Comment on this entry
Big Changes Afoot for the IEET in 2012
December 16, 2011
After six years serving as the IEET’s Chairman of the Board, Nick Bostrom will be stepping down and assuming the role of IEET Senior Fellow. And after three years service as managing director of the IEET, Mike Treder will be stepping down to be an IEET Fellow. IEET Affiliate Scholar Hank Pellissier will be replacing Mike as Managing Director.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/17 at 01:31 AM
Warm congrats to Hank, and thanks to Mike. Both the artlcles we read and the debates we have on this blog are of truly high quality, and both are in large measure due to Mike’s style of moderation.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/17 at 02:02 PM
Thanks to Nick and Mike. Congratulations and good luck to Hank!
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/17 at 03:15 PM
Hank is good luck. Many others here are as well. However if it is for some reason difficult to convince more women to write at IEET, might you convince younger men to do so? would you ask Christian C. to write a piece to be edited and enlarged for posting?
You don’t want IEET to be excessively dominated by middle-aged men, do you?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/17 at 07:09 PM
“You don’t want IEET to be excessively dominated by middle-aged men, do you?”
Good point. And yes it would be good to get some more female voices on this blog as well.
Posted by Linda MacDonald Glenn on 12/17 at 11:20 PM
First, a warm embrace to Nick and Mike for doing such an awesome job—and a hearty congratulations to Hank! It will be a pleasure to work with you and I hope to meet you f-t-f soon!
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/18 at 12:24 AM
We’ll post the Top Twelve 2011 IEET articles soon,
and women are extremely well represented.
A woman wrote the #1 most-popular article last year,
and 7 of the top 12 were either written by women,
or were about a women’s issue.
Mike did a tremendous job of bringing more women in.
In 2012 there’ll be at least two new women writers added to the blog,
a Canadian ethicist/feminist and a Russian biochemist.
Plus there are articles slated on women’s rights topics.
To find out about writing for IEET, contact hank@ieet.org
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/18 at 04:36 AM
I guess it’s the comment threads that still tend to be quite male-dominated.
So Linda, keep posting!
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/18 at 09:31 AM
For fuck’s sake, let’s try to move beyond this gender war, shall we.
A good article is a good article, a bad article is a bad article, a good comment is a good comment, and a bad comment is a bad comment, regardless of the writer’s gender.
I enjoy the many good articles and comments here, and I am totally uninterested in what type of genitals the writers have, or what they like to do with them.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/18 at 10:33 AM
Hi Giulio -
I don’t think it is unhealthy or foolish to be, in your words, “interested in what type of genitals the writers have, or what they like to do with them.” I appreciate your point of view, but it makes sense to me that many readers want to hear the opinions of a more diverse staff.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/18 at 10:38 AM
Hank - so do I. I want to hear many opinions here. Regardless of gender, skin color, or sexual preferences.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/18 at 11:31 AM
Sorry to see you step down Mike! Here’s hoping to see more articles and social comment from you, now that you have more time on your hands? Thanks for your contributions and critical thinking.
Hank.. Good luck! Mike has set a benchmark in standards to maintain here, (you may perhaps now find yourself with less time on your hands?) ;0]
It would be good to encourage not just more female commentators, but “more” commentators? It’s obvious that there are many readers here at IEET and yet many do not find motivation to comment?
I find that strange?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/18 at 12:13 PM
@Giulio Yes, this is the old debate between “affirmative action” (or whatever you want to call it) and trying one’s best to be gender-blind, race-blind, etc. The latter is tempting, but like so many of your extreme liberal/libertarian views it is a counsel of perfection. In other words, it’s naive. It just doesn’t work like that. Suggesting that it would be good to have more female voices on the comment thread here isn’t carrying on a gender war. And in case you’re about to come up with a thin-end-of-the-wedge argument like “then why don’t we insist on having more race diversity, more physically challenged commenters, more left-handlers” or whatever, the answer is “because we happened to be focusing on gender, and we don’t want to complicate things.” Relax. (And by the way I’m left-handed, in case it’s any consolation. My one claim to being in a discriminated-against minority, unless not being in a discriminated-against minority is itself a discriminated-against minority. Hi Godel).
@Hank Taking about discriminated-against minorities, maybe I should get round to writing that article about bankers. 
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/18 at 12:49 PM
Cygnus—interesting idea - yes, I would love to recruit more commentators, not sure how to do it—I suppose I could search the internet for garrulous, obsessive, and perhaps female posters and encourage them to move here.
Whenever a new poster does appear, it’s always nice to say HI and encourage them to drop by on a regular basis.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 01:10 AM
@Peter - yes, I think affirmative action is crap. I know many highly skilled women who rose to the top with talent, dedication, discipline, and hard work… and everyone assumes they are at the top only because of their genitals. Like many inventions of bureaucrats, AA hurts especially those it wishes to protect.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/19 at 02:58 AM
@Giulio - yes, that’s the argument we’ve all heard 10000 times before. It has some merit to it, sure. But can you really not see the other side of this one? Have you come across empirical studies that shed light on this? How would one design them? These women you know (and I also know several) who have “risen to the top” (though personally I dislike this kind of gravitational metaphor, I’ve seen what damage *that* can do) through talent dedication, discipline, and hard work…..how can you be so sure that affirmative action hasn’t played a role in creating the conditions that made that possible. It would be lovely if we lived in a world where talent, dedication, discipline, and hard work ensured one’s rise to the top. Unfortunately it also depends on other things, such as what you’re surname happens to be, and yes, what kind of genitals you happen to have. My impression is that affirmative action has played a positive role in correcting at least some of these problems. Like most remedies, it also has side effects, such as the one you mentioned.
Bankers, bureaucrats…..you seem to have a lot of scapegoats Giulio.
Posted by Linda MacDonald Glenn on 12/19 at 06:00 AM
Giulio, I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn affirmative action—I have witnessed a number of occasions (particularly when it comes to law enforcement and especially in the 1980s) where the AA laws forced certain bastions of male dominance to at least interview women. And guess what? These same men were really surprised when they found women candidates who were qualified. And given a choice, they would have not even looked twice.
