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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (52599)	7/7/2002 5:43:30 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

You reminded me of a couple of animal shows I saw on the Discovery Channel that I recommend if you ever see them in the program. I'm sure they will play again. The first show was called Clever Critters and the second was More Clever Critters or some such. I've taped them to watch again and share with friends. I posted a notice about the show contemporaneously for the animal lovers on DAR. The gist of the show was that successful species of animals were curious, not picky eaters, and gregarious. There was segment after segment of the most amazing segments. There was one segment about some Asian elephants that was amazing. The locals had put bells on all the elephants so they could tell if one of them was in their crops at night and shoo it away. Well, at one point the farmers found that their crops had been eaten but no one had heard a bell yet all the bells were working. This kept happening so they each were assigned to follow an elephant in the jungle to see which was the culprit. As it turns out, one elephant had figured out how to put mud in its bell so it wouldn’t ring while the animal was chowing down. By morning, the mud had dried and fallen out of the bell. Is that clever, or what?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (52599)	7/7/2002 6:05:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't want to hear it, because I will never believe that the majesty and the glory of the human spirit can ever be so encapsulated. We can know that the Grand Canyon is just a hole in the rocks created by a river and still be in awe of it. We can know that a coral reef is just a bunch of critters all stuck together and still have trouble catching our breaths as we dive on it. To explain religious faith, or the quality of altruism, as the natural outcome of genetics and the process of natural selection ... is dehumanizing to me. I understand that. OTOH, I find much of religious practice equally dehumanizing. Still, the world is full of wondrous things for us to appreciate and enjoy.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (52599)	7/7/2002 6:17:12 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I would prefer to think it was genetic. If it is genetic then most of us carry the wiring for it- and if we can activate that altruistic wiring and disable the tribe wiring, we can get along much better. If it is transcendental, we are screwed- because lots of people think they are tuned into something transcendental, unfortunately those transcendental things often make heroism necessary because of heroics on the other "side" from some other "tribe" who does not appreciate our transcendental ideas. So if religion is genetic it can be tweaked- and we CAN all get along. We could find some secular religion that tickles everybody's neurons. I find the prospect of one world, united altruistically, to be an ideal. I think it would be a lovely goal. We'd have to share much more than we do now (in the West) but if it was the new religion, people would have the impulse to do it for the great human tribe. One tribe, one world. We'll see. I'm no idealist. But a unifying religion from the secular side would have to be better, or at least worth a try, when I compare it to what we have now.