The Soviet Union was there until 1989. Was the US responsible for the USSR being there for 10 years?

What does that quote mean? — The Opposite

It means whoever is in charge of a war that has been won can expect a ticker tape parade with several marching bands. (ticker tape is kind of a rarity these days, I guess they'd use confetti or shredded documents.). Whoever is in charge of a war that has been lost can expect to arrive home with only his wife, dog, and a small circle of friends to greet him.

Nobody wants to politically associate with the war-loser. Recriminations follow on his heels.

I'm not quite so sure that I agree. I think that, had we really believed that we were building a liberal democratic Afghanistan so as to offer the people there a better quality of life and that we were justified in doing so, we could have easily won the war. — thewonder

I'm not quite sure that I agree, either.

One always has to remember that "The State" part of the United States, like "the State" part of any country, always has in focus what it thinks its own interests are. Afghan people "matter" the same way other people matter: Either you are 'a potential' or 'a problem'. If you have something we want, fine. Otherwise, what earthly good are you?.

The calculating ego and mind of The State isn't warm and fuzzy. What goes for The State of the US goes for every other State too. Some states camouflage their nature better than others do. The most powerful states (Russia, USA, China, India) don't usually worry about camouflage too much.

a liberal democratic — thewonder

In some ways the US is a liberal democracy, in other ways we are not. We have elements of a plutocracy, the military/industrial combine does not tend to be overly liberal, we have a practically permanent underclass. Our electoral system is rigged to always reelect the capitalist-supporting parties in power, which invalidates the idea of 'democracy'. etc., etc., etc.

So when we march off to bestow the blessings of democracy on people ruled by frank authoritarians and worse, don't get your hopes up.

In the words of Winston Churchill, or was it Chico Marx, "What could possibly go wrong." — T Clark

Well, I don't have a "How To' book on curing religious fundamentalists. "Fundamentalist leanings" along with a number of other social diseases, seem to be established very early in life--maybe at conception. It isn't that I know of a gene for fundamentalism. What there probably is a gene that codes for "seeking security in rigid doctrine". The doctrinally rigid can be believers, atheists, pro-science, anti-science, leftists, rightists, vegans, or carnivore. What's common to them is the rigidity, not the doctrine.

Some people have a much higher tolerance for ambiguity than others. Could be genetic.

Like as not, the Taliban, Wahhabists, Southern Baptists, paleo-Roman Catholics, et al attract people with a certain disposition, and then exaggerate it. There is predisposition on the one hand, and imposition on the other. The Taliban didn't have to defend themselves against hordes of eager islamic fundamentalist children. They IMPOSED their views. Ditto for Southern (and worse varieties of) Baptists, paleo-Catholics, far-out Hindus, etc.

Fortunately, 8 billion people are not afflicted with RDD (Rigid Doctrine Disease); it might be as low as 1 billion; maybe 798,000,000. It's hard to know precisely, because when you do scientific surveys of belief and you ask people if they have fallen hook, line, and sinker for some stupid crazy religion, they tend to get defensive.

they were partaking within a half-hearted nation-building project — thewonder

How long does it take for an invading power (like the British Empire, say) to accomplish a major cultural change in a colony? A lot longer than 20 years. A rule of thumb is that it takes 40 to 50 years for a completely new technology to be introduced, be accepted, and mature. A lot had to happen over 40 or 50 years to develop a good telephone system after the first telephone call.

It takes a lot longer to alter cultural patterns. Some people say that the problem with some of Britains former colonies is that they weren't colonies long enough. India was, however, a colony for a long time and did absorb a lot of western culture. Bad thing? Good thing? People will have different opinions, but one thing for sure is that one can not "build" or "remodel" a nation in 20 years. More like 100 years, minimum.

It might be possible to fly 200,000 people out of Kabul, but that's not the end of the problem. The next thing is, "Where do they go?" Which nations will accept how many? 200,000 is a huge settlement project, and will take a lot longer than 2 weeks. In the mean time, the evacuees have to be kept someplace reasonably decent until they can move on to a settlement location.

I can understand and empathize with anyone wanting to get the hell out of Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, but chaos at the airport will backfire badly.

Biden said, "there is never a good time to leave" which seems to me very true. I don't think it is terribly surprising that suddenly the Taliban was in a position to take over. Any complex organization can fall apart very rapidly if the people lose faith in the long-term stability of 'the situation'. And clearly the Taliban had been moving into position to take over.

Another quote: "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." J. F. Kenney. I don't know whether he made that up or remembered it from reading. It's true, anyway.

