Fitness of the human species for Utopia

[RoyBatty]

I'd like to spawn this from my other thread


Perhaps I am simply confused on what the nature of your question is. Is it "why should we help people who don't help themselves?" Well, teach them how to help themselves or help them. If you do neither, you seem to fall into the category of a "chode" yourself. For you recognize a problem and do nothing to address it.


No I recognize the problem, and intend to do something to address it. The problem is essentially with the evolutionary pathway taken by our species. By entering the field of neuroscience, I would be contributing to the huge, largely unanswered body of questions around human nature and how it can be rewritten: the overclocking of the human race. This is a goal I am explicitly interested in, and intend to pursue it as a researcher

The issue I have with political movements that promise an eventual utopia is that they would require us, or, at least, the majority of people to betray a set of ingrained evolved behaviors which are very inconvenient for any kind of real civilization. Even a lot of the non-chode human population suffers from these kinds of deficits. They're really hard to avoid. To achieve utopia with the current human stock would be like ... trying to use recent software on an old 286 processor: nigh impossible. I'm not sure whether figuring out how to produce non-chodes reliably, on a massive scale is sufficient for a utopia, but I can say almost for sure that it is necessary


What evidence is there to conclude that we are evolutionarily incapable of achieving a utopia. If anything, doesn't the evidence suggest we have evolved to be malleable and easily adapt to new situations?


Evidence for my claim? Look at all the past failed attempts at building a Utopian society, and how they broke down because of people's weaknesses

The best we have been able to achieve, the very best, under the capitalist / social democratic spectrum is a mediocre society

And why should that surprise you when the world is full of mediocre people?

Malleable, yes; tabula rasa, no

For the record I don't believe in free will either

any thoughts ... ?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Define "utopia."

[red cat]

The society guarantees better survival of an individual, and in turn the individual parts with some of his natural trends. This is in consistence with the most primary tendency of an organism to optimize survival. The present society cannot guarantee one's survival, or that of his offsprings, to a large extent. So isn't it safe to assume that most people will choose to curb many of their natural behavioural characteristics for communism?

And as a matter of fact, early attempts to establish capitalism also failed. It happens with every new system.

[RoyBatty]

Define "utopia."

For the purposes of this discussion: successful implementation of pure communism, worldwide


The society guarantees better survival of an individual, and in turn the individual parts with some of his natural trends.

He usually just puts them in new garb

Also civilization prevents evolution. Bummer


This is in consistence with the most primary tendency of an organism to optimize survival. The present society cannot guarantee one's survival, or that of his offsprings, to a large extent. So isn't it safe to assume that most people will choose to curb many of their natural behavioural characteristics for communism?

Um ... no ... he'll have to pay or somehow contribute to the survival of people he doesn't know at all. To a very high degree. Look at how much people dislike taxation now. Even outright greed is not uncommon


And as a matter of fact, early attempts to establish capitalism also failed. It happens with every new system.

Link please

[Dean]

We already live in utopia!

[Conquer or Die]

Fascism equals ban.

[RoyBatty]

We already live in utopia!

Obviously we don't


Fascism equals ban.

I'm not a fascist

[Bright Banana Beard]

Obviously we don't

Super Obviously, we do. I think it is utopia.

[RoyBatty]

Then why does this site exist?

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

I suppose in the literal sense of "Utopia" (lit. not place) that we are not in the ideal state you are correct.

However if you are positing the status quo is a "Eutopia" (lit. good/well place) you are probably not the ideal member of a revolutionary leftist forum in that you have no interest in revolution or in fact leftism.

[Module]

Misanthropists are really dull.
Especially when they use words like 'chode'.. what the hell is that... I haven't heard people use that word since like year 3, and I'm not exaggerating.

[RoyBatty]

Misanthropists are really dull.
Especially when they use words like 'chode'.. what the hell is that... I haven't heard people use that word since like year 3, and I'm not exaggerating.

Hi there

www(dot)nizkor(dot)org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.


The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem


Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


protip: stop talking about me and address the argument, f***ing nincom f***ing poop

[Module]

Please, don't take yourself so seriously. Nobody else is, after all.

