Dubstepforum.com

Ah but it will take a long time for any warhead to travel from one colony to another! More than enough time to neutralise.

Anyway, since this does not assume we have faster than light travel, by the time any colony actually gets to where it's supposed to go, it won't even remember the other colonies!

Alternatively, forget colonising planets altogether. Just bud off new spaceships.

Within 1000 years, humanity would have diverged so far that each splinter faction might not even be able to recognise another as being human. Then they can assume they're being invaded by aliens, band together and happily blow each other up without having to think about ethical issues.

It makes sense. You know it.

LACE: I've come across a similar study before I think, can't remember a reference right now though.

LACE wrote:

magma wrote:
A better example for the natural roots of empathy, perhaps:

Babies have been shown to be empathetic. If you show pre-talking infants a cartoon of a red toy stealing something from a yellow toy, they'll reliably choose the yellow toy when offered and often cry when given the red...

do you have a source for that claim? keyword is ''have been shown' but don't you think this is more of an exception to the rule? take two year olds for example, most are not emphatic and must be taught to share and all that, they're little cave men. i don't believe empathy is ingrained at all, just learned.

wish i could type out a more coherent response but i'm heading out in a few min.

I first saw the experiment on an episode of Horizon called Are You Good or Evil last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65

But this NYTimes article covers the same ideas - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magaz ... wanted=all (Skip to the Moral-Baby Experiments section if it's a bit tl;dr!)

I seem to remember it getting mentioned in Jon Ronson's book about Psychpaths, too.

2 year olds have learnt an awful lot... my nephew had a proper personality and was able to converse by the time he was two... you're already pretty much a member of society by then (well, your family) and are able to decide to ignore your instinct if you choose... "The Terrible Twos" are likely such stereotypically difficult years because little-man is having to deal with the change from being a baby who had everything handed to him into a child who has to share, cooperate and get told off.

kay wrote:Yes, but it would be soooo much more effort.

I have to admit, despite requiring interstellar travel your idea is a lot less far-fetched than mine.

kay wrote:Within 1000 years, humanity would have diverged so far that each splinter faction might not even be able to recognise another as being human. Then they can assume they're being invaded by aliens, band together and happily blow each other up without having to think about ethical issues.

That's all anyone really wants.

Laszlo wrote:

kay wrote:Within 1000 years, humanity would have diverged so far that each splinter faction might not even be able to recognise another as being human. Then they can assume they're being invaded by aliens, band together and happily blow each other up without having to think about ethical issues.

That's all anyone really wants.

Shiiiit, my pacifist, weaponless, hippy society on Empatheria is going to be FUCKED.

stupid, sexy Flanders

noam wrote:stupid, sexy Flanders

nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all

So is electronic music for chavs then or what?

magma wrote:

LACE wrote:

magma wrote:
A better example for the natural roots of empathy, perhaps:

Babies have been shown to be empathetic. If you show pre-talking infants a cartoon of a red toy stealing something from a yellow toy, they'll reliably choose the yellow toy when offered and often cry when given the red...

do you have a source for that claim? keyword is ''have been shown' but don't you think this is more of an exception to the rule? take two year olds for example, most are not emphatic and must be taught to share and all that, they're little cave men. i don't believe empathy is ingrained at all, just learned.

wish i could type out a more coherent response but i'm heading out in a few min.

I first saw the experiment on an episode of Horizon called Are You Good or Evil last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65

But this NYTimes article covers the same ideas - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magaz ... wanted=all (Skip to the Moral-Baby Experiments section if it's a bit tl;dr!)

I seem to remember it getting mentioned in Jon Ronson's book about Psychpaths, too.

2 year olds have learnt an awful lot... my nephew had a proper personality and was able to converse by the time he was two... you're already pretty much a member of society by then (well, your family) and are able to decide to ignore your instinct if you choose... "The Terrible Twos" are likely such stereotypically difficult years because little-man is having to deal with the change from being a baby who had everything handed to him into a child who has to share, cooperate and get told off.

i don't accept your personal anecdotal evidence of your nephew as it clearly can't be defined as standard, and not to mention it's irrelevant - but the studies were a great read. i think maybe a more interesting take on the argument is that since morality can be recognized from around 10 months, why do most children choose to ignore it, and what does that mean as far as what's ''natural behavior'' in our society..

garethom wrote:So is electronic music for chavs then or what?

Yes and Dubstep solely is for scumbags.

LACE wrote:i don't accept your personal anecdotal evidence of your nephew as it clearly can't be defined as standard, and not to mention it's irrelevant - but the studies were a great read. i think maybe a more interesting take on the argument is that since morality can be recognized from around 10 months, why do most children choose to ignore it, and what does that mean as far as what's ''natural behavior'' in our society..

My nephew was an example, not evidence. No need for the snark - I was answering your question.