We need to find the cure for reactionary religion, whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or anybody else. Reactionary religion is nothing but trouble. Some would include all religion as troublesome, and that may be the case.

As dreary as I see the future being, I don't blame people for creating the conditions leading to global warming. It is our nature to be a material-manipulative, risk-taking, inventive, resource-using species. We didn't decide to be what we are, we evolved. We are not good at long-term planning. Even if we recognize the risks before us, we don't have the cognitive traits needed to think and behave for the benefit of the distant future.

We may have caused our problems, but we didn't cause us.

Will humanity overcome our current phase of transition, graduating to a higher form of civilization, or fall victim to natural disasters and unrest so that we'll have to pick of the pieces and rebound from a major setback comparable to the ancient Greek or Medieval dark age in Europe? — Enrique

What sort of "higher form of civilization" do you have in mind?

The usual human pattern is for things to start, peak, stay that way for a while, and then fall apart. There are no civilizations that have not gone through that cycle. Note, though, that the cycle can require centuries to complete.

Will space travel happen and if so how will it unfold? — Enrique

To an extremely limited extent, it has happened. "The final frontier", though, is a very unfriendly, unforgiving place to travel, with no obvious benefit to be derived.

Can the human population exercise enough self-regulation to sustain progress — Enrique

We have exercised enough self-regulation or 'other-regulation', actually, to sustain progress for the last 5 centuries. Progress still leaves room for world wars, lots of small wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and various other entertainments of stupidity.

will we have to adopt a new or revised ethical framework to reach long-term technological and organizational goals? — Enrique

Might be a good idea but don't hold your breath. What sort of "new ethical framework" do you think we could devise that would make much difference?

What kinds of events will culminate this tumultuous and uncertain era in history — Enrique

That's the $64,000,000,000,000 question. I think it is safe to say that we will see many and severe changes in climate, weather, living conditions, food production, disease distribution, death rates, and so on. These events have happened before and everybody hated it. We will all hate it again. And again,

where will we be in a hundred or a thousand years? — Enrique

In 100 years... We will continue to occupy 1 planet in the universe. We will be right where we are now, but with fewer of us. How many fewer? If population decreased to the levels of only 1921, there would be about 6 billion fewer people, for a population of 2 billion. It might be more, might be less. Some areas will be depopulated, other places will receive population inflows.

If we mismanage CO2/methane production as much in the future as we are right now, in 1000 years we will probably live on a hot, humid, very diminished planet.

Despite that hell of a list of bad outcomes, some humans will probably survive because we are, up to a point, adaptable. Whether 2 billion will have enough resources to all be adaptable and successful is doubtful. Human population might well be diminished to a level well below 1 billion. Maybe our population will be in the low 100 millions, or in the 10s of millions in 1000 years.

I'm a climate pessimist. I might be wrong, but probably not.

Mouse-human hybrids? Some varieties of mice have been bred with features of the human immune system, so they can better serve as test subjects. The immune system is complicated, but the brain is much more so.

Your comment, "creating artificial intelligence despite a lack of apparent full comprehension of what our own intelligence is made of" is apropos. How will we know, for instance, that "artificial" intelligence is "real"? Other than being vastly quicker at many kinds of data processing, faster/cheaper/better, I don't know what the advantage of AI would be.

Most vary difficult human problems are insoluble because of human will, wishes, fantasies, obscurantism, stupid ideas, and so forth. We can figure out how to solve all sorts of our problems, but if people don't want to cooperate, then nothing much will get done. The Taliban seems to be stuck in a medieval frame of mind which is pretty much all around bad news. Is AI going to straighten their thinking out? How about people who are certain that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Is AI going to convince them otherwise?

Enhancing intellectual capacity in other animals is unethical, in my opinion. We all evolved intelligence appropriate to our species--except humans, who are at times too smart for their own good. Do you really want your dog to be even more manipulative, clever, bored, destructive, whatever, than she already is? I think rats are smart enough now. Look at squirrels -- they seem like the Einsteins of the rodent world, which makes them both cute, interactive, and a major nuisance. Trippling their intelligence would be a big mistake.

Too smart for our own good? Our reach sometimes exceeds our grasp. A group invented the atomic bomb. It has not been a good thing--reach exceeded grasp.

Yes, my understanding is that Pakistan created the Taliban for its own purposes in Afghanistan, but wasn't able to maintain control over it. But... Pakistan didn't conjure up fanaticism; the Afghanis supplied that themselves.

