Looking at the networked society as a whole and the evolutionary scale in regard to information, how would one find a greater fitness for survival in an urban jungle? Using key words “choosing what information is valuable to them,” hypothetically speaking, what if the majority of those that are networked derive their information from getting into others’ lives such as celebrities or politicians instead of living their own life? What if the computer were used strictly to see what is the latest fad/fashion or the best electric toy gizmo? What can be derived from that information? Would, or could, this equate to a mental devolution? Could idiocracy occur? Has it occurred to a degree?
I agree with your stance on trust, but I must note that two people can see the same thing objectively, yet differ subjectively. That is where a truth can change. Also, when conducting research, is it not possible to find conflicting data? When the sources have two sides, who is to say who is right? Does this again revert back to intuition and one’s subjectivity?
A hypothetical scenario again: I am a selfish person who has a child/children and a parent/parents. A circumstance arises which brings a catastrophe to me, my child/children, and parent/parents. We are all trapped under debris from an earthquake and not a soul is around for miles. My oldest child gets free and tries to rescue me, but I say “help your siblings.” Upon my own freedom, do I seek to rescue my parent/parents or my child/children first? I would rescue my child/children first. Is there anything spiritual about that or is it a logical choice?
Now I notice you mention good and evil and I must question those words. IF abortion is viewed as EVIL by some, does that make it so? Winning a war by killing civilians seems rather evil to me, but governments do that on a constant basis. Also, war does not necessarily equate to a military invasion. War could mean trade competition. This seems peaceful enough, but look at how it affects the lives of those who suffer slave wages and who cannot afford to eat or seek medical treatment. This type of war is not limited to the north American continent.
Winning and success: Simply put, I rather be a goose.
Spirituality: What type of spirituality defines winning and success in terms of “rewards for compassion in the afterlife?” Why does anyone or anything have to “suffer to prove [their] devotion to God?” Personally, I get my reward to a good deed done immediately as I feel good about doing it. I don’t have to wait, but I guess that is because I am my own god. I can’t speak for others, but I can speak for self. Therefore, I must say that to suffer to prove anything to anyone is jackass retarded MOREOVER, when the thing that one is trying to prove it to has NO VALID PROOF of existence.
The organisms that choose to sacrifice themselves do so for the betterment of their group. As chances are, the group is part of their family/community. Just think, if you were in a fire, wouldn’t you bang on the doors that you see closed so that those inside would not die of smoke inhalation or would you run and leave everyone to die? If you didn’t bang on the doors and, it were known (these are key words), should you be in a fire again and YOU are behind the closed door, you may not get your door banged on. There is logic running here. Do you not find this argument valid? If not, please argue it. I see selfish working where perhaps you do not.
Whoops...back to the organism who is willing to sacrifice self. In yelling out an alarm for the group to run, the organism becomes a target. This does not mean that the target will die, but it can. However, what if the alarm were not put out and the whole group were to be killed? How would that play on the lone survivor? Has it in fact survived in the gene pool? Might I add, this scenario of hypothetical content is located in the land of Nod. The organism is now extinct for saving its own ass. ~ March 25, 2010 @ 9:29 p.m.
No comments:
Post a Comment