No I recognize the problem, and intend to do something to address it. The problem is essentially with the evolutionary pathway taken by our species. By entering the field of neuroscience, I would be contributing to the huge, largely unanswered body of questions around human nature and how it can be rewritten: the overclocking of the human race. This is a goal I am explicitly interested in, and intend to pursue it as a researcher

The issue I have with political movements that promise an eventual utopia is that they would require us, or, at least, the majority of people to betray a set of ingrained evolved behaviors which are very inconvenient for any kind of real civilization. Even a lot of the non-chode human population suffers from these kinds of deficits. They're really hard to avoid. To achieve utopia with the current human stock would be like ... trying to use recent software on an old 286 processor: nigh impossible. I'm not sure whether figuring out how to produce non-chodes reliably, on a massive scale is sufficient for a utopia, but I can say almost for sure that it is necessaryI read through this again to see what arguments I can respond to,
I’m sorry, but I don’t actually see an ‘argument’ here. I mean, I see a series of statements, such as ‘the problem is essentially with the evolutionary pathway taken by our species’, ‘utopias require the majority of people to betray a set of ingrained evolved behaviours which are very inconvenient’, ‘To achieve utopia with the current human stock would be like trying to use recent software blah blah’.
But no argument to be seen. That is, you haven’t actually attempted to justify any statement you have made, or explain any statement you have made.
Perhaps I should ask some stimulating questions to help you out:
‘the problem is essentially with the evolutionary pathway taken by our species’
Which is what, and why is it a problem?
“protip”: ‘Pathway to being chodes and it’s a problem because they’re chodes’ isn’t an adequate response.
‘utopias require the majority of people to betray a set of ingrained evolved behaviours which are very inconvenient’ Ingrained evolved behaviours such as what (and if they’re ingrained and evolved, surely these behaviours would be uniform amongst the entire species, not just “the majority of people”), and how?
And if your definition of ‘utopia’ is ‘world communism’ then perhaps you should actually use that word instead? Otherwise it just sounds vague and waffley. "Protip".
‘To achieve utopia with the current human stock would be like trying to use recent software blah blah’ Why?
Hopefully these questions will help you think about and perhaps form an argument which you can post to the people of RevLeft so they will have something of substance to respond to.

[RoyBatty]

Please, don't take yourself so seriously. Nobody else is, after all.

Pointing out the fact that you're using an utter shitty argument is not taking myself too seriously, and regardless anyone using insults from Reverend X videos isn't taking himself too seriously

(BEEEEEEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTCH)

Here's my argument (it was sort of implicit in the quotes, and the thread it was drawn from, but I guess you missed it)

"Conventional attempts at building Utopia are misguided because behaviors ingrained through the evolution of our species (e.g., the numerous cognitive biases; territoriality; psychopathy; stupidity and the Dunning-Kruger effect; unswerving obedience to authority as per the Milgram experiment, the Third Reich, and Unit 731; etc.) effectively make them Sisyphean labors"

I'll define Utopia as pure communism for our purposes. It's six letters; it's convenient; kiss my ass if you don't like it

There is a substantial body of empirical evidence that attempts at Utopia tend to fall apart promptly because our instincts get in the way

To attempt to build Utopia would require that many of these instincts be suppressed or erased, I think

(And anyway if humans can be improved, they should be improved)

[New Tet]

Originally Posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1562169#post1562169)
Perhaps I am simply confused on what the nature of your question is. Is it "why should we help people who don't help themselves?" Well, teach them how to help themselves or help them. If you do neither, you seem to fall into the category of a "chode" yourself. For you recognize a problem and do nothing to address it.We learn to help ourselves by helping others. And, conversely, we teach others to help themselves and help others by helping them. It's circular. It's viral.

[RoyBatty]

We learn to help ourselves by helping others. And, conversely, we teach others to help themselves and help others by helping them. It's circular. It's viral.

If it's so viral why has this system not taken over the Earth? Why do people avoid Pareto efficiency so much when it is by definition "win-win"?

Why animals fight sometimes:

en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Theory_of_Games

[RoyBatty]

......

political biases don't trump evolutionary biology huh?

well I'll give you credit for being honest with yourselves

[Skooma Addict]

Evidence for my claim? Look at all the past failed attempts at building a Utopian society, and how they broke down because of people's weaknesses

The best we have been able to achieve, the very best, under the capitalist / social democratic spectrum is a mediocre society

And why should that surprise you when the world is full of mediocre people?

