Okay, I think I see some of it. It may well be that we are viewing the question from different cultural perspectives. My father's sire died when he was young and his mother while?I was very young. My mother's parents divorced before I was born and I only met the original husband when I was a toddler. My maternal grandmother was the most stable link to the previous generations and even through her I know very little of them. My baby sister is fascinated by the family history and has spearheaded an effort to compile it into an organized format. I find it interesting, but not influential to me at all.
I do not see myself as strongly attached to the past, although I do see where such a perspective might lead to social stability. It is true that my family (using them as a personal example) has many parents in each generation, often with maternal household stability linking differing paternal presences. I have attributed this to the rural trend of youthful pregnancies leading to marriages at ages way too young, these leading to divorce or abandonment when the parents finally approach adulthood around 30. I have simply thought of this as the country curse wherein entrenched?Christian mores insist that deflowering of the maiden be quickly patched with "doing the right thing" no matter the well-known future pain it will bring.
Broadened to a wider perspective, I also see U.S. society as a network of many diverse cultures, each with stories and values in a manner similar to mine. The inner city, the Latino population, the Asian neighborhoods, the rural areas, the Native centers and reservations, Suburbia, Ultra-rich Suburbuia, and so on. I feel there are too many people for this diversity to ever coalesce into anything that resembles a single?culture. It is a closely packed sea of colonies and I expect it to continue in the manner that bacterial colonies do: unchecked chaotic?growth until some external factor limits expansion. At that point, the colonies stagnate?and mutate, cannibalize, or simply whither as resources are exhausted. Life is not clean and neat, including cultural growth.
It seems to me that the "social standards" of these human infections will also follow this natural pathway. I had not looked at this until you brought?it up, but I find myself neither surprised nor concerned. Future?generations will not be orderly extensions of ancestral wisdom and values. Life breeds wildly, feeds on nearby life and inevitably changes the host. I do often think back to America's Golden Ages, like the suburban 50's with their Happy Days wholesome nuclear families, wondering if we lost some wholesomeness there. I think we did, but I also believe it was as unavoidable as aging and death (currently are.) Youth seeks change and while maturity?may temper that, adulthood grows from the seeds planted in younger years.
In the end, however, it does not matter as we will continue to colonize our host with riotous change until?some factor sets an effective boundary. Then we will either adapt and grow in a different direction or we will succumb and become extinct. This is not just a physical, biological analogy?but also a social and cultural one.?
D
Lots of kids without ancestors, no?? Multiple fathers and multiple mothers don't make clear lines of succession.? It sounds to me very messy, Darrell.? I suppose it seems fine and normal to you, and that's sort of my point:? it *is* perfectly normal.? The culture is floundering, flopping around, directionless.? In fact, there is no longer a single national culture.? My family includes a couple of gay guys who may or may not be married but have succeeded in buying a child perfectly legally.? And on it goes, with everyone doing his own thing, with commitments always provisional, with all avenues always open, no stop signs.? I know how easy it is to divorce and start over - I'm divorced.? Nothing to it.? Not a bit of social opprobrium.? There are no longer any obstacles to doing anything anyone wants to do.? When's the last time you heard the phrase "social standards"?
> On Apr 27, 2025, at 00:09, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing=[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I guess my confusion is that I do not see that families are no longer breeding generation after generation. Or I am misunderstanding. I had two children with my first wife. My present wife has two from her first marriage. Almost everyone in our combined families has children. Many of the children are having children. Most of our friends do as well, and I see hordes of children in the communities I pass through.
|
Lots of kids without ancestors, no? Multiple fathers and multiple mothers don't make clear lines of succession. It sounds to me very messy, Darrell. I suppose it seems fine and normal to you, and that's sort of my point: it *is* perfectly normal. The culture is floundering, flopping around, directionless. In fact, there is no longer a single national culture. My family includes a couple of gay guys who may or may not be married but have succeeded in buying a child perfectly legally. And on it goes, with everyone doing his own thing, with commitments always provisional, with all avenues always open, no stop signs. I know how easy it is to divorce and start over - I'm divorced. Nothing to it. Not a bit of social opprobrium. There are no longer any obstacles to doing anything anyone wants to do. When's the last time you heard the phrase "social standards"?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Apr 27, 2025, at 00:09, Darrell King via groups.io <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
I guess my confusion is that I do not see that families are no longer breeding generation after generation. Or I am misunderstanding. I had two children with my first wife. My present wife has two from her first marriage. Almost everyone in our combined families has children. Many of the children are having children. Most of our friends do as well, and I see hordes of children in the communities I pass through.
