The total number of people killed in imperial China, including during the 3 kingdoms era plus the two world wars is about 300 million. Its like killing every man, woman and child in the USA. If you count other wars, revolutions and genocides throughout recorded history, the casualty number is probably many times higher.

Today we've made mass killing easier. U can fight a war by pushing buttons from a bunker like a video game.

IMHO, the only reason why we haven't gone extinct is because we're breeding faster than we can self destruct.

One thing immediately jumps out in this scenario. Our tech progress very moves fast but our mental progress is very slow. In fact, I don't think minds have evolved much since Emperor Qing's time. We've only developed the means to kill each other more efficiently.

This gap between tech progress and personal/social development progress widens with every new scientific discovery. I suspect that as long as this gap exist, humans will continue to kill each other. When they are at par, maybe we've progressed so far mentally that we lost all desire to kill each other. Maybe.

If you agree that our tech progress is moving much faster than our social capability to cope with it, the question I pose is, does this lag have an evolutionary value? If yes, what do you think such a lag would serve, since evolution is supposed to enhance survival rather than extinction?



This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 19 2010, 12:05 PM

What happens if I dont agree? I cant see the corellation you mention between technology progress, mental development, and the need for war or genocide.

If mental development is slow how can technology progress further? One genius is all it takes? Then wait 170 years (Einstien birthdate minus Newton death date) to make a new leap.

Beastboy, you keep saying maybe, maybe, maybe. Please draw out how it links up.

In 170 years not everyone could not fully graps Newton's Law then Einstien came along with new concepts. Without total comprehension of Newton, how could people know what Einstien is talking about. So this becomes the reason for war?

Ok, I didn't use the right terms then.

When I say mental development, I don't mean IQ. I mean the ability to discern between right and wrong, moral and immoral. As I mentioned in another thread, a high-IQ genius can do stupid things and an uneductaed person can do wise things. So what I am saying is, our capability to develop weapons etc has far surpassed our ability to discern between right and wrong. That is the gap I am talking about.

If you don't agree, that's okay. I'm not here to impose my view or seek anyone's approval. I just want to know what others think. If my hypothesis is flat wrong or ridiculous, that's fine too. Am not here to whack or be sarcastic to anyone who don't agree with me.

Thanks for the explaination . I guess it come down to science and ethics, but then again it is the policy makers that makes the decision.

I still have problem understanding this passage below

The ability to kill using one push of the button is nothing to the ability of the serial killer/cannibal who plan methodically, stalks their victim, drug the victim, cut their victims while the victims are still alive and let their victims watch their own flesh is gorge by the serial killer / cannibal.

Those are actual human killing machine. The ability to kill by using technology is the will of the person to perceive the right or wrong.

Ancient China during 3 Kingdoms - it is more to a 3 different will for freewill in 1 kingdom, dictatorship in 1 kingdom and monarchy in 1 kingdom. These 3 cannot co-exist alone but as it co-exist together, human blood will forever flow the land.

Is this your own interpretation?

yes.

Ok let me try to give an analogy.

Technology moves ahead at 100 kmh. Human wisdom grows at 1 kmh. If they had a race, after the first hour, wisdom trails technology by 99km. That is the gap.

The gap simply means we are a high-tech low-wisdom society. The chance of someone getting killed using that high tech is very high & we have a history of wars to show that fact. For every new weapon invented that doesn't have a corresponding discovery of wisdom, the gap between tech and wisdom widens.

Its contrast, the high-tech high-wisdom society, is where the rate of tech development is the same as wisdom development. The gap between the two forces is smaller or negligible. Because we wise up as fast as we invent our technology, the chances of someone getting killed is lesser because by then, we will have realized that killing each other is not a wise thing to do.

If you watch Star Trek, the Klingons represent the high-tech low-wisdom society. The Vulcans represent the high-tech high-wisdom one.

This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 19 2010, 04:29 PM

there is no such thing as a moral 'progress', since morality itself is relative.

and the progress of machines is always determined by humanity generally wants. We want to travel long distances in a short time? Now we have cars. We want to cook our food? Now we have stoves. We want to kill people from afar? Now we have guns.

Okay, I get it. High wisdom is a much better word than social/personal development which can be equate to intelligence ...