The motivation of the law was to have people in charge look at candidates they would not have previously consider because of their biases. My observation was that it worked in many circumstances and helped bring about a change in attitudes.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 06:40 AM
@Linda - you said it: in the 80s. That was 30 years ago. Nowadays, selection committees interview women first, and always give them preference when other factors are equal. This battle has already been fought, and won, and if f today there are discrimination, they are very often in the other sense.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 06:44 AM
@Peter - “scapegoats” are those who take the blame for things that they are not responsible of. I know as _facts_ that many bankers have raped society with their greed, and many bureaucrats have screwed it up with their corruption and idiocy.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 06:51 AM
@Peter, to make the point even clearer. I could start making examples very close to your home, which used to be mine until a few years ago. Everyone who has been in a selection committee, and I have been in a lot, can remember situations where a committee has been forced by political pressure to take an idiot, just because she was a woman.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/19 at 06:56 AM
@Giulio “many bankers have raped society with their greed” is not a fact, it’s an opinion, and a rather simplistic one. Similarly, accusing bureaucrats of “corruption and idiocy” is not particularly helpful.
This discussion started because intomorrow suggested it would be good to convinced more women (and younger men) to write here. How did we get from there to idiotic bureaucrats?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/19 at 06:59 AM
On your last point, Giulio: since all bureaucrats are apparently idiots, I guess choosing “an idiot, just because she was a woman” at least didn’t make things worse.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 07:03 AM
Last comment (I see that I am outnumbered by the PC army, and I don’t consider this issue very important). I am blind to gender, race, and sexual and lifestyle preferences, because I don’t consider these things relevant in the least. A few months ago Hank published a great interview with a very smart new politician, much younger than most of us here. She said: “<i>We see ourselves as post-gender, so we don’t even ask for gender in the member application.</i>” This is, I think, the right attitude. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20110929
Posted by Linda MacDonald Glenn on 12/19 at 07:12 AM
If only everyone were blind to gender, race, sexual and lifestyle preferences, like you, Guilio! ;>) It surely would make life easier!
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/19 at 08:28 AM
“If only everyone were blind to gender, race, sexual and lifestyle preferences, like you, Guilio! ;>) It surely would make life easier!”
Indeed, but simply wishing it were so isn’t going to make it happen. Unlike Giulio I *do* see this as an important issue. Furthermore, *nobody*, including Giulio, is blind to gender, race, sexual and lifestyle preferences. Numerous psychological studies have shown this. Affirmative action works precisely because it compensates for deeply ingrained prejudices that we *all* have. Sticking one’s head in the sand and hoping the issue will go away isn’t a clever strategy.
Besides, making life easier isn’t the goal, is it? Life would be easier if we were all dead.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/19 at 08:47 AM
@ great comments here! I do plan on bringing in more women writers, and people “of color” from distant corners of the world. - BUT I hope Giulio lets me know if he regards them as idiots, and suspects they got on only because of skin color or genitalia. I am sure that he will!
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 09:29 AM
@Peter re “*nobody*, including Giulio, is blind to gender, race, sexual and lifestyle preferences.”
Sorry Peter, I really am. In most cases, it just come natural to me. In those rare cases where it doesn’t, I force myself to be blind to these things anyway. I can do this myself, without being forced by Big Brother, thank you very much. Note: if BB wants to force me, I might stop doing this, just for the fun of disobeying BB. So, BB, please keep the fuck away from me.
@Hank re “I hope Giulio lets me know if he regards them as idiots, and suspects they got on only because of skin color or genitalia. I am sure that he will! “
I most certainly will. No blank check here, my friend, I will judge each case by its specific merits:-)
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 09:35 AM
Can somebody fix this? Replies are converted from smart text with some <b>html markup</b> to plain text, and newlines are ignored.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 09:36 AM
Hank, here is a suggestion for you: http://www.sarahpac.com/
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/19 at 09:55 AM
“Sorry Peter, I really am. In most cases, it just come natural to me. In those rare cases where it doesn’t, I force myself to be blind to these things anyway.”
Giulio, I’m sure you make conscious efforts to contemplate for any biases you become aware of, without, as you say, the help of Big Brother. But how do you know what’s going on the rest of the time? What about the subconscious biases, the ones you’re not aware of?
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/19 at 10:15 AM
Yeah.. that’s right!
And another thing, let’s not leave out the “little people”
“Oompa Loompa, do-ba-dee-doo,
I’ve got a perfect puzzle for you.”
Luv that “people of color?” - WTF! Does that mean? People are not different colors are they?
It’s no wonder nobody else comments at this site these daze - it reads like a technoprogressive old peoples home! (Oopsie - NOT that I’m ageist, obviously)
Geeeeezus.. it is just so difficult to communicate progressive ideals with all this PC nonsense obfuscating the real issues.
And it’s called “Positive discrimination” not “Affirmative Action”?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 11:09 AM
@Peter re “What about the subconscious biases, the ones you’re not aware of?”
If I am not aware of them, then they don’t influence my actions. If they don’t influence my actions, I leave them alone: I don’t censor others’ thoughts, and I certainly don’t censor mine. When biases can influence my actions, I consider ignoring them as an act of basic decency to the other persons affected. Without BB’s help.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/19 at 11:34 AM
“If I am not aware of them, then they don’t influence my actions.”
??? Do you know *anything* about psychology? I am influenced every second of the day by biases of which I am unaware.
Interesting, though, how Europeans too can be neurotic…in this case when it comes to anything that smells vaguely “PC”. Still I quite like the idea of a technoprogressive old people’s home!
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/19 at 12:54 PM
CygnusX1 - you live in London, so perhaps you know some Oompah-Loompahs that would like to write for IEET? that would be great! They are very under-represented on our staff, especially the female queer Ooompah-Loompahs of color.
You and Giulio seem to be presenting yourself as a bit more evolved than the rest of us. Congratulations to you on your high self-esteem!
I am going to continue looking for more diversity on our writing staff, because many people are as un-evolved as I am, and we think wide representation is interesting.
If you want to write for IEET yourself, and express your superior opinions, you can send me an email at hank@ieet.org describing what topic you’d like to address.