Malleable, yes; tabula rasa, no

For the record I don't believe in free will either

Can you expand on your first point? Why specifically have past attempts at building a Utopian society failed?

I would disagree and say there have been quite a few vibrant and wonderful societies that were democratic and/or capitalist.

What is a "mediocre person?" Please give a definition. Is it just a person who you think is mediocre?

I don't know why so many people don't believe in free will these days.

[RoyBatty]

Can you expand on your first point? Why specifically have past attempts at building a Utopian society failed?

Well ... let's take the USSR for example. Its establishment was prompted by a real injustice, but then authoritarian personalities like Stalin took over and everyone went along with it, or else. This has occurred in pretty much every state-mediated attempt at a transition to pure communism. Tito is the only exception I can think of. Anarchy doesn't look appealing either on the other hand.


I would disagree and say there have been quite a few vibrant and wonderful societies that were democratic and/or capitalist.

Well, Sweden, hm, eh, meh, maybe

Why are they not spreading explosively btw? I agree that social democracy > most forms of government. So why is it not growing like crabgrass all over the world?


What is a "mediocre person?" Please give a definition. Is it just a person who you think is mediocre?

People who say things like "because I said so" or "because someone else told me so," you know people with a lot of cognitive biases that run their lives, who become authoritarians and/or suck authority's dick, people who unquestioningly eat up all the bullshit their culture feeds them, typically people who aren't terribly bright, you know ... most people


I don't know why so many people don't believe in free will these days.

Because of the decreasing popularity of quasi-religious Cartesian approaches to the mind/body issue among educated people?

Because of the neuroscientific experimental data which contradict the idea of free will?

Because free will would necessitate some kind of metaphysical homunculus for which there is an utter lack of evidence?

There is as much evidence for human free will as there is for Intel processor free will, i.e., none. Any semblance of free will in humans most likely comes from the unpredictable chaotic dynamics of the brain and the widespread recurrence of neural pathways which allow a kind of self-programming, self-programming which is nevertheless not controlled by some kind of ghost

[Skooma Addict]

Well ... let's take the USSR for example. Its establishment was prompted by a real injustice, but then authoritarian personalities like Stalin took over and everyone went along with it, or else. This has occurred in pretty much every state-mediated attempt at a transition to pure communism. Tito is the only exception I can think of. Anarchy doesn't look appealing either on the other hand.

Alright. But from there I could think of many reasons why the attempts at communism have failed. Do You think communism failed because authoritarian dictators took over?


Well, Sweden, hm, eh, meh, maybe

Why are they not spreading explosively btw? I agree that social democracy > most forms of government. So why is it not growing like crabgrass all over the world?

Because whether or not a country is a "democracy" says very little about whether or not the country will be successful. There are many other factors that need to be accounted for.


People who say things like "because I said so" or "because someone else told me so," you know people with a lot of cognitive biases that run their lives, who become authoritarians and/or suck authority's dick, people who unquestioningly eat up all the bullshit their culture feeds them, typically people who aren't terribly bright, you know ... most people

I disagree. I could be a genius and possess all the qualities you listed. I just don't think the term "mediocre person" makes much sense. It is borderline meaningless because everyone will have a different idea as to what constitutes mediocre.


Because of the decreasing popularity of quasi-religious Cartesian approaches to the mind/body issue among educated people?

Because of the neuroscientific experimental data which contradict the idea of free will?

Because free will would necessitate some kind of metaphysical homunculus for which there is an utter lack of evidence?

There is as much evidence for human free will as there is for Intel processor free will, i.e., none. Any semblance of free will in humans most likely comes from the unpredictable chaotic dynamics of the brain and the widespread recurrence of neural pathways which allow a kind of self-programming, self-programming which is nevertheless not controlled by some kind of ghost

You can believe in the existence of a mind without being a Cartesian Dualist. Take Convergatism for example.

There is no definitive evidence in favor or against the idea that we possess free will. Are you an eliminative materialist? Do you believe that mental states exist? Or are you just a materialist?