It still comes down to hatred as the basis for people to clobber one another. However smart or wise you are Beastboy, if I see you in real and irritate you enough, you will whack the shit out of me.

Vulcuns are bad example. They have no emotions. They will not be fuelled with fury to punch me out. Romulan are the same as Vulcuns high tech and high wisdom. They love to clobber the Vulcans (their distant relatives) simply because Vulcuns differ with them on the issue of emotion long ago.

I know where you're coming from but we are discussing this within a framework that has a starting point, as in its immoral to do x 300 years ago but now its not.

Morality can and has been be made relative to the progress of technology. Take the cloning example. Because of the fear of the Frankenstein effect, societies impose ethical restrictions on the application of the science. While I know that fear itself cannot be construed as wisdom, there is an effort to provision for the unknown. Caution is a form of wisdom.

The same will happen in AI and robotics.

We've seen spots of this throughout our technology history but its mostly been confined to innovations that impact food, health sciences and the environment. It doesn't seem to apply to weapons of mass destruction... yet, and unfortunately, because of the gap I mention, we have situations of unstable nations with nuclear bombs. Its the scene of an immature child holding a high tech weapon, ready to throw a tantrum and annihilate us all.

This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 19 2010, 03:50 PM

Looks like you got all this from Koei's Dynasty Warrior 6. For you information, it is not true. Koei is more into "what if" situation for this version.

There are actually low-tech, high-wisdom people that manage to control hatred: highly-achieved monks that live in seclusion. A few years ago in Burma, many monks were killed just like that. They did not fight back. I'm no monk but the point is, it is not an impossible thing.

Vulcans ... I thot they do have emotions but they are just able to suppress them? Romulans are less capable of suppressing it so it turns into violence.

We humans are probably born with violent streaks ourselves - survival instincts. Our inability to control anger and hatred is proof that wisdom-wise we haven't really changed from ancient times. We just got better at killing each other.

Back to your question. This lag is here help us realise how much we had specialise in killing each other. It is best we begin to close the gap. Thus that will fit into your preseverance concept. It may well be the last warning. Weapons of mass destruction is way ahead compare to Qing Long's time as you mentioned. Some day a wise kid with a tantrum can just resort to his super toy gun and balst the shit out of mother earth. That is the lesson for not trying to narrow the gap. But nothing can be done if there is total anhiliation. Just like the dinasours we will be extinct. This is the other side of your coin - the destruction concept.

One of the things I posed is whether this lag has an evolutionary value for humans.

From the stone age onwards, we've been developing tools that helped us survive and evolve to this state. If we hadn't, we probably be t-rex's dinner. Our intelligence gave us the technology that gave us an evolutionary advantage. It enhanced our survival.

Now, the very thing that took us to the top of the food chain looks set to bury us. If our intelligence was a biological agent, then its starting to act a lot like a self-destruct gene. Like I said, the only reason why we haven't gone extinct is because we're breeding faster than we can kill each other with our wars. That gene will complete its job when someone finds a way to take every living person out. Its not a technological impossibility.

And this is the conflict that I come to: if intelligence is a product of our evolution and evolution was supposed to enhance our survival as a species, then why has it brought us to the brink?

man's nature remain the same, despite technological prowess.

---

Added on May 20, 2010, 1:40 amthe human ego changes everything. the 'we' and the 'us' that u talk about becomes only the 'i' to the human. survival of the best means i live and u die. since to the most advance of species....the only threat can only come from its own kind.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 20 2010, 01:44 AM

I agree to what you've posted. Personally speaking, the progress of technology seemed to have have dampen the values of humanity itself. Technology, as it will state, is simply something to improve the lives of mankind. What I see that it's actually going on is that we are treated with massive amount of instant gratification, thanks to the progress of technology, and with that instantaneous satisfaction of our needs and desires seemed to have devalue of what one may call the "virtues of humanity", and perhaps has given us the luxury to not value human lives that much so that's it's simply easier to start killing people, and forgetting to mention, a whole lot of them too, in atomic proportions.

From an evolution point of view, it is a chicken and egg situation. Evolution works in circles. If you try to break out of it, some unseen central fugal force will pull you back. T-Rex had come to the end. Soon all species will come to their end. All must come to their end then another big bang will bring a rebirth.

