This is such a BS way to frame the question of capitalism vs socialism.

We don't have pure capitalism or pure socialism...we never will nor does anyone else. We've had a hybrid system for a long time. There are always going to be shifts one way or the other and currently the future looks to be shifting towards socialism for things like healthcare. But that doesn't mean we suddenly drop all aspects of capitalism. Capitalism works quite well provided strong regulation to protect the safety and health of the populace. There is nothing wrong with profit...it's just the whole "profit at any cost" mentality that's hurting us.

Stop being binary. complex shit like this cannot be reduced to a simplistic capitalism v socialism argument

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?


First off, I agree it's clear there's value to this question. I think a logical, utilitarian ethical calculus has to rely on some definition of a "live human" and a "future live human" (not "could be" but "will be"). I think, going by a materialist view, this definition of life has to itself be based on some definition of "being human" involving capacity for thought or reason. And I think it also can't rationally be binary (not live human/live human); there has to be weighting (almost dead guy, 12 week-old fetus, guy in coma, etc... should probably all be partially weighted).

But humans aren't rational utilitarians when it comes to ethics. We're superstitious. We're habituated to rely on deontology. We value aesthetics.

And that's why debates like this take place is terms of analogies and emotions. And that's why, I think, you aren't putting down your simple answer for "when does life begin" - because we understand that having a single answer gets a whole deontological train moving. If we take any single answer there as a premise, we're driven to accept other answers we don't like, so instead it's arguing in the margins and specific cases.

It's a deadlock inherent in our irrationally based ethical system. Sorry.

>> ^rottenseed:

The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power.

See, while I don't agree with everything Hedges said here, I think this is the kind of talk that he's referring to. That statement you made just painted all religions in one broad stroke and set it up as if it is "us," the intelligent and tolerant people, versus "them," the ignorant and intolerant masses. It's that kind of rhetoric that he (and I for that matter) find divisive and counterproductive. Religious people--many of them Christians--who would have agreed with you that it is wrong to deny basic human rights to people (such as the right to marry) on the basis of their sexuality are now painted as your opponents instead.

Furthermore, while certainly some forms of religion as practiced by certain peoples in certain countries at certain times do in fact fit your description of religion quite well, "religion" as a concept does not. There's nothing about religion per se that requires a binary worldview nor does it require a lack of relativity or tolerance. I'd definitely agree with you that some instantiations of religion, though, have turned out that way.

I said it in the Greta Christina Sift that I linked to above, but I'll say it more clearly now: I think attacking "religion" is Don Quixotic. Time is better spent attacking specific features of specific religions in specific contexts that result in suffering, such as the denial of marriage to homosexuals on religions grounds, female genital mutilation, and so forth. These kinds of things anger both theists and atheists and we should all work together to eliminate them rather than squabble with each other over our individual preference to believe or not believe in a particular religion.

So you're saying that if it wasn't for religion humans would find some other aspect of human nature to exploit? Not really profound, but it really does make sense. For example, religion is being used as a means to deny gays the same rights the rest of us have. However, when it comes down to it, some people just feel that homosexuality is icky. And you know what? As ignorant as that is, it's just as natural for somebody to be repulsed by certain sexual behaviors as it is to be attracted to some sexual behaviors. As long as people disagree there will be conflict. The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power. Furthermore, if somebody doesn't agree with something that's ok. And since there is no god, therefore no word of god, our differences are merely individual preference.>> ^peggedbea:

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:
whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

@westy

Yup. It's binary thinking like QM's that fail to understand a good message, which is that any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.

>> ^messenger:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.



I think what fox news/the people the own that media have done is change the language so conservatives and allot of people Think of things in a binary way , so when some one says the system is fucked tax the rich conservatives think that its a case of dirty liberal socalist commies V traditoinal amercan values.

when in reality I think the vast majority of liberals are totally fine with capitlisum so long as its as fair as it can be , and directed towards activites of social and scientific benefit ( as well as rewarding individuals for hard work and allowing for diversity in projects and businesses)

Love the idiot who starts giving Alec a definition of what the federal reserve is, right after he's clearly demonstrated he knows exactly what the fed is. And the guy doesn't stop after Alec tells him once "I know what the fed is, what I don't know is how shutting down the fed affects capital markets in this country" ... the annoying idiot with a mic just goes back into his goddamn narcissistic routine of explaining it. I think it's the same guy at the end trying to cram his worldview into a new binary paradigm (asking him to "endorse ending the fed" even though Alec has just stated three times he doesn't see why it'd be a good thing... asking him to confirm support for Ron Paul, which is kind of an obnoxious question if you're talking to Alec Baldwin). FUCK THAT GUY.