Posted by gwern on 12/19 at 01:50 PM
So who is replacing Bostrom as Chairman?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 02:19 PM
@Peter - Perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly, let me try again. If the consequences of my actions can affect others, I consider ignoring my biases as an act of basic decency to the other persons affected, and try hard to ignore them. If the consequences of my actions don’t affect others, my biases are my own business. Is this clearer?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 02:23 PM
@Hank re “you seem to be presenting yourself as a bit more evolved than the rest of us.”
Not at all. I think I have made it very clear, and on many occasions, that I just don’t believe in absolute right or wrong. I don’t say that my way is better or “more evolved” than your way. I just say that it is my way.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/19 at 02:28 PM
@ Giulio - I was being ironic, and it was largely addressed to Cygnus, but also to you. I am sincerely sincerely sincerely glad that you have the point of view that you have, and I sincerely do want you to notify me if you think I am behaving in a too-PC manner. But I am also proceeding to look for Ooompah Loopahs and other demographics that we have not given voice to.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/19 at 02:33 PM
@Hank re “I am also proceeding to look for Ooompah Loopahs and other demographics that we have not given voice to. “
And I will be happy to read their articles and comments, if they are good (and I am sure they will be). But because they are good, not because they have been written by persons belonging to specific demographics.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/19 at 03:53 PM
Hank, I don’t have a sense of superiority, this may be you projecting your sense of inferiority onto me? And I always offer my points of argument openly for contemplation and debate and rejection with a question mark?
And yes indeedy let’s encourage more diversity, more people, young, fresh, vital, energetic, open-minded, critical-thinking, positive-thinking, minds? Let’s have these article threads busting at the seems, with solutions seekers and comments and debate flying at you from all parts of the globe, at all hours!
Anyway, this is turning out to be the most obscure “PC” orientated old peoples thread I have ever, ever read?
The point that poor ole Giulio was tryin’ to make, (once again), was one of neutrality - that you should direct attention to accepting contributions from queer/not-queer, female/non-female, short/not-short, colored/non-colored, Oompah-Loompahs? Now calm down, it’s nearly Xmas, this is only your first week, moderation requires critical thinking and diplomacy and a sense of fun – and transhumanism can be fun? (Thanks for your invite, if and when I feel that I have something of “quality” to offer I may just take you up on your offer). Perhaps you could also claw some writers back from hplus magazine, (Valkyrie)? And also, there is loads and loads of archived stuff and subject matter here at IEET that could do with a re-surface, you could dig some out, dust it off, and it may just provoke new and fresh debate?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/19 at 03:58 PM
“If the consequences of my actions can affect others, I consider ignoring my biases as an act of basic decency to the other persons affected, and try hard to ignore them. If the consequences of my actions don’t affect others, my biases are my own business. Is this clearer?”
Clear as water, Giulio, but IMO insufficient, for three reasons. 1. It’s impossible to “ignore” biases, even if you are aware of them. What you can do is try to compensate for them. 2. The whole thing we’re discussing is how to compensate for biases of which you are unaware, but which nevertheless affect your actions towards others. We all have them, and by definition you can’t compensate for them consciously, on a case by case basis, because you are unaware of them. So you need some overall approach, which will necessarily be crude and have negative consequences (such as the one you cited), but are likely to be helpful in addressing systemic obstacles as alluded to by Linda. 3. All this is assuming that everyone is as enlightened, careful and (I assume!) honest as you are. They aren’t.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/19 at 05:08 PM
Cygnus - I have a long list of topics - with headlines - I’d like to get writers to write, many are just interviews, easy to do. I thought of contacting Valkyrie but he is quite comfortable I think at Acceler8or, I’m glad he found a regular place, also I am sure IEET likes “real names” because I was Hank Hyena at hplusmagazine but here, I’m required to use my birth name. And I like it that way. I like IEET’s more academic stance. There will be lots of new and unexplored topics at IEET in the immediate future because there is new and unexamined tech arriving all the time that requires new ethical discussion. I particularly like the promises and perils of neurotechnology
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/19 at 05:33 PM
Placing to one side for a moment gender/ethnicity, let’s think on how youths need to access vox populi a bit more. Both the Arab Spring and OWS share a common denominator, putting it in the vernacular, youths get busted (in the Mideast, youths get their heads busted: change=casualties).
Elders possess the wealth; Bill Gates reportedly has $98 billion, and though it is his money to keep, he has no right to power and no right to be remotely involved in sending youths to die and be maimed in defense of the status quo—which includes Gates’ status quo. Pastor Alex can tell us in more detail how everyone plays the game of pretending their actions aren’t actually affecting others and the substrate negatively in some ways, when they sense that they are in fact doing so.
Getting off the social science soapbox, there is a simple way to inveigle a youth or two to do a piece at IEET and the other h+-oriented sites: have the youth canvass peers and others to discover if they are aware of h+. That way the youth can write an article on their peers’ reactions, plus if the surveyees don’t know of h+ beforehand, they will know after the subject is broached.
Naturally, the topic of the survey can be something else, say just for example life-extension. Leave it up to the writer.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/19 at 07:56 PM
There seems to be this notion that there are no “youths” writing for IEET. There are a number of 25 year olds writing - and writing heavily read articles - and certainly many under 30’s. Is that young enough or are you wanting 20 year olds? There was also an article written about the German Pirate Party where the entire leadership was under 30. I am sure AGE is not a criteria here, no one has ever been refused a writing spot because they were too young. I have a list of many articles that I’d like to see written, especially interviews, and I am open to new writers who want to contribute. I do like the idea of a survey, but I’m not sure it would reveal much. I didn’t know anything about IEET until I was interested in the topics it covered… if anyone at any age is interested in IEET topics, I’m sure they’d find the site…
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/20 at 12:52 AM
@Peter re “you need some overall approach” - I prefer a case by case approach, perhaps with a very lean “overall approach” if we really need it. But if we do need an overall approach, it can only be “do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preferences, etc.” Because, you see, _any_ other overall approach will discriminate against someone.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/20 at 03:15 AM
@Giulio Yes, I like the idea of a lean overall approach”, and of course non-discrimination has to be the overarching principle. Our disagreement concerns the extent to which it is legitimate to introduce “positive discrimination” (to use CygnusXI’s indeed less euphemistic terminology) to fix systemic biases within society.