IMHO, tech is neither good nor bad. tech has increased our lifespans, which is good. Instant gratification has turned patience from a virtue into a liability, which is not good. The question I wud ask is, will the harmful effects of tech cancel out the beneficial effects say 100 years from now?

To answer this we I doubt we can escape studying the human mind. If its in our nature to bash each other - and no need to go so far... there's plenty of it here at LYN forum - what is the source of this, and to what extent did technology play a part?

Hmm... I thot the dinos disappeared due to an external event, not due to evolution... like most extinctions that happen every day. Either their food supply got destroyed or a super predator came into the picture or a global extinction event like a comet strike happened. However, our destiny may be unique because its a scenario where the species itself causes its own extinction as a result of the technology it created. I can't think of any other species has this "self destruct" attribute so my 2 questions: is this attribute a natural outcome of evolution and if so, how does it enhance the survivability of the species when it clearly seems to be doing the opposite.

There is one thot I got from the movie "The day the earth stood still." They say we humans are at our best only when we are at the brink, faced with our extinction. If that is true, then mental pain is the evolutionary pressure that will drive us to the next level. The only problem I find with that is, the brink itself may be nothing less than extinction level event like the release of neutron bombs, hence I come back to square one.

The way you put words together to form queries are simply mind boggling. I've gone through some of your posts in other topics (many which you started). I can't understand it why you refuse to phrase it clearly and in a layman manner? You're cramming in too much phrases and jargons to make people takes your discussion seriously (this guy's a brainy person vibe), but it tends to confuse people further.

I bet you tried to mean, "will mankind be doomed (physically/morally) by continous scientific advancement 100 years from now?", which seems like something you've written before earlier, rehashed again in different wordings.

This post has been edited by alanyuppie: May 20 2010, 12:48 PM

Sorry but "will mankind be doomed (physically/morally) by continous scientific advancement 100 years from now?" and "will the harmful effects of tech cancel out the beneficial effects say 100 years" are two very different things.

The first one is judgemental - you made a conclusion of doom. The second one is not - I make no conclusion about doom.

This is a PhD segment of LYN and if the terms are too difficult for anyone or if anyone finds it offensive, they need not join in the thread. Simple as that.

Come now, Beastboy. You do not seem like the type that cant take a critique. Take it as constructive crtiticism. Let it pass and mosey along.

Man when corner will do the best but it does not mean they will succeed. General Custer at Big Horn, Jim Bowie at Alamo ... They we impressive battle but they did not survive.

No worries faceless, I'm cool.

Yup, people can and sometimes do fail when pushed. I never underestimate survival instincts where people will fight to the death to survive (get the irony? lol...)

It does not matter wheather a rock fell down and wipe them out or lacking food. It has to come to an end for a new begining. If the end is by clobering each other, then so be it. Again I see the pause to be a warning for use to come to realisation. Time to embrace love and reject hate if we want to live longer. We can delay it but the end will come. Lack of resources or whatever reasons, the end will come.

Aha... could this where religion adds an evolutionary value becoz religion is all about embracing love etc?

But wait, who am I kidding.... much of today's wars are religious wars, lol...

Think of it a religion if you want. Confucius is a stateman. He was not deemed as a religious leader like Buddha. He propagate "Love Thy Neighbour" to his countrymen. They issue here is hate being the factor that caused the need to clobber each other. If we are to look beyond this hate we need the opposite.

Religion did try to solve that issue with these:

Part of Chritian 10 Commandments
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Buddhist 5 precepts
I abstain from killing.
I abstain from taking what is not given.
I abstain from sexual misconduct.
I abstain from false speech (lying, gossip, etc)
I abstain from taking intoxicants.

Taoism and Confucianism
Filial piety
Love thy neighbour
etc.

I picked the ones that didn't involve "worshipping."

Well its been a few thousand years & nothing seems to work. The bodies pile up and the doomsday clock keeps on ticking...

The teachings are there a long time ago does not imply that people are practising it all along. People are materialistic and self seeking. These concepts just do not appeal to them. The question now is if these concept been practise by the majority since Shi Huang Ti, would China been a different civilisation. A civilazaion that had managed to close the gap of technology and wisdom?