Tribalism is raised as an issue -- invaders / occupiers / technical assisters couldn't overcome tribalism. So, what did the Taliban do with tribalism? Apparently they found a way of using it.

Afghanistan is reputed to have vast mineral resources--minerals important in the current economy. Why hasn't some nation -- us, Russia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan started mining these riches? Such a move would have helped Afghanistan (under the best of circumstances) become richer. They might still be medieval fanatics, but at least they'd have a pot to piss in.

I expect that China will dig a few mines.

I suppose the ultimate solution would be to convert the entire nation to liberal protestantism. Let's see, where is the instruction book on that approach? Either that or use the nuclear option. But that's frowned upon.

Maybe Afghanistan is not especially unique. There are numerous countries that could or will destabilize -- without any western help -- and be incapable of coping with global warming, water and food shortages, insurgents... including the usual Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Each time this happens, a new addition to the refugee flows will be created, as they head toward someplace -- anyplace -- better.

The people living in those better someplaces will not be thrilled to see hundreds of thousands or millions, of desperate refugees hiking down the road toward them. Europe, North America, China, Australia, Japan, and bits and pieces of the rest of the world will make up the destinations.

Japan may seem like a paradise compared to broiling SE Asia or India, but I don't see the Japanese being able to take on large numbers of refugees, given their limited energy, limited land resources and very homogeneous population.

Europe and the US can absorb a fair number of people, but that will depend on what local conditions are like in Europe and North America. The same goes for China.

I can easily imagine militarized borders to keep people out. The southern half of the globe will suffer first and more than the northern half. The cooler richer north may decide that the south is a lost cause. "Stay back, or we'll shoot you."

So, in the grand scheme of things, Afghanistan may not register as all that large on history's radar screen.

Hope for the best? — jorndoe

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

we have forgotten that sometimes you have to fight to defend your life, your country, and your freedom — Apollodorus

True enough, sometimes we have to fight for our interests. That would seem to apply to the Afghan government and military forces. Once we said we were leaving, bombers and all, the Afghanis seemed to lose their will to fight. Assuming that our help over the last 20 years was actually useful, it seems like the Afghanis could have put up more resistance to the Taliban than they did.

I do not know what is the matter with the Afghanis. Is it Islam? History? Culture? What?

As Kenny Rogers put it...

You've got to know when to hold 'em
know when to fold 'em
know when to walk away
know when to run

We blabber on about our love for democracy. — Xtrix

Politicians, especially, blabber on about democracy. Most people don't -- not because they actually prefer totalitarianism (they don't) but because "democracy" is an abstraction. Besides, we haven't 'old style' democracy for hundreds of years, and when we did it was pretty much exclusively in New England. Most towns reluctantly gave direct participatory democracy up when village / city populations became too large. It's one thing for less than 100 people to attend a town meeting; 1000 people attending becomes too cumbersome.

Industrial democracy, where workers make the decisions about how the workplace will be operated and towards which end, is an alternative to capitalism. Given modern communications and computational facilities, I see no problem in the workers of many different industries planning and coordinating with other workers in other industries.

Of course this would not be simple. It isn't simple now, but it gets done every day, more less, better and worse.

A scene fromI Claudius, where Mrs. Caesar Augustus gives a pep talk to the gladiators:

A lot of backlashing and thrashing goes on here. Don't pay it much heed.

I can understand an athlete's decision to cancel an appearance for good reason, whether at Wimbledon or Tokyo. What I find much less understandable is heaping praise on the athlete for bowing out for reasons of mental health. We don't say, "So admirable, so courageous" if an athlete drops out because of a badly sprained ankle, badly damaged hamstring, or a bad case of dysentery. We just cross the event off the list. I would expect the same for a mental health issue, not the weepy applause "poor thing, so courageous in her anxiety, depression" or whatever.

Mastery of emotion goes along with top athletic performance, doesn't it? Isn't full-self-possession in the face of difficult performance one of the signal virtues of top level athletes. Wimping out doesn't seem to be part of the 'scene'.

Are child support payments tyrannical if one has abdicated support for the children one has sired or borne?

It would seem closer to tyranny if I was forced to support somebody else's children having no connection to me.