One way in which such biases work is through the development of mores and practices that resonate well with the in-group that happens to dominate a particular profession, social or business stratum. Affirmative action is a crude but very effective way of breaking down that kind of monopoly. We don’t need to agree here and now on whether the benefits of such an approach outweigh the costs, but can you at least agree that there are benefits?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/20 at 08:50 AM
@Peter re “can you at least agree that there are benefits?”
I agree that there _have been_ benefits in the past, for example in the 80s where (as Linda mentioned) positive discrimination was used to force selection committees to consider candidates that they would not have considered otherwise. But I fail to see the benefits of positive discrimination in today society. Today, if there is discrimination, it is usually in the other sense, or at least this has been my own experience so far.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/20 at 09:08 AM
5.3.5. Positive discrimination
Positive discrimination ( affirmative or positive action) is an efficient way of fighting discrimination because de jure equality alone is generally not enough to guarantee de facto equality. So-called positive action is used to grant preferences in a specific area to specific sections of the population which are under-represented in that area.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/105_en.htm
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/20 at 09:19 AM
Thanks Giulio. I have a somewhat different perspective on this, perhaps because of my personal preferences and circumstances. My general impression is that here in Europe we’ve got the balance about right, on the whole. I think the systemic obstacles often tend to be *very* subtle, while the sometimes absurd consequences of positive discrimination are clear for all to see. Certainly I know plenty of women who feel that the glass ceiling is still very much in place, and who indeed perceive (and deplore) a retrenchment of the advances made in women’s rights. I don’t necessarily agree with them either, but I do think their concerns are real.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/20 at 09:20 AM
@CygnusXI Exactly.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/20 at 09:33 AM
@CygnusX1 - Keywords in this definition: discrimination, preferences. Look my friends, there is no escape. Four is an even number, or otherwise four is an odd number. There is no discrimination, or otherwise there is discrimination. I prefer a society with no discrimination.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/20 at 09:54 AM
@Peter - if there are glass ceilings, we must break them, but not by replacing them with other glass ceilings. A pink glass ceiling and a blue glass ceiling are both glass ceilings.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/20 at 09:54 AM
hello fellas—This affirmative action topic could be used in an IEET poll, or as a pro-and-con article. There are enough comments here… maybe it’s nearly complete!
by the way, here’s two women futurists I’ve approached to be writers, they have 12 books between them, etc etc.—Sohail Inayatullah and Ivana Milojevic at http://www.metafuture.org/—one is Serbian, the other is Pakistani—who remembers the Rainbow Coalition of Jesse Jackson about 25-30 years ago? that was fun, wasn’t it?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/20 at 10:04 AM
@Hank - I suggest a pro-and-con article with an attached poll. It is important to make the poll complete and all options clear.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/20 at 10:07 AM
@Giulio How about I write the pros and you write the cons
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/20 at 10:29 AM
I love the idea—I can run the article in early January and then put up the poll after the article has been up about 5-6 days. Do you want any assistance? I think you don’t need it. And I think it is already 3/4-written. I think it would be fun if it started with, “We decided to write this article after Hank announced in the comments section that he was going to bring in more women and ‘people of color’ as writers for the IEET blog.” That way it becomes immediately relevant to what the readers are doing. I hope the article maintains the slightly pissed-off-at-each other tension that’s evident here.
I wish we could get Cygnus involved too - what say ye Cygnus? I do think this debate form has potential to be very interesting—what do you want to debate Cygnus, and with whom? But you will have to reveal yourself with your real name, you masked bandit. WE should dig up post-futurist and expose him as well, and he and Cygnus can go at it. Valkyrie Ice is also a hotbed of opinions, I will notify her…
BTW - I need to correct my earlier posting, Ivana is indeed a woman, but Sohail is not. He’s a man. My apologies.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/20 at 11:13 AM
My real name indeed! how dare you sir? (with only rudimentary investigative skills this may yet be uncovered, even here at IEET?), and me thinks that Postfuturist is much closer than you are aware Hank.. HELLO!!!? Thanks again for your kind invitation, (and “positive discrimination”), but I really must help Santa as promised this year, and.. I also have a day job to hold down, so don’t have much time presently. However, your plan seems intriguing, a sort of head to head, article/counter article type format.. Hmm?
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/20 at 12:28 PM
Dear Cygnus - cloaked commenter, poster-in-the-shadows - do contemplate the argumentative format that I have proposed, and are you implying post-futurist, that Jackal, is lurking close amongst us ? I don’t recognize his demented writing voice. But you… I will track you down with Investigative Skills 101. I do have someone, Nikki Olsen, who might be willing to debate a dastardly Libertarian. Also, the daring Dane, Joern Pallensen, is a pitbull in the forensic ring is anyone wishes to verbally spar with him. Or should we have Giulio and Peter battle repeatedly on a wider variety of issues, like the value of the EU?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/20 at 12:30 PM
Well, I’m in! Like you say Hank, it’s already 3/4-written…
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/20 at 12:32 PM
@Hank re postfuturist, you really haven’t been paying attention!
PS I seem to remember going head-to head with Joern (and yourself), would love to do that in article format as well!
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/20 at 12:33 PM
Ooh, and I could also debate with Alex on whether Christians should be allowed to post here! Although come to think of it there are more radical atheists here than I.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/20 at 04:02 PM
Peter—I know postfuturist is now post-postfuturist but I haven’t encountered him recently - am I waaay behind?
What did you debate Joern on? That would be fun - Danes vs. Brits, a reenactment of King Arthur times.
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 12/20 at 04:28 PM
Peter, I would think a more useful subject for debate would be whether there is still a use for religion in the trans humanist world.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/20 at 06:54 PM
@Giulio,
there are virtually no bean counters at IEET; you must be thinking of Tip O’Neill’s office—but he went South.
@Hank
“Is that young enough or are you wanting 20 year olds?”
Yes.
Old enough to write, old enough to publish.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/21 at 03:31 AM
@Alex Indeed, my previous suggestion was somewhat flippant. Yours would indeed be an interesting and useful subject to debate.
@Hank re post(-post)futurist, do you think he might even be lurking on this thread?