|
I guess my confusion is that I do not see that families are no longer breeding generation after generation. Or I am misunderstanding. I had two children with my first wife. My present wife has two from her first marriage. Almost everyone in our combined families has children. Many of the children are having children. Most of our friends do as well, and I see?hordes?of children in the communities I pass through. I understand that there is a popularized movement presented by the media and composed?of people stating their?intention to avoid procreating, but these seem a minority in my experience. In fact, I feel we should strive to average no more than two children?per couple for a generation?or two just to allow our social wisdom and our environment to catch up with our swarming?breeding! :)
D
When families no longer breed generation after generation, there are no more ancestors.? There is no history.? The seed of this was planted with the contraceptive pill (and the other devices using the same or similar chemicals) and the enthusiastic adoption of it by Western thought leaders.? Then we got the equally enthusiastic adoption of abortion.? Prevent children, kill children.? And now, of course, kill the old.? We have become a culture of pleasure and death.? Pleasure in the now and painless death when pleasure ceases to please.
? I do not feel that procreation has ceased, David, although I do not have peer-reviewed RCT's evidence to back this feeling! I do, however, know many families who have intentionally bred children from their stated personal desires to do so. In this matter, I suspect the media has selectively emphasized a downtrend in population quantities?to alarm consumers because special interests like large herds of consumers to support profits. Having offspring is not "universally an intolerable burden" due to any emphasis on consequence-free sexual indulgence, although I do see some justifiable reasons to reconsider breeding. Ridiculous qualities of poverty come to mind, as do endless regional warfare and the pressures of consumerism pushing the nuclear family into fulltime work.
The species may be flirting with extinction, but I suspect such an outcome will come from more dramatic influences than excited bunny-hopping away from breeding.?
D
"Paying women to have more children" is putting crudely what has been the tacit policy of world governments for many hundreds of years.? Only with the intense emphasis over the past half century or so on a "right" of every human being to experience as much sexual pleasure as he or she can stand has having offspring as a result of copulation become almost universally considered a nearly intolerable burden.? If the western world's priorities are to prevail, humans everywhere will cease to procreate and the race will die off.? Or maybe Aldous Huxley's vision of governments deciding on how many babies - and of which kinds - are desired to keep the species alive will prevail.
Is paying women to have children a good idea?
I understand that farming consumers?pays more when there are many full stalls in the factory farm. I do not think we really need more people, however. We have outstripped out social wisdom and natural resource production. I suppose the idea has smaller validity if someone wants a specific genetic line continued or cannot have his or her own children, but I do not support?the urgency to slow population decline when the numbers are still in the multiple billions.
|
?
Well said
?
When families no longer breed generation after generation, there are no more ancestors. ?There is no history. ?The seed of this was planted with the contraceptive pill (and the other devices using the same or similar chemicals) and the enthusiastic adoption of it by Western thought leaders. ?Then we got the equally enthusiastic adoption of abortion. ?Prevent children, kill children. ?And now, of course, kill the old. ?We have become a culture of pleasure and death. ?Pleasure in the now and painless death when pleasure ceases to please.
?
?
On Apr 26, 2025, at 15:20, Darrell King via groups.io <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
?
?
I do not feel that procreation has ceased, David, although I do not have peer-reviewed RCT's evidence to back this feeling! I do, however, know many families who have intentionally bred children from their stated personal desires to do so. In this matter, I suspect the media has selectively emphasized a downtrend in population quantities?to alarm consumers because special interests like large herds of consumers to support profits. Having offspring is not "universally an intolerable burden" due to any emphasis on consequence-free sexual indulgence, although I do see some justifiable reasons to reconsider breeding. Ridiculous qualities of poverty come to mind, as do endless regional warfare and the pressures of consumerism pushing the nuclear family into fulltime work.