Yup, that's the question and without any live precedents, its hard to speculate. What we can do though is map a timeline of civilizations, find out what caused the deltas and extrapolate a conclusion. A civilization may be in any of these states:

1. Low wisdom, low tech
2. Low wisdom, high tech
3. High wisdom, low tech
4. High wisdom, high tech

We evolved from the dark ages (#1) to #2, where we are today.

We are seeing some instances of #3 in secluded communities of the religious, like a monastery.

I have seen some instances of #4 like the blackberry-weilding, internet-surfing monk I met the other day.

But these occur in negligible numbers. To jump from #2 to #4 on a massive scale I think would be impossible, not without a complete rebuild that can only happen from the complete destruction of #2. Sometimes its best to restart from scratch after being a little bit wiser, like when jumping from MS-DOS to Windows 7. Perhaps that's the function that wars try to serve after plagues and viruses fail to kill us.

So from that standpoint, self destruction could have an evolutionary value to humans in how it enables a quantum leap to #4, provided a few of us survive armageddon. Would that sound reasonable?

Edit:

Vulcan mythology depicts this scenario:



Source: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Vulcan_history

So it was the push of pain rather than the pull of high-flying ideals that brought them to civilization stage #4.



This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 21 2010, 12:40 PM

This is what I expected it to be, initially. After some rethinking, I changed my mind. Technology level is relative. In the early 1900 we dont even know how to build high rise. Yet the Eygptian had build huge pyramids. Technology had regressed in the middle aged from the Eygptian level. Could there already been an armegeddon for the Eygptian that none of their technology survived? It could be the Eygptians today are not the same race that built the pyramid. People just occupied their land after they were wipped out. Lets also revisit the mytical Alantis civilization. If they existed then they had faced the same fate as Eygpt. It seems to me that if you dont heed the warning them is goodbye. Back then it is one civilization die and another civilization takes over. Now the world is almost boarderless. Labour and capital migrate across the boarder more freely. We are looking at the world as a civilization. If an armageddon is due, we could we salvage our current technology. We may have the space to store the info but could we perserve all skills. Likely all willbe loss and any survivor started from scratch.

I agree with this. My personal opinion is that the reason we had 70 years of relative world-wide peace is that the global consciousness of humanity knows the crap we'll face once global thermonuclear war is started. Once the last WW2 veteran is 6 feet underground, all bets are off.

I think we *could* have made the jump to stage #4 after WW2, just that not enough people were effected by it enough to shift their way of thinking to more altruistic purposes.

Smith sorry to disagree. Since Confucius chinese had been taught to be benevolent. In spite of all the life they seen lost through the ages of civil war, the chinese are still self centered. They mind their own business on matters that dont concern them.

I dont think I get you well. Did you mean when the last WWII vetren dies we are ready to jump to #4?

Nope. I meant that when that happens, the chance of global thermonuclear war goes up. Way up.

Yup, I see quantum leaps happening in groups of hundreds but not groups of billions. Too much baggage in the way. Nothing short of a near-ELE (extinction level event) can provide the right conditions for a civilizational reboot. However the remnants need to have preserved enough knowledge to prevent a total decline of the technological curve and be able to hold it there while the wisdom element catches up, which brings us to faceless's opinion:

I'm just guessing here but the loss of knowledge from the Egyptians etc. could simply be due to their bad archiving habits and/or our failure to find the artifacts the data is recorded on. Even if we did find it, would we know how to translate it? Imagine a young survivor child stumbling on a hard drive 100 years after an ELE event. Would he know what to do with it?

The Mayans disappeared after an agricultural disaster going by the forensics of their bone remains. They weren't ready for it. Left nothing but their pyramids behind. We will face the same fate if we didn't prepare for a sudden ELE.

But we've wised up since the Egyptians. We already have a seed ark in the antarctic. We've got archives in underground bunkers. I just hope there's a damn good user guide left for whoever stumbles on these artifacts post-ELE.



This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 21 2010, 07:07 PM

What good is an ark or underground archives without practioners. The skills are important. A carpenter, black smiths, welders, mechanics, ... Well it is like the Noah's Ark issue. Noah had to choose all the different type of animals (He had problems identifing the different species. Evven now taxidermist dont know them all). The show 2012 gives some insight to the criteria of selection. As much as we wanted to select a breed of eugenics, we need some people to do the dirty work.