By contrast we seem to have lost iPan…scared off by the need to register?
Re Joern…remember “draw Mohammed day”? Btw I gather the King Canute (or rather Knud) story has a completely different interpretation in Denmark: more heroic and less foolish! But Joern can confirm or correct…
Posted by Pendula on 12/21 at 07:24 PM
I think you have more females that comment than you think, however often we don’t stir quite the controversy some of our male counterparts do. I’ve been reading, posting, etc on this site for at least 4 years (Probably more). However I find my ideas don’t always ive with the mainstream thought here. But I digress, just keep in mind you probably have more females here than you think.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/21 at 07:37 PM
Post (post) futurist has been sent to prison for Rootless Cosmopolitanism.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/22 at 10:49 AM
@Intomorrow And for being nasty to Christians! It had to happen eventually.
@Pendula This is very interesting. There are a number of men, including myself, who like to comment *very* regularly and occasionally get into long ding-dong debates, such as the one above with Giulio, which in some cases can stretch over dozens of comments. I first started doing that at school with a (male) friend. Kind of a hobby I guess. With women I tend to come to some kind of a conclusion more quickly.
To be honest I haven’t thought deeply about *why* I think we need more female voices here, I kind of got sidetracked by the debate with Giulio! It just seemed like a good idea I guess. Perhaps the wider question is: what kind of debates do we want to have on this blog?
If women aren’t stirring up as much controversy here as some of us men, I don’t think it can be because you’re ideas don’t fit with the mainstream. Surely this would have the opposite effect? I think it’s maybe because you don’t hammer away trying to convince others of your point of view to quite the same extent. Maybe because you’ve got better things to do.
By the way, one female contributor and regular commentator I haven’t seen for a while is Dorothy Deasy. (Hope I remembered her last name correctly.) Where did she disappear off to?
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/22 at 12:14 PM
Yes! Where is Dor? I am going to find her… she was a great commenter
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/22 at 12:18 PM
@Peter re “I haven’t thought deeply about *why* I think we need more female voices here” -
Because we need more voices! I wish to hear many points of view and interesting thoughts from many voices and, as I may have said on occasions, I don’t care about their gender.
re “@Giulio How about I write the pros and you write the cons” -
I think you can write about pros and cons. Basically, I have just one, very simple argument: discrimination is discrimination, and the only way to avoid discrimination is not to discriminate.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/22 at 12:44 PM
Giulio, you were the one objecting to the idea in the first place! But I’m glad you’ve come round to our way of thinking. So: shall we move away from arguing about discrimination to thinking about *how* we can get more diverse voices? At least that’s something we agree on, right?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/22 at 02:17 PM
@Peter - I have _never_ objected to the idea of having more female voices!!! I am always in favor of diversity and thousands flowers. I just don’t think women are better than men, or the other way around. Some women are better than some men, and some men are better than some women, and that’s all I have to say on gender.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/22 at 02:29 PM
@Giulio Similarly, neither I nor anyone else on this thread has come close to suggesting that women are better than men. It was ALL about getting more female (and younger) voices. Nobody was fighting any gender war. But the issue about affirmative action is, I still think, an important one. Unlike you, I think discrimination in favour of under-represented groups can be beneficial as a way of reducing unfair discrimation globally. Otherwise, it’s a bit like saying the only way to end violence is not to be violent, or the only way to end poverty is not to be poor. It’s just more complicated than that. If you want to avoid discrimation, you need to take affirmative action of some sort. When you are hot, you try to cool down. You don’t just declare that being hot is bad.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/22 at 03:41 PM
Santa, Jesus and rationality..
Do you like Tim Minchin? Then you may just like his blog?
www.timminchin.com/2011/12/22/im-not-on-the-jonathan-ross-show/
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/22 at 03:48 PM
? But the only way to end violence IS not to be violent? Now that really is “Affirmative Action”?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/23 at 10:31 AM
But it’s a serious point CygnusX1. All of us posting on this blog benefit from the civilisation that we like to criticise, supported as it is by the armies, drones, police forces and spies that we like to despise. It is a fantasy to suggest that if by some political decision Western democracies were to do away with these things then the world would suddenly become peaceful. That this argument (like other “ends justifying the means” arguments) has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities does not make it wrong. It means it needs to be applied with caution.
Basically this pertains to a very fundamental belief I have about causality. There’s what you want, and there’s how to make it happen. Suppose we want a peaceful world. Will we get that by unilaterally being peaceful ourselves? No. It just doesn’t work like that. We have ot understand where violence comes from, and put in place effective strategies to eliminate it, based on evidence, monitoring and adaptation of policy in response to new evidence.
Simplistic arguments like, “The only way to end discrimination is not to discriminate” will not end discrimination.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/23 at 11:08 AM
I just read an excellent book on human violence, by Steven Pinker, called “The Better Angels of Our Nature” - the author’s conclusion is that violence has been decreasing steadily in the last 2,000 years, particularly since the Enlightenment. His statistics show that factors leading to a decrease in violence include education, nation-states, and increased secularism.
The notion that the State=Violence, according to Pinker, is wildly wrong. Quite the inverse is true. I heartily recommend the book to people with libertarian impulses, and to those of us who find ourselves constantly arguing with them.
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 12/23 at 11:10 AM
We use violence to get what we want because it works at an instinctual level. Any toddler will react violently when he or she doesn’t get what they want. The trick is to teach non violence. Ironically many parents do this with violence (spanking). It doesn’t work. Teaching and modelling non violence with non violence works. More than once I stood while my young tried to force me to give him what he wanted. I collected a couple of bruises, but he learned that violence will not get him what he desires.
Non violence in and of itself will not remove violence from our culture, you are quite correct. Yet non violence in our own lives will give us a place to start. How can we say to the government to stop war if we beat our children, or intimidate our employees?
If we create policy to stop violence or discrimination, we much be sure that those policies don’t just create a different form of violence or discrimination. They need to come from a play of personal non violence and non discrimination. Thus “The only way to end discrimination is not to discriminate” may be naive, but it is the first and foundational step.