Have you heard of the thought experiment: Mary's Room?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Besides the fact that you haven't really offered any support for your position besides saying people are stupid and pointing to the existence of Nazis, I don't know who exactly it is that's thinking a revolution would establish some completely perfect society where no one has personality defects.

[RoyBatty]

Alright. But from there I could think of many reasons why the attempts at communism have failed. Do You think communism failed because authoritarian dictators took over?

To a large extent, yes. But other weaknesses of ours (like greed) got in the way


I disagree. I could be a genius and possess all the qualities you listed. I just don't think the term "mediocre person" makes much sense. It is borderline meaningless because everyone will have a different idea as to what constitutes mediocre.

Alright. "Possessing to a high degree character traits that get in the way of the establishment of Utopia" is my operational definition of mediocrity

And a reminder: Utopia is pure communism for our purposes


You can believe in the existence of a mind without being a Cartesian Dualist. Take Convergatism for example.

That's not even a word


There is no definitive evidence in favor or against the idea that we possess free will.

There is some experimental evidence against it now

If it does exist, what causes it in a brain full of entirely deterministic phenomena? The fairy godmother?


Do you believe that mental states exist?

Yes but they are caused by physiological behavior, not the other way around


Have you heard of the thought experiment: Mary's Room?

I've heard of it and I thought it was as much metaphysical flapdoodle as others of its kind


Besides the fact that you haven't really offered any support for your position besides saying people are stupid and pointing to the existence of Nazis, I don't know who exactly it is that's thinking a revolution would establish some completely perfect society where no one has personality defects.

No, a revolution in itself would not establish such a society. There have been lots of revolutions and none of them achieved the desired goal. To do that we have to figure out how to do more work on manipulating the neurobiology and genetics of people

By the way: the vast majority of Nazis were "normal" people

[Skooma Addict]

To a large extent, yes. But other weaknesses of ours (like greed) got in the way

Greed is not a weakness. Greed can be good or bad depending on the situation. I think communism failed for reasons pointed out by Hayek and Mises (not going to go into detail). If Mises and Hayek were correct, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to make communism work.



Alright. "Possessing to a high degree character traits that get in the way of the establishment of Utopia" is my operational definition of mediocrity


What if there are other reasons besides character traits that prevent humans from achieving utopia?


That's not even a word

It is a "slang" term used to refer to people who believe mental states emerge from sufficiently complex organizations of physical entities. I cannot remember the (long and confusing) official term for people who believe this.



If it does exist, what causes it in a brain full of entirely deterministic phenomena? The fairy godmother?

The fact that there is a phenomenological character associated with mental states and that there is an intentionality of mental states makes it difficult to accept the claim that there is no mind.


I've heard of it and I thought it was as much metaphysical flapdoodle as others of its kind

Of coarse, I will not accept that as an actual argument.

I do not think there is enough evidence for us to claim we know for sure whether or not we possess free will.

[RoyBatty]

Greed is not a weakness. Greed can be good or bad depending on the situation. I think communism failed for reasons pointed out by Hayek and Mises (not going to go into detail). If Mises and Hayek were correct, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to make communism work.

Well genetic and neural engineering can make virtually any personality possible


What if there are other reasons besides character traits that prevent humans from achieving utopia?

What if ... what are they?


It is a "slang" term used to refer to people who believe mental states emerge from sufficiently complex organizations of physical entities. I cannot remember the (long and confusing) official term for people who believe this.

Yes mental phenomena are an emergent property of brain behaviors. Just like weather patterns are emergent phenomena of a lot of different interactions between the sun, the air, the waters of the Earth and so on. Neither of these can be said to possess "free will"


The fact that there is a phenomenological character associated with mental states and that there is an intentionality of mental states makes it difficult to accept the claim that there is no mind.

I'm not claiming that, I'm just claiming free will doesn't exist


I do not think there is enough evidence for us to claim we know for sure whether or not we possess free will.

It's extremely doubtful. And the default position should be "probably not," just as with God, leprechauns, and pink unicorns

[Skooma Addict]

What if ... what are they?


The argument is that a communist society cannot rationally allocate resources because the markets price system is nonexistent. This would be true regardless of our biology. There is also the fact that scarcity exists, so that alone would pose problems for anyone who wants to create a Utopian society.