---

Added on May 24, 2010, 2:30 pmOkay I see your point. The old guards is no longer there to remind us.

This post has been edited by faceless: May 24 2010, 02:30 PM

MAD seemed to be a good deterrent to this scenario so far...

What is MAD and what scenerio, lin00b?

MAD = mutually assured destruction.

You are right about arks and underground archives bring pointless without practitioners. One can only hope that in a catastrophic event, if only 'Adam' and 'Eve' survived, one of them had better be a damn good techie and the other wise beyond his/her years.

i have nuke,
u have nuke,
i fire u die,
u fire i die,
i fire u fire,
u fire i fire,
we all die,
so no one fire.

During the cold war, MAD worked as a deterrent becoz despite all the rhetoric, both sides were still rational. Must remember that today, not all nuke nations operate on reason and the danger is actually many times higher.

Not only that, but terrorism has thrown a spanner into the concept of MAD.

A suitcase nuke goes off in downtown New York. Who did it? Sure, *some* country will get the blame, but it's not necessarily the right one. There might not even be *right country* since a terrorist organization is an ideal that crosses borders, not a country in itself.

Yeap. Something like that.

---

Added on May 24, 2010, 10:01 pmOkay, this isn't really an archive or an ark in the strictest sense, but a doomsday seed bank is already in existence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

This post has been edited by VMSmith: May 24 2010, 10:01 PM

Yes, that's what I meant. The commies were cold blooded but rational. Can't say the same about the fundamentalists.

This might sound batsh*t crazy but in the larger scheme of things, wouldn't preventing a full scale nuclear war only delay that destruction-rejuvenation cycle that might propel humanity to the next stage? If the survivors make it thru the nuclear winter that is.

Thanks for the seed bank reference... I think I saw it on National Geographic.


This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 24 2010, 10:13 PM

There's a lot more people asking this than you might think. The doomer forums I lurk at especially, have quite a few people wondering if a fast crash (from anything, not just global nuke warfare) might be better for the human race in the long run.

This post has been edited by VMSmith: May 24 2010, 10:13 PM

Yeah, how not to think like that when people appreciate the absolute mess we've created for ourselves. Its tough to decide where a better future lies - continue our present path and hope people come to their senses soon enough or let some nutjob be the unspoken villain that humanity desperately needs to reboot itself.

I think people will not come to their sense even after a holocust. As I have cited Confucius ideal never did get practise. It is only practise at your convinence. Imagine there is any road accident in a kampung. Who you think will crowd around to make a big fuss out of an injured chicken. Chinese, who know confucious teachings, will choose to apply "you die your business" and speed off.

the Russian and US have perfected the art of MAD, there are death man switch in their nuclear arsenal to automatically take revenge when the military and political leadership is wipe out. this death man switch does not increase the chance of nuclear war but decrease it because it let the generals be more calm when making decision during the shot windows when ICBM and bomber is detected and when the bomb hit, since revenge is assured so they can be more calm to decide if this is a false alarm, and not escalated to situation.

well the nuclear winter will be really hard to survive, simulation model show that there will be no food production for several years. even after the smoke clear and temprature return to normal the ozone will be depleted and UV radiation will increase 200% on earth surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

This post has been edited by robertngo: May 25 2010, 11:47 AM

Hey, that is why the kiasu stock pile the underground bunkers. They forgot the need to keep stock on skilled people. They come out of the aftermath. They had the existing knowledge stored in hard disk. They cant make a simple bolt and nut. They may not even know where to find nickel cadmium to power their PC.

This post has been edited by faceless: May 25 2010, 12:01 PM

if there is a nuclear winter scenario, the biggest problem will be to restart food production and try not to get cancer from the increased radiation, there are a project to store the world's knowledge under the swiss alps along with all the device required to read those information. but that will not be usefull in the first few years as the need is more to survival.

Yes Robert. Iam sure before comming out of the bunkers they will ensure it is safe to come out. Their food supply would also cater more to encounter any incontingensies.

