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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (18682)	5/5/2002 1:37:32 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<<I'm more of the mind that everything is inevitable>> On that you are a Muslim. They are fatalists too! For them, there is nothing you can do about it. It's written. We do have free will. But people don't know what to do with it. They prefer to follow scripts. They prefer comfortable slavery. They prefer security. They prefer what's predictable. Why do you think religions are so successful?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (18682)	5/5/2002 2:29:57 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

Swim over, lunch at the beach kiosk finished. <<Try becoming homosexual for a day if you think you have free will>> Too extreme, so no can do. I can probably muster up the enthusiasm to becoming lesbian for a week if it does not involve surgery. Sunday nap time. This is the best part of the week! Crisp linen, fluffy pillows, air-conditioning on, sun filter through translucent curtains decorating the aquamarine ocean and the foliage framing. Big decision: with or without classical music? Chugs, Jay

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (18682)	5/5/2002 6:10:38 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Speak of the Devil, free will and what the heck we are! nytimes.com An article about CDNA in people: <...Second, Fukuyama's conception of human nature seems to me flawed in two ways. He talks continually of what is distinctive to the human species, as if only this could ground a notion of human dignity; but there is no reason the characteristics that ground our rights should not be shared with members of other species, and obviously many of those characteristics are shared -- like the capacity to feel pain, to enjoy family relations, to need food and drink. This does not mean that we lack any qualities that distinguish us from other species; it is just that we don't need to be uniquely gifted with a certain feature in order for it to be part of our inherent nature. But further, I think it is wrong to limit universal human nature to what is innately determined. Just because a characteristic is acquired is not by itself sufficient to show that it is not universal, since it may be brought about by a constant aspect of the human environment. Our common nature is a product of our shared genetic blueprint and the natural world in which we are all brought up. Of course, cultures vary in many respects, but there are also ways in which our environment is invariant -- just consider our common subjection to gravity, for example. Third, it is not at all clear that we need to take a stand on the existence of an innate universal human nature in order to evaluate the coming technologies. Suppose for a moment that human beings have no such universal nature: we can still ask whether a particular innovation will be good for us. I actually agree with Fukuyama that a great deal of human nature is genetically based, but I don't see that this belief is necessary in order to have legitimate qualms about biotechnology. What is necessary is a set of views about what is valuable in human life -- and ought to be protected -- not a particular theory of what is innate and what acquired. The issue of nature versus nurture is really a red herring. Where I do think Fukuyama is right is in his emphasis on an Aristotelian notion of human flourishing as a guide to public policy, rather than relying on the edict that we should maximize freedom of choice. There is no alternative to figuring out what allows human beings to prosper in deciding what policies to pursue. Freedom unconstrained by a substantive conception of that which makes life worthwhile is a recipe for meaninglessness. And this is where we need our philosophers. As Fukuyama rightly insists, the standard mix of utilitarianism and scientific materialism is not an adequate basis for evaluating the new technologies. > Mqurice