Posted by jhughes on 12/23 at 11:25 AM
@Hank
You are absolutely right about Pinker and the anti-libertarian conclusions of this fantastic book. I plan to interview him, but we should make a bigger deal out of his major points. Maybe a JET colloquia?
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 12/23 at 11:26 AM
@Hank re state education, state control and forced secularism - you are welcome to come visit me here in Eastern Europe anytime. I will introduce you to several persons who remember these things very well. Of course I can introduce you only to those who have survived them—many have not.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/23 at 02:30 PM
@ Peter – I understand your point of argument, yet you are not contemplating the true depth of the statement, so let me first state it again for clarity for all - ? But the only way to end violence IS not to be violent? Now that really is “Affirmative Action”?
Once again this guide to peace and ethical progress dates back thousands of years, before Christ, the Buddha actually practised his ethics of non-violence, his ethic was indeed to “turn the other cheek” and to use mindfulness to overcome anger, fear and the other impulses that lead to violence and conflicts. And it does not stop with the Buddha, his wisdom and ethics was gained from other seers and yogis, and theirs from yet others etc.
This is not to say that we should not protect ourselves from harm and the violence of others, or even help protect others, and this includes intervention of nation states etc. And unfortunately that is still the current state of the world at present, it’s still one of violent unrest and conflicts, all conflicts originating from a failure in reconciling “Human politics” including religious politics?
Yet to prove the point of the statement, (as Alex has already highlighted), let me ask you how many times in your life you have acted with violence? I am guessing there are not many occasions, therefore you already apply the ethic of non-violence yourself everyday? Your nature is one of rationalism and peaceful existence? And so, you already know and understand that it makes sense? The goal is for all Humans to practice this ethic and livelihood of non-violence, and thus the need for the aggression of nation states, wars and conflicts, all of these, will ultimately become redundant? Is this ethic too much for the Trans-human and Posthuman goals and ideals? If not, when should we begin to apply and promote this ethic?
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/23 at 02:36 PM
@ Hank – “I heartily recommend the book to people with libertarian impulses, and to those of us who find ourselves constantly arguing with them.”
Not sure what you really mean here? Are you implying that libertarian’s are by nature violent? If so, this must be wrong on so many levels, it makes no sense? This is the main problem concerning polarizing of political views and labelling, that leads to conflicts in the first place?
There are many shades of grey between folks that favour socialism and libertarianism, and I’m not even sure myself where my politics lies exactly, because I am constantly learning and evolving, and the world is also changing around me, so I guess all I can say is that I am “left of centre”? (always choose the middle way Grasshopper, when permissible)? I understand the need for progressive ethics and socialist values to ensure that every child is raised from poverty, starvation and suffering, I understand the need for taxation as a means to share responsibility to promote basic needs for all, yet I also understand that ” The notion that the State=Violence”, can be applied to the oppressive polices of both western democratic nations and communist totalitarian states. Ask any Greek about that statement? When you fail or refuse to pay your taxes, or even fail to send your kid to school, park your car in the wrong place, drop some litter or gum where you should not – what happens? Fines first, then enforcement, (state violence), or worse still, forceful arrest and imprisonment and punishment? That is the meaning of state violence is it not? And it may be equally applied to liberal, libertarian, (conservative), and especially socialist and communist politics?
Haven’t read Pinker’s book, yet it is obvious to me that global and individual violence has been decreasing since the dark ages, I don’t really need any stats to prove that to me? Again, if you really want to promote progressive ethics and non-violence, all you need do is read some ancient wisdom from a “peaceful prophet”, (and not a vengeful and spiteful Human subjective view of God or demiurge)? And I do believe that the world would be a better place if folks did read some basic Buddhism or understood the peaceful ethics promoted in the gospels of the new testament? We all know the words of Jesus Christ, (whether he existed or not as a prophet), promotes brotherly and sisterly love, and “total forgiveness”, yet no one really concerns themselves with this ancient wisdom of the idealist do they? Christmas is, and has been since even I was a kid, promoted purely for reasons of economic misdirection and an exercise in consumerism, to provide increased fiscal stimulus in times of economic downturn, and profiteering in times of economic boom?
Lastly, can’t quite understand why announcements and poll pages are formatted not to permit line breaks, because then it would make it a whole lot easier to read lengthy comments?
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/23 at 02:56 PM
Hi Cyngus - I agree with you about the line breaks, it is difficult to read. I don’t know a thing about that yet, my job starts January 1st and then I will look into it. thanks for the tip!
regarding my comment, yes, libertarians occasionally assert that the state is the root of all violence, and the world would be more peaceful if all nations and armies were disbanded, but history contradicts this.
Personally, I don’t think reading books on peace is going to make people more peaceful. Well, maybe a little.
There’s a lot of damage already caused by the time kids are old enough to read. Studies show that a large percentage of violence is often caused by an IQ range from 80-90. Certain factors like fetal alcohol syndrome and high lead content in the bloodstream are enormously correlated with violent behavior.
I think violence will decrease if people are fed better, educated better, and allowed to grow up in homes and neighborhoods without violence.
I really am sorry about the lack of line breaks, I understand that it mars the ability to communicate, and I will see what I can do about it
Posted by CygnusX1 on 12/23 at 03:18 PM
@ Hank - Yes nurture, (by parents who understand rational behaviours, mindfulness, and have read some progressive and ancient ethics that promote non-violence), would help kids before they are able read and to understand this wisdom for themselves? We’ve had this discussion at length before, so I won’t bore everyone with it all again. All kids need to learn the difference between right and wrong behaviours - from us - don’t they? Yes, let’s tackle problems with low IQ, chemical and hormone imbalance that leads to mental behavioural problems - Medicine, Bioethics, diet, lifestyle, philosophy, nurture, are all factors requiring focus. Reading books does not make people more peaceful, yet reading ethics and wisdom leads to enlightenment that makes the “individual” rationalise and choose to follow a more peaceful, and ethical existence? It begins and ends with Self-understanding and reflection and the “lesser vehicle”, we can only change ourselves, and therein lies the responsibility for each of us?