True what you say. The guy who says "you die your business" will only make it his business when he ends up with 20 stitches on his head after running over the chicken. Pain is our biggest teacher and if we don't learn, its often becoz the pain isn't big enough. And if the pain of nuclear war isn't big enough, then extinction at our own hands will be the logical end.

Wow, we had come to an end already? Geezzz I was just begining to have fun.

Of course we haven't come to an end. Nuclear war belum lagi mah....

What I mean is we had the answer to the questions we seek where this topic is concern.

HABIS CERITA

This post has been edited by faceless: May 25 2010, 04:01 PM

Well, we haven't discussed if it is possible to close the tech/wisdom gap without resorting to a nuclear war. Confucius, Lao Tze and all other moral teachers have tried to no avail so I have to ask, if people cannot learn from good advice, is the pain of trial and error the only option we have to close that gap?

How about going to the root of this stubbornness ... what are the reasons behind it? Did it play a role in the survival of our species or did we survive in spite of it?


This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 25 2010, 05:10 PM

Wow, you stil got more to say. Yuppiee, looks like the fun can continue.

The unwillingness to heed good advise had to with who want to start being a good samaritian. If you were just walking along beside or behind the good samaritian what would you have commented in your heart? To be honest, I would say "Stupid A-hole". I wonder how many will soil their hands and offer help. This self seeking mentality is a major factor contributing to our survival.

This brings us to the study of the evolution of social behaviour. The classic question posed: Why would an individual "engage in a potentially deleterious interaction - such as those denoted by spite and altruism - since Darwinian theory placed individual fitness at a premium for evolutionary success. At the very least, and individual engaging in altruistic acts is spending time which could be better used courting females or gathering resources; at worst, it could incur injury (or even death) without any tangible reward in exchange."

In other words, why be good when we can be having selfish fun?

A biologist named W. D. Hamilton attempted an answer and came out with a formula on kin selection ( c < rb ) where c = cost to the doer, r = relatedness between actor and recipient, b = benefit to the recipient.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch8/chap8.htm

The formula seems to support the Dawkins' "selfish gene" concept that proposes people are many times more likely to kelp kin than strangers. My question with Hamilton's formula is what happens when r = 0 which is the good samaritan scenario. If the resultant c < 0, then why isn't everyone stumbling over themselves helping out strangers? Helping strangers being one of the by-products of closing the tech/wisdom gap.

I've yet to read the concept of reciprocal altruism and "The Prisoner's Dilemma" in social evolution theory. Perhaps that'll explain the missing link.

You can easily google up on The Prisoner's Dilemma and read up on it. It's not that hard a concept to grasp...

The Earth will not rest in peace so long Kim Jong Ill still walks this planet.

even more trouble if he kick the bucket and not yet establish a successor, if the country decent into a bloody power struggle it will be even more dangerous to the world.

Why you like to quote a mat salleh? Why you cant say, as the old chinese saying goes "the closer relation the better for butchering". The poor Hamilton just realised it when the chinese knew is ages ago and handed the knowledge down through a prose.

human action cant be put into mathematical fomula. You have brought up r=0 as a weakness. Likewise r=∞ will also cause it to fail. Parents, in general, are overly protective of their offsprings. There are isolated cases like Malaysians being well know for raping their own daughters.

This post has been edited by faceless: May 26 2010, 02:01 PM

..except when surfing on a cellphone in between bites of my Sausage & Egg McMuffin.

Becoz mat salleh wan more cheong hei mah... got more figures to crunch, more fun, lol. Anyway, after my recent experience with feng shui wisdom in Guangzhou, I decided to take old sayings with a little salt.

Behavioral science and mathematics don't mix? Well I dunno. What if I say there's an 90% chance my mum will flip when I blast my CD above 110 decibels. Why can't I express that as a formula?

P = 0.9 if sound > 110 decibles then mum flips. How is that for fomula

Here's another one for behavioural science... the probability of forumers who exceed X posts starting a new thread is Y% coz only newbies seem to post new threads. Oldies with 4-figure posts are mostly lurkers and snipers.

But in all seriousness, if altruism is the critical factor in closing the tech/wisdom gap and if Richard Dawkin's selfish gene theory is true, then its bad news becoz as far as kinship is concerned, we're less likely to find wise people with high tech relatives than we are finding high tech people with high tech relatives. Does anybody know if Bill Gates or Steve jobs have got wise sages in their family trees somewhere?