According to a United Methodist site on hymnody, Walter Chalmers Smith (1824-1908) attempted to answer the question, "How do you express the inexpressible mystery of the Creator whose name was unutterable in Hebrew Scriptures, save the self-described "I AM"? How do you put into words what cannot be known? How do you sing about the One who is ineffable -- beyond all words?" Smith (1824-1908, a Scottish Free Church minister educated at the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh) attempted this in his classic hymn, "Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise."
Here are the particular words and phrases Smith used to describe the unknowable:

Immortal, invisible
In light inaccessible
Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious,
Unresting, unhasting, silent as light
Nor wanting, nor wasting

Smith doesn't suggest that God is a force of nature, like gravity, Still, we and God intercut through nature:

To all, life thou givest, to both great and small;
In all life thou livest, the true life of all
We blossom and flourish like leaves on the tree,
Then wither and perish, but naught changeth thee.

Is Smith's verse successful? Worship of a God who the singer definitely believes exists is the starting point, "most blessed, most glorious," but the picture painted in verse leads away from concrete specificity. "Unresting, unhasping, silent as light" or "invisible In light inaccessible" for instance.

Smith's imagery points toward thinking of God as the 'ground of being' -- and not getting much more detailed than that.

Christians wanting specific instruction can read the Gospels for Jesus' advice.

Walter Chalmers Smith (1824-1908) attempted this in his classic hymn, "Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise." A Scottish Free Church minister educated at the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh,

Incest can produce a deformed baby. Therefore it is unethical. Also incest tends to contradict our natural feelings. Meaning we tend not to desire it. We have a built in mechanism to guide us against it. — hope

Any coupling between unrelated partners can produce a deformed baby. Does that make all sex unethical?

What evidence do you have that we have "natural feelings" against incest? What is this "built in mechanism" which helps us avoid it?

I'm not in favor of incest, and I don't know anyone who is in favor. However, it isn't clear to me what it is that keeps us from having sex with related partners. If you met a sibling you had never previous known or known about, what would prevent you from finding this unknown relative attractive?

Perhaps God exists, perhaps not. What I am quite certain of is that IF God exists, the Ancient of Days is quite beyond our capacity to know or understand. If one believes God exists, fine. Let's not talk about God as if we were discussing the moon. We don't know, so let's shut up about it.

@SSU

As far as I can tell, there is no national intention of putting an end to racism. — Bitter Crank

The American Class System rests on a very solid foundation of exploitation. We are not at all unique in this respect. Successive groups have been exploited quite ruthlessly: Poor Englishmen, American Indians, blacks, poor immigrants, Mexicans, Chinese... The degree to which exploitation and suppression has been practiced varies by groups. Whites, of course, had the greatest chance of escaping from the bottom of the class system, but this has not been even remotely universal. Working class whites have remained an exploited majority group. A portion have escaped the "working class" and become "middle class" -- and here "middle class" means business ownership, management, or licensed professional work (medicine, law...). Blacks had the smallest chance of escaping from the bottom, as have American Indians. SE Asians, Chinese, Mexicans, and Caribbean Islanders have faced persistent barriers.

Classism and racial prejudice (in every direction) serves extremely well to keep the the overwhelming majority of working people divided against themselves. And it isn't just prejudice. Class interests are real.

Putting an end to racism, exploitation, class divisions, and so on would break many of the pylons on which the structure of ruling class power rests. It would also break boundaries which various groups have erected around themselves. We could have a people's revolution; that doesn't seem likely. Even less likely is the Ruling Class shooting themselves in the head. Not going to happen,

And I'm surely not asking that. — ssu

No, you are a well-traveled urban sophisticate, and if you are not urban then you are urbane. In America there are these dreaded 'diversity workshop leaders' who inflict upon their victims stereotypes of people living in monolithic white, suburban, heterosexual cultures who are incapable of insightful, sensitive reactions to persons from unfamiliar cultures. The diversity trainer isn't deploying a clever strategy; they are just selling a shallow idea.

Your wife's friend suffered from having her identity 'spoiled'. She didn't possess the precise identity that her friends thought she had. "Spoiled identity" can be a savage experience. It has happened to me once or twice. One of the good things about our rootlessness is that one can uproot and plant one's self somewhere else fairly easily. One need not be forever stuck with the spoiled identity.

The 'no second acts' idea of F. Scott Fitzgerald might be more valid in a rigid class system such as the UK's, and more in the past than the present. Part of the problem of rigid class system is that the top ranks and not that populous, and if you offend some grand dame, then everyone in your small circle will know about it, and may be inclined to shun you.

Just like the English uphold fervently their class system, so do Americans their own system. And I'm not personally confident about this new anti-racism really putting any end to racism. It just makes it different. — ssu

I don't believe that a classless society exists; I also don't believe that a society without deeply ingrained biases exists.