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/23 at 03:33 PM
Cygnus—I think a lot of children, a lot of people, and even a lot of us IEET posters, know the difference between ethical and unethical behavior, but we’re unable to control ourselves when we have impulses to be violent or unethical. OUr brains are just not up to the task of being as good as we want ourselves to be, or as good as the books that urge us to be peaceful want us to be. I think being “better” people is a complicated neurological question, we need a healthier and better-developed neocortex with a larger hippocampus a well-connected corpus calloscum and an amygdala that is restrained. And to get all that, we need a brain-healthy lifestyle from the moment we are conceived onwards. That is my opinion. I regard the brain as considerably like a muscle, it needs healthy food and exercise and proper training and just-the-right-amount-of-stress to improve all of its functions. Religious thought has been around for many many years and has failed to bring anything remotely like world peace to us. The best intentions fail. To really have peace I think we might need… neurotechnology—MRI scanning knowledge and smart drugs, and maybe some genetic engineering. I think scientific knowledge can contribute enormously to promoting less violent brains and a less violent society.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/23 at 04:10 PM
@CygnusX1…I don’t actually hold that the goal is for all humans to practise the “ethic and livelihood of non-violence”. Non-violence is more, for me, a means to an end, the end being happiness, well-being, whatever you want to call it…not merely the absence of non-violence.
You suggest that there are not many occasions in which I have acted with violence, and that I already understand that non-violence - reason and peaceful existence - make sense. Well yes, up to a point, although I’ve killed plenty of mosquitoes But as Hank says being “better” people is a complicated neurological question, and it has a strong genetic component. Perhaps I just didn’t have the physique when I was growing up to be violent? Perhaps I was just too much of a scared-y-cat? Then I got a job as a civil servant, of all things. Comments I’ve made elsewhere to Alex about intellectuals tending to over-value thinking and reason apply also to non-violence: to those of us whose physique, nature, upbringing or whatever predispose us to non- (or at least limited, or indirect - I eat meat as well) violence, it is comforting to tell ourselves and others that violence is always bad.
So: we’re the police wrong to bring down the guy who was shooting and killing people in Liege the other day? Or was that a good example of using violence to reduce violence? And if it was, why should we not also use discrimination to reduce discrimination?
@Giulio You use straw men far too often. To point out that people have suffered and died at the hands of murderous states is to raise a straw man. Nobody said that states are always benevolent. The claim of Pinker, as quoted by Hank, is that nation-states, overall, have proved to be a factor reducing violence overall. And that’s the whole question: what reduces violence, discrimination, overall. It is irresponsible to take a position on these matters that is so extreme that it would, if applied, cripple the ability of those who want to do good to actually do it. I would love to live in a world without armies, spies and police. Provided that the evils they are protecting me from are also absent.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/23 at 06:47 PM
Good comment, Hank! Gets right to the old family jewels. What I was attempting to tell Pastor Alex is: economics alone trumps morality just to start with, for instance America is more… unruly… IMO than its dear ally Canada—yet also more productive. Ethics is far below economics as a ‘priority’. Pleased you have given Asians a voice at IEET; the following Asian-related subject is what I would like to see written about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Social_Cycle
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 12/24 at 01:32 AM
Intomorrow, yes ethics is far below economics because the people allow it to be. There are a great number of groups in the US (check out YES magazine) that are working to change that, the occupy movement among them. I strongly doubt that Americans are that far behind the rest of the world in growing up. People are people regardless of what culture or country they come from. For all Hank’s love of top ten lists, I doubt aside from language if you could tell what country you were in from the way people acted on a daily basis.
Loathe your country all you want, just don’t keep dragging me into it. I am more interested in change than excuses. I believe that change starts with the individual. The more ethical individuals there are the more likely they are to hold government and corporations accountable. We get to choose whether we will be one of those individuals or just a hand wringer on the sidelines.
Hank, yes there are neurological and genetic components to violence, just like everything else, but to suggest that the answer is only in science being able to change us away from our baser nature is back to fatalism. Why would science bother if we don’t choose to take the first steps ourselves? There is, as Intomorrow points out, little economic value at the moment to be had from ethics, so the people who pay for research aren’t going to invest in a morality pill.
We need to start without them, and that means setting aside genetics et al and just getting on with being as ethical as we can.
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/24 at 09:02 AM
Intomorrow—I will check out that Asian topic you suggested —I am very interested in covering many Asian topics in 2012—we have articles from India and Israel scheduled, and I am looking (no luck yet) for writers from China, Singapore, Japan, and Pakistan. Also Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa and Australia.
Pastor Alex - IEET defines itself as “techno-progressive” because, yes, we think technology and science can contribute enormously to future betterment of human life, including “ethical behavior.” I think researchers, corporations and governments will all prosper with science/tech contributions to ethical enhancement of our brains - I suggest you read The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at my alma mater, UC Santa Barbara, and you could also read The Neuro Revolution: How Brain Science Is Changing Our World by Zack Lynch. You could also fly over to attend the IEET conference in March at New York University, it’s called “The Moral Brain.” Plus, IEET is working on another conference for the West Coast, called “Cyborg Buddha” that will be about the intersection between Buddhism and neuro-technology.
Alex, please don’t be a Luddite on this topic - urging people to just “get on with being as ethical as we can” sounds completely ineffectual, pathetic really, very old-fashioned, do you think humans with genetic, environmental and emotional damage or just the normal exasperating stresses of modern life - just need to hear some Church of England sermons? Pardon my opinion, but your urging ethics in this way, and only in this way, sounds like pulpit bullying.
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 12/24 at 11:49 AM
I don’t mean to suggest that this is the only way to improve our species. I am interested in the enhancement through technology and medication. But, as the title of your own book suggests, we need to do what we can while we wait. Striving to live the most ethic lives we can before enhancement will only make enhancement more effective when it comes.
I fear that that our species is like an author who is just waiting for a computer that will lift their book from their mind fully formed so refuses to put fingers to keyboard in the meantime.
Actually I do think the people you describe need to hear encouragement. Better encouragement than to be told that they are hopeless and unable to effect any positive change in their lives. Unfortunately many preachers are so caught up with preaching “you’re sinners and need to be SAVED” or “Just be happy and wait for God to come back and kick ass” to spend and time or thought encouraging their people to actually try living better lives in this world.