Hamilton's formula suggests that the kinship factor is critical if there is to be a regulating influence in the direction of tech development. Would you agree with him?

learned a lot from this thread

Does that mean you will take the lead and become a good samaritian, Compos?

Hamilton formula is okay except for the weakness pointed out.

Here's a related question to the topic, since we're talking about ancient east Asian wisdom.

The age of Confucius, Lao Tze and the Buddha crossed the timeline of the invention of paper, gunpowder and the self-loading crossbow, a leading weapon at the time. At that point in history, we had a high wisdom, high tech civilization. We were like the Vulcans. Yet looked what happened.

In the last 5,000 years the most number of the people killed on the planet were killed in the stretch of land covering the middle East to the Indus valley to the Middle Kingdom (China). The belt of great wisdom and innovation.

The great irony is, the barbarians of the west - the vikings, celts, etc - who were burning witches at the stake as people were talking about enlightenment in India and China, have now become more 'civilized' than the once-wise East. In last year's survey of gross national happiness, the top 10 countries were all lands of barbarians.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/world-hap...st_slide_2.html

I bet the unhappiest places would be places like Burma, india, Pakistan, Iraq... where the great gurus once walked.

Again a contradiction that I can't resolve.

If there was a nuclear war, I bet it would be started somewhere in this belt of great wisdom.

this thread really grouped with those master or phd.. all those thing too high level till i cant understad it at all

Back to the question why should I start being the Silly A-hole? Thus these silly a-holes are the unhappiest people.

This post has been edited by faceless: May 27 2010, 11:53 AM

Becoz they'll get fed up of you and let you have all the ice cream?

The place may have the wisdom. They not necessay apply it.

For India, I am amazed why they cant make a come back. The best they did was to unify and fight for independence. After that is fighting among themselves. China is always at civil war. Without the civil war now, they are a force to be reckon with.

Agree with TS.
In China, there were many intelligent and wise men in pre-Qin. It was a period in which the development of literature (文學-莊子） and logical thinking (thus science ； 公孫龍子) were blooming. However, once after Qin dynasty had started, it greatly impeded the progress of logical thinking in the ancient chinese and also the progress in literature. Since Qin dynasty, emperors were only concerned with tyranny and how could they prolong it as long as possible. And the best weapon that those emperors since Qin-dynasty had is 韓非子。His writing teaches those emperors how could they control the people (social engineering) and the inhumanity of his teaching far outweighs that of Karl Marx. As a result, China has been slow in the progress of scientific thinking.

The best human killing machine in modern century is neither bombing suicide nor war but scientific medicine. You cannot imagine how many people have they managed to kill.

Chemical warefare is not a mordern thingy. Poisoning the water is one of the tactic used by chinese strategists long ago.

This post has been edited by faceless: May 27 2010, 02:37 PM

Exactly. Shall we go a bit deeper and try to ascertain why one society is more likely to apply wisdom than another?

Greed is the same everywhere. So is hatred, anger, cunningness. So what makes Asians so special that we've killed more of each other than any other people on the planet? Are we more spiteful and vengeful in nature than our gwai loh peers? And if so, why?

The alternative question to what makes us kill each other is, what makes the barbarian societies peaceful?

I must think more about this question. For now, I blame the difference in the DNA make up.

My suspicion is that living in heat and humid climates increases the chances of psychosis, which coincides with the long history of brutality and conflict among people living in the deserts and tropics. I'm still looking for the data I once saw that supports this hypothesis.

TS,
You might be interested in a book called Thiaoouba Prophecy as the message of this book is directly addressing the issue you've raised. The book is free over in the internet, just google it. If you have trouble obtaining it, let me know, I'll drop the ebook to you.

There you will find desciption of people who are truly in a "high tech, high wisdom" society.

The Thiaooubans sound a lot like Visitors.

Whoa... astral travel, auras, levitation... sounds like one of those new age thingies. Didn't go far enough to see if there's any lizard people there but I did get far enough to read this:

"The message from Thiaoouba is that ‘‘material technology, without spiritual knowledge, is leading us to inevitable global catastrophe on Earth.""

That bit I can agree with.