I think we've just had a slightly different experience of two year olds... most kids I've ever been around (a lot of my friends have 2-4ish year olds these days, frighteningly) have been pretty cool, tbh... but two years is a notoriously difficult age... everything is new and kids just want to absorb everything they can, push every button and boundary they can so they can get comfortable with their place in family/society. Parents have to decide what limits are appropriate and then stick to them or be prepared for erratic behaviour in return.

I imagine child personalities choose to ignore their instinctive morality for the same reason that adult personalities do - they think it'll be to their benefit and think they can get away with it. Once you've started absorbing everything around you, instinct can be ignored pretty quickly and after a while the replacement behaviour becomes for all intents and purposes instinctive - potty training, for example.

LACE wrote:

magma wrote:

LACE wrote:

magma wrote:
A better example for the natural roots of empathy, perhaps:

Babies have been shown to be empathetic. If you show pre-talking infants a cartoon of a red toy stealing something from a yellow toy, they'll reliably choose the yellow toy when offered and often cry when given the red...

do you have a source for that claim? keyword is ''have been shown' but don't you think this is more of an exception to the rule? take two year olds for example, most are not emphatic and must be taught to share and all that, they're little cave men. i don't believe empathy is ingrained at all, just learned.

wish i could type out a more coherent response but i'm heading out in a few min.

I first saw the experiment on an episode of Horizon called Are You Good or Evil last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65

But this NYTimes article covers the same ideas - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magaz ... wanted=all (Skip to the Moral-Baby Experiments section if it's a bit tl;dr!)

I seem to remember it getting mentioned in Jon Ronson's book about Psychpaths, too.

2 year olds have learnt an awful lot... my nephew had a proper personality and was able to converse by the time he was two... you're already pretty much a member of society by then (well, your family) and are able to decide to ignore your instinct if you choose... "The Terrible Twos" are likely such stereotypically difficult years because little-man is having to deal with the change from being a baby who had everything handed to him into a child who has to share, cooperate and get told off.

i don't accept your personal anecdotal evidence of your nephew as it clearly can't be defined as standard, and not to mention it's irrelevant - but the studies were a great read. i think maybe a more interesting take on the argument is that since morality can be recognized from around 10 months, why do most children choose to ignore it, and what does that mean as far as what's ''natural behavior'' in our society..

in a totally stimulus free environment would a child be able to develop any negative or positive moral behaviours?

is it even possible to judge?

people are innately capable many things, in actuality what they do can be down to many different factors, one may be their innate inclinations and dispositions, others may be purely down to chance, others still may be influenced massively by the environment

in every single decision this hypothetical child made, im positive all of the above plus more factors would influence them

quantifying what is the innate disposition of someone once they've left the realm where all they are capable of is what they can do naturally and without influence is pretty much impossible

the same kid that would steal a cookie from a jar and blame another kid may the next day give a child a hug who'd hurt themselves because they felt bad for them...

also the study above simply accepts support for the assertion that babies have an instinctual moral code in a similar vein that we do as opposed to babies seeing the behaviour of certain subjects as beneficial and of others as non-beneficial

i.e. who's to say that babies dont prefer the helpers because they like being helped

what babies perceive as being 'nice' or 'good', could very well be determined entirely by their instinctual desires being met with certain behaviours from the very moment they're conscious enough to recognise emotions as feeling either good or bad.

Chav stick

noam wrote:also the study above simply accepts support for the assertion that babies have an instinctual moral code in a similar vein that we do as opposed to babies seeing the behaviour of certain subjects as beneficial and of others as non-beneficial

i.e. who's to say that babies dont prefer the helpers because they like being helped

what babies perceive as being 'nice' or 'good', could very well be determined entirely by their instinctual desires being met with certain behaviours from the very moment they're conscious enough to recognise emotions as feeling either good or bad.

Well, that's exactly it - they like the helpers because they like being helped... but they're not the ones being helped; something else is. Something that's not even human... there is absolutely no personal gain for the baby to want these puppets it's never seen before to be nice to each other, it just naturally wants puppets to be nice to each other. Babies are such hippies.

As we learn more about the brain's evolution, I imagine we'll see harder evidence of instinctive 'morality' in varying degrees within other social species too; it's pretty difficult to socialise without it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... wrong.html

magma wrote:

noam wrote:also the study above simply accepts support for the assertion that babies have an instinctual moral code in a similar vein that we do as opposed to babies seeing the behaviour of certain subjects as beneficial and of others as non-beneficial

i.e. who's to say that babies dont prefer the helpers because they like being helped

what babies perceive as being 'nice' or 'good', could very well be determined entirely by their instinctual desires being met with certain behaviours from the very moment they're conscious enough to recognise emotions as feeling either good or bad.