I'm sympathetic but I think many many of the actual OWS protesters are, at best, little wannabe dictators. And: Grassroots movement, MY DICK.

tracklist:

0:00 James Blake - What Was It You Said About Luck (Joy Orbison Remix)
3:07 Loxy & Resound - Black Hole
4:57 Loxy & Resound - Depth Excess
>>>> Instrumental - Watching You (Acapella)
7:08 ASC - ?
9:00 Synkro - Progression
12:37 dBridge - Detuned Heart (Distance Remix)
16:38 dBridge - ?
18:50 Skeptical - ?
19:34 Instra:mental - Fist (Level 2B Mix)
20:39 Dub Phizix & Skeptical - Marka
24:15 The Untouchables - Lion of Judah
25:46 Loxy & Resound - Fall
29:04 Abstract Elements - Abysmal Depth
31:15 Loxy - ?
33:27 Loxy & Resound - Sin City
36:22 ?
38:41 Abstract Elements - Basic Substance - Kos.Mos
40:31 ?
44:35 dBridge - So Lonely (Consequence rmx)
47:36 Binary Collective - Sin Skin

Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".


I'd grant that. I'd say that an average monkey might type "ee" a billion, billion times more often that it would type "War and Peace" (edit: by this, I mean the literal string "War and Peace", not the text of that book). And it gets exponentially worse with longer sequences, becoming fantastically improbable by the end of page one and incomprehensible by the end.

Then we divide that ridiculous number by infinity, and we're back to the result being an absolute certainty.

Actually I don't think the issue of representation is critical here. I think it's very easy to point out where Ariane went wrong:

"What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity."

That's our intuition, but it's wrong. That's why this thought experiment is interesting. The likelihood is perhaps 1 in 10^10000000, but it is very much not "about 1 in infinity".


>> ^Sotto_Voce:

>> ^Ariane:
Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.

You're using the wrong probability distribution. If we do what you suggest and convert each possible string of characters into a binary number, then the monkey experiment will not give us a uniform distribution over the binary numbers. It won't be like a random number generator. The monkey experiment gives us a uniform distribution over individual characters, and this does not translate into a uniform distribution over strings. As an example, consider the string "ee" vs. the string corresponding to Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".

>> ^Ariane:

Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.


You're using the wrong probability distribution. If we do what you suggest and convert each possible string of characters into a binary number, then the monkey experiment will not give us a uniform distribution over the binary numbers. It won't be like a random number generator. The monkey experiment gives us a uniform distribution over individual characters, and this does not translate into a uniform distribution over strings. As an example, consider the string "ee" vs. the string corresponding to Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".

Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.

So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.

So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.

@hpqp @westy

I'm not trying to pass judgement, or look at sex in a binary way; I'm just trying to assign the video to the proper channel. And for THAT purpose this should be in the gay channel if anything should be.

>> ^hpqp:

I would not be in the least surprised if he turned out to be gay, and yes, this is very camp. That being said, I know several people whose personalities are contrary to the heterosexual "norm" and yet are attracted to the opposite sex. A boy in my class in highschool was incredibly camp, exuberant, living his life like a constant performance (he's an actor/musician/artist to boot). Needless to say, he had no problem attracting the girls (in fact, some older women in the art world were fawning over him as well, borderline creepy-like).
In any case, I am of the opinion that our discussion and perception of gender and sexual identity need to move beyond the binary stage:
http://videosift.com/video/Re-Teaching-Gender-and-Sexuality


No you are a fag or not its quite simple , if things were shades of Gray it would be hard to know who to shout at or who should get the death penalty or a good stoning.

and don't try and bring facts into the conversation only dirty liberals use facts to win an argument.

I would not be in the least surprised if he turned out to be gay, and yes, this is very camp. That being said, I know several people whose personalities are contrary to the heterosexual "norm" and yet are attracted to the opposite sex. A boy in my class in highschool was incredibly camp, exuberant, living his life like a constant performance (he's an actor/musician/artist to boot). Needless to say, he had no problem attracting the girls (in fact, some older women in the art world were fawning over him as well, borderline creepy-like).

In any case, I am of the opinion that our discussion and perception of gender and sexual identity need to move beyond the binary stage:

http://videosift.com/video/Re-Teaching-Gender-and-Sexuality