Those are not the things that you need to associate yourself with at the moment and is not important. It is the book that you should be looking at, if indeed you are trying to look for answers/clues to the questions that you've posted.

Sure, I'll be happy to keep an open mind. While I read the book, could you post some of its salient points to keep the discussion going?

Yeah I am lazy to do much reading. Put ups some points for discussion

I could but I figure it is best that you find out everything yourself from the book to have its intended impact.

But if you do insist, the book main message is to develop ourselves spiritually. Technology as we put it, is only supposed to assist us in our development and not to enslave us as what it is happening on earth.

Material persuit is a step in the wrong direction and has caused us to regress tremendously. What on earth we call as a civilisation/advance/development, is not even close, we've not even achieved the 1st letter.

The book also talks about the things that are most dangerous to us as a society in the order of its importance which is, money, politicians, journalist and finally drugs and religion.

It also continues on to correct a few biblical error mainly about the story of Moses and also Who is Christ and also the purpose he came.

We as a society has taken a very wrong turn and that we have to correct ourselves right now. Also talks about the young generation is in the process of self examination and that it is important that we make the correct choices to ensure our continued existence. That if we are to expect help to be given to us, we will only be disappointed. The tools are already available to us and all we have to do is to look WITHIN us as that is the most beautiful kingdom of all.

This post has been edited by legiwei: May 29 2010, 03:50 PM

True, increasing lifespans may be good, but like what you've posted, it has also speed up a person's judgment to "sentence" someone to death. And as to your question, there may be hope that 10 years from now there will be tech beneficial enough to omit all the harmful effects today, however, cynically speaking, wouldn't that also means instant gratification will also be much more instantaneous? And I don't think instant gratification only dampens the value of patience. It has also dampened the value of appreciation, which is my stance to explain why humans are more self-forgiving to take another life, or worse, many lives at once, since they have all sorts of technology to gratify themselves should they have any feelings of guilt that they know their values of humanity has been degenerated.

Yes, I guess we cannot escape studying the human mind. But if you ask me, technology, cynically speaking, is nothing but a form of desire manifested from our complaints of our certain inability to do or achieve something. Instead of improving social skills, we resort to creating something powerful, an iron fist, because you see, an iron fist makes it all EASIERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, compared to trying to TALK to a person, and like a PERSON. Which is easier, to win over a person by talking to him, or to just punch him in the face and let him fear you so that he can agree to you?

The latter is easier, if you ask me. Since violence has no need for tact.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 30 2010, 01:49 PM

Labels aside, I have no argument with the main premise except I think it would be a mistake to sweep aside all material pursuit without courting the extinction of our species. Agriculture is a material pursuit, one we cannot live without. I'm nitpicking but I think good theories should be able to survive small details. Civilization is relative. We're always less civilized compared to someone else and vice versa.

Would society be any less dangerous if we didn't have these things?

I'm not sure about the beautiful kingdom part (sounds too religious for me) but no argument there about make the correct choices and we ensure our continued existence. That by the way is the message of all religions - make the correct choices and you get salvation. The only problem is that what's correct to A may not be correct to B and then they fight so I rather cut through the labels and mystic beliefs and get straight to the parts backed by provable evidence.

---

Added on May 31, 2010, 9:56 amWe don't need technology to punch someone into agreeing with us but if we want to intimidate thousands all at once, its indispensable. Technology is a leverage, to enable us to do more than what our own two hands can do. Leverage also puts a distance between you and the subject and because of this disintermediation effect, acts become impersonal. You can now kill without remorse.

Same with a forum like this. Because forumers don't know each other personally, it is easier for them to troll and insult one another without remorse, something they won't dare do in a McDonald's unless they wanna go home with a black eye. So yeah, while the wall of technology can make us live longer, it can also bring out the worst in us.


This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 31 2010, 09:59 AM

I think you missed the point on material persuit, Beastboy. The unwritten word is "excessive desire" in material persuit. Money is important but dont let it run your life. It does not matter if money is in the form of agriculture products or eletronic gadgets.

In the case of religion the unwritten part was "over zealousness leading to extreemism"

Wah got so many unwritten parts liao. If I wrote a program like that, my program sure hang one.

Yeah, it was invent by some wise guy who called it "reading between the lines"