Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (78508)	4/19/2000 3:32:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I disagree- our instinct toward civilization is what has made us so super successful. We could never support the population numbers we have now were it not for our "civilized" methods of agriculture, and our technology, an outgrowth of our civilization. Try to imagine what the most primitive society can support. How many individuals? Not many. Morality, imo, is entirely practical. It would be highly inefficient not to have something like morality.

To: Neocon who wrote (78508)	4/20/2000
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

morality, although it does have some practical elements, is not primarily about personal or species survival, but primarily about the creation of a "human world", through the exercise of our faculties and development of our sensibilities. In other words, that we have developed moral codes that we believe will assist us in developing our world in the way we want it to develop. This is what I've been saying all along, and I see no difference between this and the argument that X and I have been making. We want to create this "human world" to allow ourselves and our descendants to survive and prosper, do we not? And do we not create codes that we believe will lead to this end? And are we not most successful in progressing toward this goal when we rely on "our faculties and development of our sensibilities", rather than on the barren forms of a dying mysticism? I am glad we agree so thoroughly.