Yes mental phenomena are an emergent property of brain behaviors. Just like weather patterns are emergent phenomena of a lot of different interactions between the sun, the air, the waters of the Earth and so on. Neither of these can be said to possess "free will"

I was just pointing out that one can believe in the existence of a mind without being a Cartesian Dualist.


I'm not claiming that, I'm just claiming free will doesn't exist


Alright, so I take it you are not an eliminative materialist then.



It's extremely doubtful. And the default position should be "probably not," just as with God, leprechauns, and pink unicorns

If you are like me, and you do not know whether we possess free will, the default position is "I don't know."

You also did not give a real response to the Mary's Room scenario.

[RoyBatty]

There is also the fact that scarcity exists, so that alone would pose problems for anyone who wants to create a Utopian society.

Overpopulation aggravates scarcity, but to say that people have unlimited material desires is dogmatic


I was just pointing out that one can believe in the existence of a mind without being a Cartesian Dualist.

Alright, and?


You also did not give a real response to the Mary's Room scenario.

It has nothing to do with free will. What do you want me to say?

[Skooma Addict]

Overpopulation aggravates scarcity, but to say that people have unlimited material desires is dogmatic

It is not dogmatic to think humans always have unsatisfied desires. Also, Utopia is not achievable for reasons other than our biology. So changing our biology won't help as much as you think.



Alright, and?

you said...

"Because of the decreasing popularity of quasi-religious Cartesian approaches to the mind/body issue among educated people?"

Not all dualists are Cartesian and quasi-religious.


It has nothing to do with free will. What do you want me to say?

If Marys Room is valid, then Physicalism is false.

[RoyBatty]

It is not dogmatic to think humans always have unsatisfied desires.

standard assumptions of Homo economicus behavior are contradicted by psychological and neuroscientific evidence

it's safe to say that desires will continue coming back but really unless we're talking about cocaine or something nobody has unlimited desire for one thing or another


Also, Utopia is not achievable for reasons other than our biology.

such as


Not all dualists are Cartesian and quasi-religious.

alright but Cartesian dualism is the most prototypical and popular form of dualism, to the best of my knowledge


If Marys Room is valid, then Physicalism is false.

see Paul Churchland's response to that scenario and regardless, even falsifying physicalism in this way does not mean free will exists

[Plagueround]

I've never really thought of communism as utopian or the achievement of communism as utopia. I suppose the inspiring and sweeping rhetoric would make it sound that way to some, perhaps even most communists. It's not as if communism actually proposes it can solve everyone's problems and once communism is achieved, "everything was good and nothing ever hurt", it simply proposes that it can do a better job than the current system can. Whether or not it can is what's up for debate, which is, obviously, what this particular section of the forum is for.

While I enjoy the refutation of the Misean mysticism, I am a bit troubled by someone entering the field of neuroscience appearing to hold so much contempt for people.

[Skooma Addict]

standard assumptions of Homo economicus behavior are contradicted by psychological and neuroscientific evidence

it's safe to say that desires will continue coming back but really unless we're talking about cocaine or something nobody has unlimited desire for one thing or another

I am not sure what evidence you are talking about. But people will always have some unfulfilled desire. It doesn't have to be material.


such as

Scarcity and imperfect knowledge.


see Paul Churchland's response to that scenario and regardless, even falsifying physicalism in this way does not mean free will exists

True, falsifying physicalism does not in itself prove the existence of free will. But it is now more difficult to prove that we do not have free will.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No, a revolution in itself would not establish such a society. There have been lots of revolutions and none of them achieved the desired goal. To do that we have to figure out how to do more work on manipulating the neurobiology and genetics of people

By the way: the vast majority of Nazis were "normal" people

Please reread what I said. I'm wondering "who exactly it is that's thinking a revolution would establish some completely perfect society where no one has personality defects."

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

We learn to help ourselves by helping others. And, conversely, we teach others to help themselves and help others by helping them. It's circular. It's viral.

I'm not sure what your meaning is here. Teaching people to help themselves does require some people to (at least at some point) have learned through pure individual ability. That being said, it's a strange conceptualization to view generational learning as spreading like a virus.

[RoyBatty]

Please reread what I said. I'm wondering "who exactly it is that's thinking a revolution would establish some completely perfect society where no one has personality defects."

alright idk who?