Well, that's exactly it - they like the helpers because they like being helped... but they're not the ones being helped; something else is. Something that's not even human... there is absolutely no personal gain for the baby to want these puppets it's never seen before to be happy, they just naturally want puppets to be happy. Babies are such hippies.

As we learn more about the brain's evolution, I imagine we'll see harder evidence of instinctive 'morality' in varying degrees within other social species too; it's pretty difficult to socialise without it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... wrong.html

no but they favour the one who is more likely to be nice to them

that is not a morality free from instinctual, selfish motivation

which was my point

ofcourse you can moralise an action - but is the action truly to do with an inbuilt morality or can it be reduced to instinctual drives to favour that which may benefit you in the end.

the REAL test of a babies innate morality isn't a blank canvas test. its when something is at stake for the baby to lose.

if the baby is REALLY HUNGRY and he's just seen Green Face Block stab Yellow Triangle but GFB has some regurgitated puree'd pea shit that babies like you think that baby is gona reject the food based on its innate moral code???

is it fuck mate.

if you're gona apply 'morality' to babies/animals you have to do it in a realistic way - not just see they like nice not bad. at least that way there's no grey area is there.

fuckin babies.

noam wrote:if the baby is REALLY HUNGRY and he's just seen Green Face Block stab Yellow Triangle but GFB has some regurgitated puree'd pea shit that babies like you think that baby is gona reject the food based on its innate moral code???

You've somewhat clouded the experiment by making the baby "REALLY HUNGRY". Of course it'll choose personal survival over a non-human's happiness. We would've died out pretty quickly if it didn't... you can't test morality when survival's on the line. Most of us kill non-humans to survive every day and a lot of us would kill another human in order to survive if we really had to. That's just silly!

i exaggerated

you could replace that hunger and food with anything

the baby wanting its nappy changed and GFB having some tasty lookin ointment

the 'good' brick being really ugly

whatever, anything that tests the fortitude of the supposed moral fibre innate in a child

i believe we assign value to the actions of person who's actions are essentially meaningless and utterly self-motivated

i dont think babies are capable of moral decisions and in that case i dont think it right to assign moral values to apparent underlying 'hidden' moral choices

noam wrote:i believe we assign value to the actions of person who's actions are essentially meaningless and utterly self-motivated

i dont think babies are capable of moral decisions and in that case i dont think it right to assign moral values to apparent underlying 'hidden' moral choices

Fair enough. I can only point you to the studies by neuroscientists and psychologists that point (not prove) otherwise, it's certainly a grey area (no pun ) - we'll possibly never fully understand our brain.

I question your 'selfish' view of morality though... why would humans so readily die for a cause or loved one if their morality was based in selfishness? Could it be that it's engrained that the survival of the family/species is more important than the individual? We see that in other species, too.

my view overall of morality is different to my view concerning babies

i believe that we've built a structure around us, and elements of the structure that are heavily influenced by biology are less influenced by rationality such as in the case of a parent obviously not wanting to die but risking themselves in a way they never would normally in order to save a child

thats totally different

and i also dont believe we're born as blank canvases

but i dont think we're born with concepts of good and bad in our brains, beneficial yes, not good or bad.

also it pays to take into account the wildly different moral codes that have existed throughout history

if morality is in our genes why does it change with the wind

what is beneficial however, rarely changes

noam wrote:i believe that we've built a structure around us, and elements of the structure that are heavily influenced by biology are less influenced by rationality such as in the case of a parent obviously not wanting to die but risking themselves in a way they never would normally in order to save a child

Absolutely.

noam wrote:but i dont think we're born with concepts of good and bad in our brains, beneficial yes, not good or bad.

Fair enough. I have no idea how you'd be able to differentiate seeing as they can't express themselves, tbh, so I guess it's down to opinion... when people start to talk they seem aware of "wrong" and "right" and, although it's hard to distinguish from self-interest, a lot of animals seem to display an appreciation of it as well - we've actively bred it into our dogs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... wrong.html) who are also, admittedly anecdotally, occasionally partial to endangering their lives for their human masters.

If societal morality had to be taught to infants in order to stick, I don't really get how society would've formed in the first place - that would be a similar situation to Neanderthals who didn't have the natural urge to band together, and as such only stuck with their families and fairly immediate kin - they shared knowledge with each other as all animals do, but not with the wider group... they didn't form shared camps with non-related families and start to form settlements and society - Homo Sapiens couldn't send out a worldwide telephathogram saying "Hey! We should all try and get along... it'll be good for us!", we just did it. Humans were grouping together in their hundreds and even thousands to share knowledge and benefit from economies of scale long before they had books, philosophies or even common languages; it's very possibly one of the reasons we survived the last ice age and the Neanderthals didn't... it's hard to argue there's not a big chunk of nature to our sharing/caring side... but, as always, it's immensely difficult to prove anything to do with evolution.