As far as I can tell, there is no national intention of putting an end to racism. There is plenty of lip service for the idea; there are numerous programs; there are all sorts of initiatives to nudge people towards being nice to one another.

Like this:

Having spent 40+ years in education and social services, I am well aware of unique and individual differences that confound stereotypes. But at the same time, one sees that people definitely fall into groups of particular traits. We do not, can not, begin each new person-to-person encounter as if we were meeting a species never before encountered.

There is a philosophical divide between those who think "people are all alike" and "people are all different". But practically we don't operate that way. As we get to know 50 to 100 individuals much better -- because they are close friends, family members, spouses, children, long term colleagues, we learn and adapt to all sorts of differences. But the people in our lives who are that well known are likely to be relatively few in number.

Because people are very similar, we can behave in ways that will reliably reduce or increase friction and conflict or ease interactions and reduce conflict, for example. There are plenty of positive aspects to 'everybody is alike'.

I noted the decision was often quite deliberate, either way. But with 8 billion sex drives in operation, conception without intention is likely to be a fairly frequent event. Hence, the growing world population.

I start with the assumption that stereotyping is a natural talent that is evenly distributed across the world's population. It is a very useful skill. Just compare your judgement of men who you can only see between ankles and waist:


dark blue worsted wool pants
vs
cotton denim factory-ripped pants
vs
oversized pants almost falling off buttocks

You could derive considerable information about each man, just from 1 piece of clothing. Given a wider view, you could derive much more reasonably accurate information. Of course, one shouldn't take one's stereotypical views as gospel. The dark blue worsted wool pants could have a leading role in a criminal enterprise, but probably not. The falling off buttocks pants could belong to a blond guy, but probably not. The factory ripped pants might be too poor to afford better pants, but probably not.

It isn't just prejudiced people that see patterns. People also behave in patterns. That's why stereotyping yields reasonably accurate results.

The average number of children is declining. However, in 1960 the world population was a little over 3 billion. Now it is about 8 billion. Somebody didn't get the memo.

I asked him if he was hungry for maybe the twelfth time that day. — PulsarDK

Perhaps you are obsessive compulsive. Then there is the child's fascination with cement mixers or edges of the universe. How old is this kid? I think I was old enough to drink when I first wondered about those pesky edges of the universe. Has your child been drinking?

I don't know whether children are any 'wiser' today than they were in the Roman Empire, say, or the Neolithic Age. What is different about children in the last 50 years, anyway, is that they are subjected to a deluge of information that they were not before media saturated culture. I'm not criticizing media here -- I've enjoyed the deluge (NOVA, National Geographic, Netflix, Internet, etc.). Had I a child he or she would have seen a lot more science and BBC drama than I did back in the 1950s.

Unfortunately, and I'll criticize media now, the deluge of information on the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio has been accompanied by a lot of garbage on the other channels. So some children will ask about the edge of the universe, others will not.

"at least I'll be dead before the worst of it" — hypericin

Most people were born and didn't die before their particular "worst of it". Bad stuff has been the lot of many billions over many millennia. Our species will probably survive, though many others may not, and "the species" says nothing about individuals.

"Morality" isn't very well suited to decide the future of the species. Individuals can (and will) decide for or against reproduction.

I didn't reproduce, but that had nothing to do with the morality of reproduction. It would be better if there were fewer people. When I first heard about Zero Population Growth (1970) there were only 3.6 billion people, which seemed shockingly high. It's too late to talk about it now, with just about 8 billion. Nature will now have to solve the problem, and--no doubt--nature is perfectly capable of doing so, will solve it at some point, and we will not like it, that is certain.

Sometimes people very deliberately set out to have children, and sometimes they very deliberately set out to NOT have children. Most of the time children happen because sex is urgent and usually feels pretty good. Reason has little to do with it.

Church, state, and corporation leaves out the entire non-profit sector of society which at least in the US, and in some states, is a major component of society. Granted, many non-profit operations are church spin-offs, may be partially supported by corporations and states, and perform what in many countries are state duties, but at the same time, are not a church, a state, or corporate entity.

People quite often devote a lot of time to the care and feeding of non-profits, like Planned Parenthood, Medicine Sans Frontier, Masons, gay softball leagues, local festival organizers, and so on. Service organizations are often where people express their identities as responsible adult actors, they are almost always non-profits. (Sometimes they are not only non-profit, they can be altogether unprofitable for everyone concerned, yet go on for years and years.).