?
The species may be flirting with extinction, but I suspect such an outcome will come from more dramatic influences than excited bunny-hopping away from breeding.?
?
D
?
?
?
"Paying women to have more children" is putting crudely what has been the tacit policy of world governments for many hundreds of years.? Only with the intense emphasis over the past half century or so on a "right" of every human being to experience as much sexual pleasure as he or she can stand has having offspring as a result of copulation become almost universally considered a nearly intolerable burden.? If the western world's priorities are to prevail, humans everywhere will cease to procreate and the race will die off.? Or maybe Aldous Huxley's vision of governments deciding on how many babies - and of which kinds - are desired to keep the species alive will prevail.
?
?
On Apr 26, 2025, at 13:32, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing=[email protected]> wrote:
?
Is paying women to have children a good idea?
?
I understand that farming consumers?pays more when there are many full stalls in the factory farm. I do not think we really need more people, however. We have outstripped out social wisdom and natural resource production. I suppose the idea has smaller validity if someone wants a specific genetic line continued or cannot have his or her own children, but I do not support?the urgency to slow population decline when the numbers are still in the multiple billions.
?
?
|
When families no longer breed generation after generation, there are no more ancestors. ?There is no history. ?The seed of this was planted with the contraceptive pill (and the other devices using the same or similar chemicals) and the enthusiastic adoption of it by Western thought leaders. ?Then we got the equally enthusiastic adoption of abortion. ?Prevent children, kill children. ?And now, of course, kill the old. ?We have become a culture of pleasure and death. ?Pleasure in the now and painless death when pleasure ceases to please.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Apr 26, 2025, at 15:20, Darrell King via groups.io <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
? I do not feel that procreation has ceased, David, although I do not have peer-reviewed RCT's evidence to back this feeling! I do, however, know many families who have intentionally bred children from their stated personal desires to do so. In this matter, I suspect the media has selectively emphasized a downtrend in population quantities?to alarm consumers because special interests like large herds of consumers to support profits. Having offspring is not "universally an intolerable burden" due to any emphasis on consequence-free sexual indulgence, although I do see some justifiable reasons to reconsider breeding. Ridiculous qualities of poverty come to mind, as do endless regional warfare and the pressures of consumerism pushing the nuclear family into fulltime work.
The species may be flirting with extinction, but I suspect such an outcome will come from more dramatic influences than excited bunny-hopping away from breeding.?
D
"Paying women to have more children" is putting crudely what has been the tacit policy of world governments for many hundreds of years.? Only with the intense emphasis over the past half century or so on a "right" of every human being to experience as much sexual pleasure as he or she can stand has having offspring as a result of copulation become almost universally considered a nearly intolerable burden.? If the western world's priorities are to prevail, humans everywhere will cease to procreate and the race will die off.? Or maybe Aldous Huxley's vision of governments deciding on how many babies - and of which kinds - are desired to keep the species alive will prevail.
Is paying women to have children a good idea?
I understand that farming consumers?pays more when there are many full stalls in the factory farm. I do not think we really need more people, however. We have outstripped out social wisdom and natural resource production. I suppose the idea has smaller validity if someone wants a specific genetic line continued or cannot have his or her own children, but I do not support?the urgency to slow population decline when the numbers are still in the multiple billions.
|
?
\
?
?
1.? What affect? with the death of the Pope have on the world?
Don't have a clue.? Francis was an interesting individual - at times I thought he was an idiot and at times I thought he was brillent but generally most observers thought he was a very caring and nice individual.? With luck the next Pope will be from one of the three unrepresented contnents.
2.? Do you think Trump will be successful in ending the conflict in Ukraine?
About as likely as his producing a budget with a large surplus.
3.? Is harvesting electricity from the earth's magnetic field a good idea?
I seiriously doubt it would have any effect - but would be interesting to see how much money is wasted tryinjg.
4.?Is paying women to have children a good idea?
Not particularly - the problem is that the intent is probably to have successful people having more children and the losers having less.
5. Is categorizing knowledge important to attainment of wisdom?
To some degree yes - but how much I'm not wise enough to know
?
|
Long, long time ago a dude called Buddha said the root of human suffering was desire. The human mind was accused of creating endless self-stories around what has gone wrong and what might go wrong tomorrow. It is what the mind does: it represents data with symbols and sorts these into categories like a good little survival computer should. There is nothing new about this because it is the only thing a mind is good for. To the mind?of a homo sapien, labels (symbols) are necessary?because the human?computer cannot do its job without software (symbols and stories.)
That same guy, who was attributed by some with the quality of wisdom, recommended folks stop overindulging in immersive thinking and step back to watch?the thinking. Then they can still categorize but avoid buying into the mental symbols and stories as replacements for reality.
I am onboard with that practice!
D
Categorizing *everything* is what the currently fashionable human mind evidently cannot stop itself from doing.? To Homo modernus, if it does not have a label it does not exist.
Needless to say, I hope, this has little or nothing to do with wisdom. ?
For what it's worth, here's ChatGPT:
Wisdom is the ability to understand what is true, good, or right ¡ª and to apply that understanding in real life.
It¡¯s not just knowing facts; it¡¯s seeing how things fit together and what matters most, especially when making decisions.
People often say wisdom involves:
? Experience ¡ª learning from what you and others have gone through. ? Judgment ¡ª choosing well when situations are unclear. ? Perspective ¡ª seeing beyond the immediate moment to the bigger picture. ? Humility ¡ª realizing you don¡¯t know everything.
In short: Wisdom is living knowledge, shaped by reflection and used with care.
5. Is categorizing knowledge important to attainment of wisdom?
Need to think about that one, maybe organize what I already know...
Not the highest priority, but maybe important? IMHO, accessing my knowledge base when making decisions is most effective when I am organized. Having said that, I often wake up with some of my best insights and plans...
|
I do not feel that procreation has ceased, David, although I do not have peer-reviewed RCT's evidence to back this feeling! I do, however, know many families who have intentionally bred children from their stated personal desires to do so. In this matter, I suspect the media has selectively emphasized a downtrend in population quantities?to alarm consumers because special interests like large herds of consumers to support profits. Having offspring is not "universally an intolerable burden" due to any emphasis on consequence-free sexual indulgence, although I do see some justifiable reasons to reconsider breeding. Ridiculous qualities of poverty come to mind, as do endless regional warfare and the pressures of consumerism pushing the nuclear family into fulltime work.
The species may be flirting with extinction, but I suspect such an outcome will come from more dramatic influences than excited bunny-hopping away from breeding.?
D
"Paying women to have more children" is putting crudely what has been the tacit policy of world governments for many hundreds of years.? Only with the intense emphasis over the past half century or so on a "right" of every human being to experience as much sexual pleasure as he or she can stand has having offspring as a result of copulation become almost universally considered a nearly intolerable burden.? If the western world's priorities are to prevail, humans everywhere will cease to procreate and the race will die off.? Or maybe Aldous Huxley's vision of governments deciding on how many babies - and of which kinds - are desired to keep the species alive will prevail.
Is paying women to have children a good idea?
I understand that farming consumers?pays more when there are many full stalls in the factory farm. I do not think we really need more people, however. We have outstripped out social wisdom and natural resource production. I suppose the idea has smaller validity if someone wants a specific genetic line continued or cannot have his or her own children, but I do not support?the urgency to slow population decline when the numbers are still in the multiple billions.
|
Categorizing *everything* is what the currently fashionable human mind evidently cannot stop itself from doing. ?To Homo modernus, if it does not have a label it does not exist.
Needless to say, I hope, this has little or nothing to do with wisdom. ?
For what it's worth, here's ChatGPT:
Wisdom is the ability to understand what is true, good, or right ¡ª and to apply that understanding in real life.
It¡¯s not just knowing facts; it¡¯s seeing how things fit together and what matters most, especially when making decisions.
People often say wisdom involves:
? Experience ¡ª learning from what you and others have gone through. ? Judgment ¡ª choosing well when situations are unclear. ? Perspective ¡ª seeing beyond the immediate moment to the bigger picture. ? Humility ¡ª realizing you don¡¯t know everything.
In short: Wisdom is living knowledge, shaped by reflection and used with care.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Apr 26, 2025, at 13:32, Darrell King via groups.io <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
5. Is categorizing knowledge important to attainment of wisdom?
Need to think about that one, maybe organize what I already know...
Not the highest priority, but maybe important? IMHO, accessing my knowledge base when making decisions is most effective when I am organized. Having said that, I often wake up with some of my best insights and plans...
|
"Paying women to have more children" is putting crudely what has been the tacit policy of world governments for many hundreds of years. ?Only with the intense emphasis over the past half century or so on a "right" of every human being to experience as much sexual pleasure as he or she can stand has having offspring as a result of copulation become almost universally considered a nearly intolerable burden. ?If the western world's priorities are to prevail, humans everywhere will cease to procreate and the race will die off. ?Or maybe Aldous Huxley's vision of governments deciding on how many babies - and of which kinds - are desired to keep the species alive will prevail.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Apr 26, 2025, at 13:32, Darrell King via groups.io <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
Is paying women to have children a good idea?
I understand that farming consumers?pays more when there are many full stalls in the factory farm. I do not think we really need more people, however. We have outstripped out social wisdom and natural resource production. I suppose the idea has smaller validity if someone wants a specific genetic line continued or cannot have his or her own children, but I do not support?the urgency to slow population decline when the numbers are still in the multiple billions.
|
It seems to me that before Trump was elected President and insisted that there should be an immediate settlement of the Russia-Ukraine war, there was a universal passive acceptance among the powers that be and in the media that the war should just keep going, forever. ?I've seen no articulated change in that situation. ?It looks to me as though it's all up to Trump.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Apr 26, 2025, at 13:32, Darrell King via groups.io <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
2.? Do you think Trump will be successful in ending the conflict in Ukraine?
It will end one way or another, either through attrition or escalation, and I do not expect any one contributing factor will have overwhelming control of that process. It does not seem that our course is set on controlling Europe but rather more toward getting the area nations to make their own bed,?so I wonder if the question should not be whether the changes in U.S.?policy will spark Europe into using this conflict to draw a line of one type or another?
|
1.? What affect?with the death of the Pope have on the world?
I am unsure. Not being Catholic, I have not followed the career of the late Pope as closely as I might have. I assume the biggest impact will be in the form of his replacement. The Catholic?Nation is sizeable and if it ever entered the world terrorism scene it would likely make a serious impact!
That thought also reminds me that social stressors are accumulating nowadays and this might qualify as another straw...
2.? Do you think Trump will be successful in ending the conflict in Ukraine?
It will end one way or another, either through attrition or escalation, and I do not expect any one contributing factor will have overwhelming control of that process. It does not seem that our course is set on controlling Europe but rather more toward getting the area nations to make their own bed,?so I wonder if the question should not be whether the changes in U.S.?policy will spark Europe into using this conflict to draw a line of one type or another?
3.? Is harvesting electricity from the earth's magnetic field a good idea?
I had to Google that one! AI says it is impractical and I will not delve any deeper.
4.?Is paying women to have children a good idea?
I understand that farming consumers?pays more when there are many full stalls in the factory farm. I do not think we really need more people, however. We have outstripped out social wisdom and natural resource production. I suppose the idea has smaller validity if someone wants a specific genetic line continued or cannot have his or her own children, but I do not support?the urgency to slow population decline when the numbers are still in the multiple billions.
5. Is categorizing knowledge important to attainment of wisdom?
Need to think about that one, maybe organize what I already know...
Not the highest priority, but maybe important? IMHO, accessing my knowledge base when making decisions is most effective when I am organized. Having said that, I often wake up with some of my best insights and plans...
|
1.? What
affect? with the death of the Pope have on the world?
I think the effect it will have is the recognition that the Pope was
really dedicated and that he dragged the Catholic Church into the
21st century. I only hope that his successor will continue that
progress.
2.? Do
you think Trump will be successful in ending the
conflict in Ukraine?
No. He's not a good negotiator. He has no idea what he's doing.
3.? Is
harvesting electricity from the earth's magnetic field
a good idea?
I don't think we can get enough electricity that way to make it
desirable. At least, nobody has done so yet.
4.?Is
paying women to have children a good idea?
Absolutely not. Only really poor women would go for that because
they wouldn't know what a paltry sum it is for having a child.
5. Is
categorizing knowledge important to attainment of
wisdom?
Yes, because it's necessary to categorize what you know in order to
apply it to the situations you encounter.
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "M-Scholars and Scribes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to m-scholars-and-scribes+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion visit .
|
?
?
?
?
?
?
1.? What affect? with the death of the Pope have on the world?
2.? Do you think Trump will be successful in ending the conflict in Ukraine?
3.? Is harvesting electricity from the earth's magnetic field a good idea?
4.?Is paying women to have children a good idea?
5. Is categorizing knowledge important to attainment o fwisdom?
?
|
1.? Will AI end critical thinking?
I have to interpret these questions critically, which leads me to wonder about how aging is impacting my critical thinking!
Interpretation #1: Using my overly?literal knee-jerk, I am driven to wonder?if the broader brush asks whether?the skill of critical thinking (CT) will vanish from the human toolbox. To this I answer no. In the same way that workaday math usages has evolved since the proliferation of calculators, I expect that AI input will grow enough to bump CT from use in many instances. Conclusions and summaries will be presented on out phones (cerebral implants) to questions asked, but we will be able to drill down for more info if we choose to do so. I feel we will use AI in the same way we use other technology: to make tasks faster and easier. This may erode from the current and future generational cohorts some of our dependance on (and so development of) the unaided cognitive skills?we older?boomers grew up?with.
Interpretation?#2: More specifically and locally, so to speak, will AI reduce my personal use of critical thinking? This response is similar in that I expect to use AI in my daily life, replacing in some instances critical thinking skills. If I want to know whether the measles outbreak is likely to become a measles pandemic, I can Google it and get a summary from the AI that cohabitates fairly peacefully with my previous independent (critically thought out) conclusions. From there, however, I still validate the conclusions independently?and tweak?them for my own use. In this scenario, the analogy is that of a team leader accepting input from an advisor. It is input, not a replacement for thinking,?so my answer here is once again "no."
As always, your mileage may vary. I know someone who resolutely claims "I hate math" and is allergic to even calculators. She prefers to send the math to one of her advisors (usually family) and accept their results as good enough. I expect this phenomenon to also surface in AI usage, especially?when the topic involved is not of particular importance. Over time, this may erode some or many people's CI 'math skills.'
2.? Is justice achievable?
I asked Google's AI what justice is and the response was filled?with terms like "moral rightness" and?"...giving each person what they deserve." (Note that the pronoun is plural in a sentence addressing 'each person', a sign that AI is emphasizing political over grammatical correctness!) Given how subjective "justice" apparently is, I would say yes from the perspective of an individual case. If the question addresses a broader application, such as "justice for all", I think not unless maybe "all" is referring to a group of identical clones with identical environmental histories.
3.? Will China actually start a shooting war with the US?
Obviously. Their (a plural referring broadly to the Chinese government and people, not politically to the singular entity of China--it's a peeve) increasing warfighting capacity is not likely just for show. I believe the current gradual escalation between China and the West has slid subtly into an existential?phase. In a smaller world, such heavyweights as the U.S., China, Russia and the E.U. might continue to endlessly spar from their own national geography. We have passed beyond that, though, with a voracious?hunger for resources, a cascading accumulation of social pressures such as extreme weather, and explosive expansions of military might. We have a Space Force that is openly weaponizing related technology with a publicly admitted goal of being the dominant military force in space. How many nations will avoid feeling existentially?threatened by that? Every month such things are allowed to continue is simply putting off addressing the threat until it is stronger and more threatening while?those social pressures continue to drain national resources and capabilities.
4.? Are you being affected by the tariff skirmish going on lately?
Not noticeably. I believe local gas prices have risen a few cents and certainly grocery?prices have risen over the past year. Nothing dramatic, though.
5? Do you find yourself talking about people as compared to talking about ideas?
Another pet peeve. I often find myself thinking about the person as I discuss an idea, though, wondering if that person is deliberately gaslighting me or just unwilling to admit even subconsciously that I am right.?I do distinguish?between the?idea?and the person reliably in conversation because conversation is an easier behavior than thinking to regulate.?Even when I finally conclude that I am wrong, which happens uncomfortably often, I sometimes have to deliberately reinforce my valued belief that the thinking may be good or bad, but the person is just human. I hope to someday grow to the height that allows me to see that reliably in all encounters even when my ego is clamoring!
|
1.? Will
AI end critical thinking?
Not for everyone.
2.? Is justice achievable?
It will be difficult under the current administration.
3.? Will China actually start a shooting war with
the US?
Not on US soil, but quite likely somewhere in the South China Sea.
4.? Are you being affected by the tariff skirmish
going on lately?
Yes. Items we've ordered are being delayed.
5? Do you find yourself talking about peopel as
compared to talking about ideas?
Only if Trump and his minions are considered to be people.
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
|
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
1.? Will AI end critical thinking?
I think critial thinking disappeared about forty years ago - and AI coming along is a result, not a cause
2.? Is justice achievable?
Not really - too many different definitions of justice.
3.? Will China actually start a shooting war with the US?
I hope not - but am worried about their trying to take over Taiwan - though they might get their nose busted if they try
4.? Are you being affected by the tariff skirmish going on lately?
Not that I have noticed.? I am much more affected by the stupid lawmakers in California
5? Do you find yourself talking about peopel as compared to talking about ideas?
Unfortunately yes - but once in a while I run into someone who is interested in ideas - then my train of speech changes for the better
?
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five April 18
1.? Will AI end critical thinking?
Critical thinking has long been diminishing at universities and at secondary schools.? Few people read books.? People will end up believing AI the way they believe what Google maps tells them is the best route when it clearly isn't.
2.? Is justice achievable?
Rarely any more.? The US government doesn't dispense justice because something like 95% of those who go to trial are convicted and 95% of those charged with felonies plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid a lengthy prison term.? Even at a traffic stop, a policeman may write up several charges against a speeder, including reckless driving and not wearing a seat belt, and other misdemeanors if the policeman wants to punish the speeder.
Even in non-government organizations, members who pose a threat to the leadership are harassed or driven out through internal bylaws by those in power.? American Mensa is a prime example of that with the revelations of the current court case, but similar acts take place at country clubs, churches, and fraternities.
3.? Will China actually start a shooting war with the US?
No.? They know better than that, and they have nothing to gain by going to war with the USA.
4.? Are you being effected by the tariff skirmish going on lately?
The only effects so far are angst among typically well-adjusted people who believe that tariffs will lead to a depression that will wipe out their retirement wealth.
5? Do you find yourself talking about peopel as compared to talking about ideas?
That has always been the case with most people outside the scientific or engineering community, so now that I don't participate in either, I probably spend more time talking about people, since I avoid talking about politics these days.
Ed
?
?
?
?
?
1.? Will AI end critical thinking?
2.? Is justice achievable?
3.? Will China actually start a shooting war with the US?
4.? Are you being effected by the tariff skirmish going on lately?
5? Do you find yourself talking about peopel as compared to talking about ideas?
?
|
?
?
?
?
?
1.? Will AI end critical thinking?
2.? Is justice achievable?
3.? Will China actually start a shooting war with the US?
4.? Are you being effected by the tariff skirmish going on lately?
5? Do you find yourself talking about peopel as compared to talking about ideas?
?
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five April 11
Victors killed because they had no choice. ?Losers killed because they were evil. ?One might think humans could think and behave better than this, but humans have a long track record of behaving against the counsel of their better angels. ?Hubris prevails, not wisdom.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Apr 12, 2025, at 19:52, mrvnchpmn via groups.io <Chapman@...> wrote:
?
?
Probably.? The point was that American and British officers did things just as much against the rules of War as the Germans did - and German offricers were executed whereas American and British officers won medals.
Marvin
?
You might have been thinking of General Jodl, who would have not been executed had the USSR not persisted.
Ed
|
David Smith
David Smith