When we create medication that improves our ability to empathize, when the Cyborg Buddha project approaches completion, how are we going to convince the people to be part of the change? Will we slip drugs into the drinking water because people are afraid of them?
At some point the neuro-technology will need to be introduced. And we will discover that the book we want to transfer from mind to paper without typing still needs work. We are still the subjects of our need to improve ourselves. At some point along the way are we not going to need to deal with that?
If I don’t just sit back and wait for God to fix things, why would I just wait for technology to do the same thing?
I would dearly love to attend the Moral Brain conference, but even with the generous continuing education allowance I get, it would be too expensive. I have ordered The Ethical Brain and look forward to reading it in between everything else I’m reading.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/24 at 04:50 PM
Alex, no-one is suggesting just sitting around and waiting for technology to come along. That’s another straw man. The issue is rather to what extent do we try to lead by example (whether we’re talking non-violence, non-discrimination or whatever), and to what extent to we promote science and technology to solve problems, and/or the use of violence to combat violence, the use of (positive, or perhaps we should say “compensatory”) discrimination to combat discrimination, and so on. I think it’s clear that at some level change has to being with ourselves - be the change and all that - but my experience to date forbids me to believe that leading by example, amd only that, is always the most effective way to make a difference. Sorry, but that’s just how it is. So Hank is right: we should not set aside genetics. We have a moral responsibility to use and promote technology to improve the world, including ourselves. Otherwise we are *not* being ethical.
Well anyway, Merry Christmas everyone!
Posted by hankpellissier on 12/24 at 05:46 PM
Hi Alex—Perhaps I am being naive, but I think many people would like to be ethically better than they are. I’ve read that the majority of people in prison are there because they lack impulse control - which is tragic, They lack impulse control because their neocortex can’t control their deeper brain impulses, so they are susceptible to acting with poor judgement and violence.
You’re right, promoting ethical behavior constantly is wonderful, but I don’t think it is enough. Many of our brains need considerable help so that we can behave better—
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 12/24 at 06:09 PM
I was more thinking of people who think they are just fine and make a great deal of money from not being empathetic. There will also be a lot of people who really desire more self-control.
Happy what ever you celebrate, folks!
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/24 at 08:40 PM
“Loathe your country all you want, just don’t keep dragging me into it.”
America is a bad country- yet preferable to the alternative. As Churchill said,
“democracy is a bad system, but better than the rest.”
IMO it isn’t a system, though; more akin to syndicates working in loose concert than a ‘system’.
At any rate, if jingoists in America want to thoroughly demonise Islam, America’s flaws ought to be aired as well. Democratic critique begins at home.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/25 at 04:43 AM
This is the verbatim quote from Churchill:
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
My judgment call is that America is the worst nation except for all the others. I increasingly dislike the Jingoist Right in America for their insistence on saying America is the “greatest country in the world”—which though it worked in 1945 when the US was the colossus bestriding the globe, today no longer cuts the mustard.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/25 at 06:25 AM
@Intomorrow Quite so, although of course “home” doesn’t necessarily need to mean the nation. Notwithstanding the positive role that nation states have (arguably) played in reducing violence, I think over time we really need to move away from the nation state as the main focus of cultural identity and governance.
By the way, have any of you guys seen the film Carnage? I saw the original French play a couple of years ago (and more recently a much less convincing Broadway version), and I thought both the film and the play were brilliant, but I gather the review in the New York Times was quite negative. It’s quintessentially European, of course, but I think it also gets to the heart of some of the issues we’ve been discussing here.
@Alex I will always celebrate Christmas (which my wife and I did this year by seeing Hugo, another brilliant film), and I will always call it Christmas. I owe at least that much to my Christian upbringing.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/25 at 06:14 PM
Think I’ll become an Islamic, perhaps a Sufi. Living through the ‘70s, I knew all about Hinduism from the Hare Krishnas; you couldn’t get away from them at the airport or at a campus. Buddhism was as prevalent as tofu ‘n’ sprouts.
Islamics in America leave one alone; and we can sympathise with their discomfort at the thinking that America saying it is “the greatest country in the world” is saying ‘to hell with you’ to the rest of the earth—which includes the Mideast.
Posted by Pendula on 12/28 at 10:53 AM
I find all the discussion of Christianity(etc) that seems to permeate anything tah Pastor Alex sticks his hand into (and not of his own doing might I add) fascinating. First of all to be a member of a non-aceepted religion or anti religious doesn’t make you more or less rational. It dies not make you more or less ethical. You do. Lets talk for a few moments about moral responsibility and interactions while living on a lower middle class income. It is then, that one truly has to argue ethics vs finance in daily life. Now confound the lower economic status with midlevel education and a nonstandard belief system (or lack thereof) and things get really exciting. Because at that point it doesn’t matter how smart you are, it just matters how you feed and care for and support those who count on you. I frequently get frustrated with the ivory tower academia I see in here. Probably not a nice thing to say, but it is very true. How many of you had to budget this month just to balance the needs of your family, holiday obligations and simply keeping the water and heat on???????? Not whining, just challenging perspective and offerring a distinctly different voice from inside the trenches.
Posted by Cathi Woodward on 12/28 at 04:49 PM
My personal gratitude to Mike for his encouragement, patience and compassion, Thank You!
As far as gender bias and neutrality, lol, Lady Justice still has a job to do, as the scales are still out of balance. Those who deny this may be too lost in their own privilege to see the need.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 12/29 at 11:30 AM
I find the point (raised by Pendula) about the discussions here being too academic quite interesting. I half agree, in the sense that we might do well to reflect on what each of us wants or expects to achieve by posting comments and articles, or otherwise engaging in them. On the other hand, part of what keeps me coming back is precisely the intellectually rigourous nature of the discussions. We really get to the heart of important issues, and I think religion is one of them. For sure, it’s primarily one’s actions that make one ethical or unethical, but as I have argued elsewhere what we choose to believe and say about religion is also ethically relevant, because it affects others.
Posted by Pendula on 12/29 at 12:26 PM
@ Peter I did not say they were too intellectual. I simply raised a point of perspective. I too come here for the level of conversation, and I actually enjoy the educated levels of discussion. What I was saying is that the ethics that are so often expounded upon here are only from the perspective of academia and not from the lower working class.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog