How Large is your Penis?

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Capitalism Ended Slavery

It is a common criticism of capitalism, in places like college, to condemn capitalism for being pro-slavery. The argument is that slaves were traded on the market back and forth for the sake of earning profit. And so it was capitalism that was responsible for the evils of slavery.

The standard response that is usually given to this condemnation of capitalism is saying that slavery is in fact anti-capitalist. Because under capitalism the property of other people are respected as to their rightful owners. If one enslaves another then he claims all property, including the slave himself, as the property of the master. This is contrary to the principles behind capitalism and so slavery is not a trait of capitalism.

But I do not like this response so much. Because slavery can be completely compatible with capitalism. The way to do it is by saying that the slave class (whatever they happen to be, say blacks) is below the normal class. You say that blacks are inherently inferior to whites and so it is okay for whites to enslave the blacks. It is just like animals. Animals are not recognized by most people as on the equal level as people (unless PETA gets its way). So most people have no problem enslaving animals and making animals work for them. Thus, if one treats black people in such a manner by declaring them to be sub-human then it is possible to make capitalism and slavery consistent. The black is seen as above animal but below white man, so the black man is seen as a piece of property that is worth buying and selling. This was also the standard argument used by slave owners in support of slavery, they said that "all men are free" applies to men, not to blacks, because blacks are sub-human.

I therefore have a different response to this criticism of capitalism. Something that I consider to be much better.

Consider the miserable, pathetic and embarrassing history of men. I do not know exactly when slavery originated but I am quite sure it existed by 3000 BC. At this time people were forming rather large civilizations, and it was also the birth of the first states in history. I think it is reasonable to say that slavery begins by this time period. Because people for the vast period of history needed a slave class to do their work for them. I figure that once large civilizations and states began to form a slavery system became sustainable. So I put the figure of 3000 BC on slavery. It may be a lot earlier than it, it may all the way go back to hunter-gathers. It may slighter later. Regardless we know Egypt had slaves at about 1500 BC. So whatever the correct number is, slavery is an institution that is about between 4 to 5 thousand years old. If somebody is an expert on slave history then correct me, but this is the figure I will use.

During four to five thousand years slavery has existed. Capitalism is a modern concept. The early writings of capitalism essentially trace back to Adam Smith and the classical economists of the 1700's. The economic system that European nations practiced was mainly mercantalism, not capitalism. Smith actually wrote partially in opposition to mercantalism in favor of free trade. We should also remember that even further back in history there was a feudal system. Under feudalism people were fixated in their position in life. Each level in the hierarchy supported the next higher level above. And that was the way the world operated basically operated.

This is why I find the statement that capitalism is responsible for slavery as unconvincing. Because for a huge portion of history, say 4200 years, slavery was the standard practice found from country to country. Capitalism is at most, what?, 300 years old. This means that human history accompanied slavery under capitalism for about 7% of human history.

It does not make sense to say that capitalism was responsible for slavery when slavery existed under any system. Indeed, it is possible to make slavery compatible with any system by declaring that the slave class is simply sub-human. These socialists that attack capitalism on the slavery issue fail to realize that in a socialist country the same exact problem can still be present if the state declares a class of people to be slaves. Indeed, this is exactly what happened with Nazi Germany, if you want an example. Nazi Germany was a socialistic country that forced Jews and other groups of people into labor camps to do work for them. That is slavery and it happened under socialism. So other systems also are not immune to practicing slavery.

Therefore, the argument that capitalism was responsible for slavery is a false-cause fallacy. The fallacy arises because one confuses capitalism, a factor with slavery, as being the cause for slavery itself. Not to mention that this is a bad causation to draw from capitalism considering that it correlates with about 7% of all slave history.

My argument is that the opposite is true. It is not that capitalism causes slavery it is rather that capitalism ended slavery. Ever since capitalism appeared as an economic system something interesting begins to happen. Slavery becomes less and less practiced globally. Up to most history slavery was the common institution. Then capitalism becomes more accepted, and when that happens, slavery slowly begins to disappear. So I see capitalism as the liberator of slavery than the other way around as what other people suggest.

Now I know some people at this point will tell me that perhaps I am committing a false-cause argument myself. I saw that when capitalism started appearing more frequently slavery became less frequent, and then I concluded that capitalism helped end slavery. Perhaps, I am making a false-cause argument. Perhaps, it were really the abolitionist movement that started the move to end slavery.

It is true that people's morals were responsible for ending slavery. But if so why was it hardly ever done in past history? One can say that being anti-slavery was uncommon back then. It was uncommon but there were people against it at any time in history. Basically, what I am asking is why is it that the anti-slave mentality developed so late in history? This is the question that needs to be answered.

It was capitalism that made people more condemning of slavery. That is why the anti-slave movement started to develop in a world that was entering into a somewhat capitalist economy. I am not sure how correct I am on this, it is not something I see anyone else say, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

Capitalism made people move away from slavery economically. Once that happened people were able to distance themselves from slavery and condemn it. In the pre-capitalist world it was highly unlikely to get rid of slavery. There always was some sort of slave class or serf class that was at the bottom doing the hardest work. Thus, if there was an abolitionist in Egypt that said that slavery must be ended for it is wrong. They would ignore him. Because he was rebel, for he attacks the entire economic system.

People needed ways to continue to justify slavery in order to maintain the standard economic system that they had, which was largely based on slavery. So they could have not condemned slavery. But under capitalism everything started to change. Capitalism has brought nations to greater wealth and prosperity. In fact, free trade is more efficient than slavery. Because slavery is not free. The master has to sustain his slaves and cannot over work them. But their work is not even that great, since it is against their will. When compared to intelligent willing people trading with one another what they want, slavery is inefficient. And so slavery was being outdated.

Once people started be enter into a new economic system, that was better and more efficient, they were able to distance themselves from slavery and were free to condemn it as a practice. So it is in this way that I believe that capitalism was what eventually brought forth the end of slavery.

26 comments:

  1. I think there is something to your argument that the classical plantation-based form of slavery was destroyed by capitalism although it would be more accurate to footnote that argument by stating that capitalism is completely compatible with other forms of slavery and certainly with the near slavery of subsistence labor (think Dickens or China).

    Your worship of capitalism is a kind of religion. You may pray at the church of Bernard de Mandeville whose fable of the bees explained the essence of your arguments in 1714, but you pray nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "capitalism is completely compatible with other forms of slavery and certainly with the near slavery of subsistence labor (think Dickens or China).":

    You know what I meant by slavery. I knew that some Marxists would tell me that under capitalism the workers are wage slaves. I was expecting this comment. I could have played the same game. I could have said that statism is slavery. A less severe form of slavery but slavery because the citizens must pay for the state without having a choice to opt out. In that way the state claims labor over the citizens, which is slavish. But I did not go there because that would have been an off topic statement.

    "Your worship of capitalism is a kind of religion.":

    Just because I care about something it automatically makes it a religion? I also care about science, does that make it a religion too? I also care about individuality, does that make it a religion too? I also care about skepticism, does that make it a religion too? There are people who love anime, does that make it a religion too? Anytime anyone cares about something it automatically becomes a religion?

    Deciding what is more of a religion, whether capitalism or Marxism, is rather pointless because it does not add much to an argument. But if you want to go there do you not think that capitalism is the atheism of economics? Because it is the capitalist who says there is no God over the market? Just like the atheist who says there is no God over the universe. The atheist says that order is spontaneously created by emergent complexity. The capitalist says that market order is spontaneously created by emergent complexity of markets. The atheist rejects all gods that can intervene with mankind and make their lives better off. The capitalist rejects all politicians that can intervent with the citizens and make their lives better off. The capitalist is the atheist of economics, he does not believe in any Govs that can magically solve economic problems. The Marxist believes in the state, representative of God, that can act in his benevolence. So who does appear more of a religious person? As I said labeling who is the religious one here is rather pointless, but if you really want to do it then it is clearly the Marxist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Just because I care about something it automatically makes it a religion? "

    It has nothing to do with caring. Its all about an uncritical belief in something based not upon statistics or the scientific method, but based instead on emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. *Ad hominem alert*
    Humble host: Go ahead. Point out a flaw in Spinoza's argument to show that he's being uncritical and emotion-driven. Bring some statistics or scientific proof that he's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. e...have you read this guys blog for a while? It is self evident.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Its all about an uncritical belief in something based not upon statistics or the scientific method, but based instead on emotion.":

    1) Where am I emotional in what I said?

    2) Mathematics does not use statistics nor the scientific method. So is that a religion? The scientific method is not the only method to come to true. Mathematics rejects the scientific method and is able to determine what is true and not by application of reasoning.

    3) Statistics cannot be compared to the scientific method. I am not a fan of statistics and I am unpersuaded by them in general precisely because I see it as anti-scientific.

    4) Economics is not a science. There is no school of economics that is scientific. Some economic schools are more caught up on statistics, while others are not. But you cannot possibly claim that the mainstream economists you come across are being scientific.

    5) By being skeptical and rational about my beliefs I have gradually changed my beliefs on virtually every issue. If I change myself by application of reasoning, then how can it be a sign that my rationality is a religion? A sign of religion is that it does not change.

    6) But there are empirical defenses of capitalism. It is not just pure reasoning with no reference to anything. The last three hundred years was in a way a global experiment that has vindicated capitalism as the greatest means of wealth. Capitalism, the means of private property, and market economic calculation, has proven itself to have been the most effective means to bringing prosperity. Now you may disagree with the more specific details about capitalism. There is state capitalism, there is stateless anarcho-capitalism, there is laissez-faire capitalism, there is welfare capitalism, and so forth. But the general idea is private means of property with calculation in the market. This is what brings prosperity. Socialism, from history, has been nothing put failure. And there is no example, anywhere, where it is successful other than your family.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Where am I emotional in what I said?"

    I did not say that you were emotional. I said that your beliefs are based upon emotion. You clearly suffer from some kind of mood disorder that makes you want to provoke people to get a reaction. It is called conflict seeking behavior. One need only view your quizzes above to make such a judgment. After all, they are not smart, they are not funny, they are just there to show how uninhibited you think you are.

    Your extreme position on politics and economics (and it is extreme) as well as your avowed nihilism are not based upon a nuanced and well thought out position but rather upon a desire to be an iconoclast. I call that decision making based upon emotion. Its quite common really so you really are not that original after all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I did not say that you were emotional. I said that your beliefs are based upon emotion.":

    It is funny that you say that because most people I have came across my life have told me that my problem is that I lack proper feelings to understand people.

    "You clearly suffer from some kind of mood disorder that makes you want to provoke people to get a reaction.":

    I know that. I love saying stuff that offends people. I do not hide that. There always was a rebellious personality in me to say stuff that most people find offensive. And when I say it, I feel superior and greater than everyone else.

    But here is my question. If Hitler said that evolution is true, would it mean that evolution is false? If Hitler said that science is virtuous, would it mean science is vile?

    What my charachter is, is entirely irrelevent to whether what I say is true or false. This is not the celebrity world. I am able to be as evil and as ugly as I wish to be, and still be correct. Truth does not depend on he who speaks it, be he virtuous or vile.

    "Your extreme position on politics and economics (and it is extreme).":

    I know it is extreme, but so what? Extreme positions are not necessarily wrong. Science is extremist too. And I actually do not see myself as extreme. I think it is only extreme because it is not common. Ending slavery was at one point extreme too. It is not that the idea of ending slavery is really extreme, it is just not commonly heard of.

    "well as your avowed nihilism are not based upon a nuanced and well thought out position but rather upon a desire to be an iconoclast.":

    There is a desire to be different, it makes me feel superior over the common masses. But it does not mean the positions are themselves wrong. Consider for example the obsessive mathematician. The obsessive mathematician does math for the sake of beauty. He is drawn to it because he enjoys it. Does this mean that his obsession make his conclusions incorrect? No. When it comes to be being different, I too, have an obsession with it. But I do not use that as an excuse to take a position. I must be convinced that I am true in what I say.

    If I really wanted to be different I could have became a Zoroastrian. I could have became a Neo-Nazi. There are thousands of positions that are crazier than what I am now. Why do I not choose them?

    And I do choose positions that are mainstream. It is mainstream to accept homosexuals. I do not object to that. It is mainstream to give charity. I do not object to that. It is mainstream to say thank you. I do not object to that. There are hundreds of things that are mainstream and I do not object to at all. Because I agree with them.

    So what you say is not very convincing because there are lots of other things I could be. But I am not, because I do not agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "But here is my question. If Hitler said that evolution is true, would it mean that evolution is false? If Hitler said that science is virtuous, would it mean science is vile?"

    No but if Hitler said an extreme thing such as that Jews are no better than insects, we might be right in assuming that he is saying this based not upon evidence but rather upon blind hatred.

    Your posts demonstrate a strong lack of understanding of basic positions within the field of political economy. You throw out terms like capitalism defined in apposition to slavery as if slavery is not part of a capitalist system. Rather it is very much part of a capitalist system where certain types of labor can be defined as capital. What you mean to say in your article is not that capitalism killed slavery as much as that slavery is inefficient relative to other methods of capitalistic economic organization.

    With regards to your comment that you choose some positions that are mainstream I'm sure Adolf Hitler was probably indifferent on many subjects (in other words he was not always extreme). That does not mean that we cannot colloquially call him an extremist or suggest that his extremism in some areas is excusable or rational as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "No but if Hitler said an extreme thing such as that Jews are no better than insects, we might be right in assuming that he is saying this based not upon evidence but rather upon blind hatred.":

    So extremism is a bad thing? I do not understand. Why should it matter if something is extreme or not? Really what all should matter is the arguments given in defense of a view. It would make a lot more sense instead of telling someone he is an extremist to show why he is wrong.

    "You throw out terms like capitalism defined in apposition to slavery as if slavery is not part of a capitalist system. Rather it is very much part of a capitalist system where certain types of labor can be defined as capital.":

    Read my first paragraph. I said that slavery can be made compatible with capitalism. I did not say that capitalism is innately opposed to slavery. Then I went on to show why capitalism is not the cause of slavery.

    "What you mean to say in your article is not that capitalism killed slavery as much as that slavery is inefficient relative to other methods of capitalistic economic organization.":

    Capitalism replaced slavery, and so it killed it. You may say that the capitalists did not care about the slaves one way or another. But in the end, it was capitalism that brought about the end of slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Capitalism replaced slavery, and so it killed it"

    This is exactly what I mean when I point out your incredibly sloppy polemics. There is no defining line when "capitalism" started so capitalism did not kill slavery. Capitalism; an economic system defined by private ownership of the means of production, existed for many years in harmony with slavery. It is only the every increasing need for efficiency within the capitalist system that drove out the idea of a particular type of slavery. As we now know, sex slavery is perfectly compatible with even more advanced forms of capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It is only the every increasing need for efficiency within the capitalist system that drove out the idea of a particular type of slavery.":

    Which is the same thing as saying as capitalism ended slavery. I am confused. You agree that it was because of capitalism that slavery eventually faded away. But when I say that capitalism ended slavery that is wrong?

    "As we now know, sex slavery is perfectly compatible with even more advanced forms of capitalism.":

    I am not sure what you are referring to here, you should explain more. But do you not agree that if there is a market of women who are willing to have sex with other people for money that finding women to be sex slaves would diminish?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Capitalism is not a modern invention, it existed long before moderns took to writing about its theoretical underpinnings.

    This being said, the fact that not ALL slavery is caused by capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism does not cause slavery.

    Regarding your last question: There are plenty of women who are willing to have sex for free and not even for money. So I fail to see what is the relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Capitalism is not a modern invention, it existed long before moderns took to writing about its theoretical underpinnings.":

    The history was kings or monarchs, under various feudal systems. That was essentially how all society was organized. It was not free trade. It was not that one can rise to the top.
    Indeed, if you look at the history of wealth you see something interesting. For the entirety of history wealth was in the hands of the kings and ruling class. But in the late 19th century, which saw capitalism, wealth appeared in individuals who managed to become successful. Something never (or hardly) ever seen in the past. So it is not right to say that capitalism is an old system.

    "This being said, the fact that not ALL slavery is caused by capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism does not cause slavery.":

    You missed the entire point of this post. I already refuted this. I said that slavery existed everywhere and at every time (except in modern times). Just because capitalism intersected slavery does not mean it was causing slavery.

    "Regarding your last question: There are plenty of women who are willing to have sex for free and not even for money. So I fail to see what is the relevance.":

    How much is "plenty"? If a lot of men want women for sex then some might volunteer for free. But the demand would be too high for most women would not agree. To make them agree they need to be paid for their services. If there is a price put on sex then a lot more women would agree to effectively meet the proper demand that men have.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Which is the same thing as saying as capitalism ended slavery. I am confused. You agree that it was because of capitalism that slavery eventually faded away."

    No. Not at all. I wrote at the outset that "there is something to your argument" meaning that a case could be made that capitalism would have eventually destroyed slavery. What you fail to take into account is that Slavery did not die a natural death in England and it did not die a natural death in the United States. In England, the abolition of slavery was accomplished by law, largely driven by religious sentiment (score one for religion). In the United States, slavery was ended by the coercive power of the state (statism to use your term ended slavery). The argument that you could have made is that trends were moving in the direction of an end to plantation based slavery in which case I might agree, but you did not make that case. Instead what we got is your blustery "Capitalism ended slavery" which can be demonstrably proven false by going to Gettysburgh.

    "But do you not agree that if there is a market of women who are willing to have sex with other people for money that finding women to be sex slaves would diminish? "

    Yes, I agree that it would probably diminish. It probably would not disappear however. There are many logical economic reasons why an importer of powerless non-native speaking sex slaves might be able to provide services cheaper than free citizens might. I don't know the economics of the sex trade very well, but I do know that they are entirely compatible with capitalism so it is not even actually true that the slave trade is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "What you fail to take into account is that Slavery did not die a natural death in England and it did not die a natural death in the United States.":

    But where did the anti-slave position come from? Why was it that for thousands of years it was never considered an option and then suddenly people want to abolish it?

    I mentioned in my post above that slavery was eliminated by people's morals against it. But then I ask why did it not happen earler? That was because capitalism was not present, and so people did not have an alternative.

    What you need to understand is that capitalism is not a moral system (though some people try to make it into a moral system). It is neither immoral, it is rather amoral. To end something like slavery required people to have a moral rejection to it. But for people to start to morally oppose it they needed to be living in a somewhat capitalist economy.

    Capitalism is not the only thing that ended slavery as you said, but if it was not capitalism economies slavery would most likely exist. So capitalism did something good here, contrary to how much you can hate it.

    "In England, the abolition of slavery was accomplished by law, largely driven by religious sentiment (score one for religion).":

    I do not know the history of slavery in England, but I will take your word for it. I am not sure why that makes you proud of religion for driving out slavery when it was religion itself that condoned slavery for thousands of years. I would rather embarrased if that was the case. Ever read slavery in the Torah? Embarrasing stuff.

    "In the United States, slavery was ended by the coercive power of the state (statism to use your term ended slavery)":

    Same with as religion. Not much to be proud of for the statists. Because the state condoned and passed slavery laws to maintain the institution of slavery. Only then did it reverse its evils.

    "Yes, I agree that it would probably diminish. It probably would not disappear however.":

    But you are missing the point of what I said. You said that capitalism is compatible with sex slavery. Okay. But so what? You can find sex slavery in non-capitalist countries also. Capitalism is not the cause of sex slavery, a different factor is. And as you agreed that if there is a market for sex then sex slavery would diminish. But if you agree to that then how can you condemn capitalism for sex slavery if its improves the problem? Capitalism makes sex slavery less necessary by a market for sex. And it is not the cause of sex slavery. Thus, how can you possibly condemn capitalism here when it clearly the good method of reducing sex slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your article is entitled "Capitalism ended slavery" Do you care to modify that title in light the fact that you have now admitted that capitalism was not the sole or even perhaps the most important reason why slavery ended?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Your article is entitled "Capitalism ended slavery" Do you care to modify that title in light the fact that you have now admitted that capitalism was not the sole or even perhaps the most important reason why slavery ended?":

    No I am not going to modify the title. Because other titles would be too long and I try to stay away from long titles.

    Capitalism was a very important reason for the ending of slavery as I explained. So it is still fair to connect the ending of slavery with capitalism.

    All you had to do to correct me is say where I am wrong. Not go on a long off-topic discussion about my personality and how I want to anger the people by saying stuff they find offensive. Because that is all meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Not go on a long off-topic discussion about my personality and how I want to anger the people by saying stuff they find offensive. Because that is all meaningless."

    I disagree. I could have taken the high road and gone on a point by point fisking of your article, but I chose not to because I honestly believe that your views on "freedom" (economic and otherwise) are a subconscious cry for acceptance. Only in a world where freedom to be yourself is the supreme virtue can your abrasiveness (which you are not at any pains to deny) be noble or honorable instead of just annoying and rude.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It is a nice thing that science and mathematics does not care what kind of a person you are. You have a claim, you justify it. If scientists and mathematicians were judged on their personalities the world would be in the dark ages, because plently of them were insane people.

    I am also strange and crazy in a way. But so what? People may laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at them because they are all the same. It does not bother me. The mainstream world is an embarrasment that I have nothing in common with. I do not want to be part of it.

    I have done things in my life on purpose to create a separation between myself and others in order to show that I am not like them. How is this any kind of acceptance?

    I am a very lonely person. I would certainly love to be with someone. But I believe that in order to do that (besides for getting around my physical repulsion) I must fit in with the world in some way, and because I do not my chances are much lower. But that is okay with me. If the price for this way of life is loneliness then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To Baruch Spinoza:
    If I may say so - you have now finally "nailed your true colours to the mast". What you said in this last blog explains probably 90% of your pseudo-scientific conclusions that I have been following in this and in others.
    Maybe you should just go back over all that has been written by yourself and others and maybe - just maybe - see what I am and others are saying to you is valid. You obviously do have a sick mind - by your own admission.
    You are an atheist and Jewish - that is fine. But that does not mean that you have to absolutely disagree with everything that people say to you (unless they happen to an Einstein / Spinoza / Darwin etc of course).
    Your suggestion that young babies cannot feel pain is preposterous. Maybe they do not consciously remember experiencing pain but that does not mean that it does not add to their physiological or psychological makeup. Are you going to say also that babies cannot really see, hear, smell or taste either? (OK – before you say it - these senses are underdeveloped – but it does not mean that they cannot make some sense of the world they are born into as their brains are most certainly programmed to accept these stimuli when they occur and that applies equally to pain.
    For the record – because my father was a (Judeo/Christian) religious maniac (I now believe) it was he that wanted me to be circumcised when I was a 1 year old baby. Now, I have absolutely no memory of that – but (in my opinion) that does not support your theory one bit. However, I understand that the circumcision which was carried out on me was done so badly that when I peed it came out in two jets. I had to have further surgery when I was 4 years old to repair the damage and I most definitely remember that and the agonizing weeks that followed! My point here is that gradually during the time between these two events (which I believe to have been traumatic in both cases) my brain developed enough such that I was able to remember the latter occasion. (My first memories are from when I was 18 months old).
    Anybody who has ever held and cuddled a newborn child will know that - from almost the moment they are born - they are learning to adapt to the world around them by sight, touch, smell, hearing, taste. If you stroke a child’s head it will smile, gurgle or laugh. Pinch its bottom and the smile goes away. Smack it and it will cry. Circumcise it without anaesthesia and it will scream and scream and scream hysterically until the pain gradually dies away and is, hopefully, forgotten.
    Yes, yes, yes, of course you can program a computer to emulate all this! But that is ALL you are doing. Throughout millions of years of evolution animals have experienced REAL pain as a defence mechanism to protect against serious injury. Who is to say that the simplest cell does no experience “pain” at some level?
    If you can also believe, as I do, what Prof. Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) says – that we are “merely” vehicles for our genes then our senses must have become fine-tuned to provide safety for them which means that the “vehicle” has to have these survival defences for the sake of our genes.
    What I think you say about subjectivity seems to me to reveal that your attitudes to these matters (including those about Wikileaks) are totally subjective. If you have no empathy, compassion, love or sympathy for your fellow humans then you are indeed to be pitied – because these aspects can be shown to have really positive survival value both for the individual and the species as a whole. But if you allow this to turn to hatred for your fellows then indeed that hatred will turn against you. And I am not saying this in any kind of biblical or religious sense. This is perhaps where we humans are most superior to other animals. Not only can we learn from the mistakes of others but can plot out our futures to avoid making the same mistakes again – if we choose to. (TO BE CONTINUED).

    ReplyDelete
  22. To Baruch Spinoza:(Continued)

    I do not know whether I agree with you about the brain and soul (if there is such a thing) It seems to me that if a soul did exist then it would develop together with and as an integral part of the brain. When my mother was dying of Alzheimer’s she appeared to lose what is described as a “soul” long before her brain completely closed down. From this I do not believe a “soul” can exist without a brain which has more than an unspecified number of active neurons – but a child is born with many many more active neurons / synapses than would be the case of someone with advanced Alzheimer’s.
    What you are perhaps alluding to in some really obscure way is that when human infants are born they are relatively under-developed compared to (say) a giraffe who can get up and run away from danger within minutes of being born. Maybe you think baby giraffes can’t experience pain.
    The reason - I understand - that the human brain does not need to develop fully until much later is that it continues to grow and develop (more so than with a lot of other animals) throughout the years of infancy. Because of the size of brain required for a human to perform as well - as (say) a giraffe at birth - the head would be too large to pass down the birth canal. But because most humans love and care for and are better able to protect their and others’ offspring they do not have be more developed at birth than they are.
    What I hear from you I am afraid is a lack of love or feeling for others. If you DID want to be liked – which you say you do not for the reasons you gave - then you would need to go through some miraculous transformation similar to Dickens’s fictional Scrooge character.
    I think perhaps you may have had some traumatic event in your life which has warped and embittered you. You may need to seek psychiatric help. You certainly do not sound very happy -which is a pity because we all deserve to be happy unless we have deliberately set out to make others unhappy.
    May I suggest that rather than always trying (and succeeding) to pick holes in people’s arguments and logic that you try to understand why they are saying what they are and be more sympathetic to their points of view as I hope I have been towards yours.
    You are obviously highly intelligent – I would not hazard a guess as to you age – but this could range from being a teenager right through to being a very emotionally immature adult - of any age.
    There is perhaps one thing in what you have learnt - but not FULLY UNDERSTOOD - about science in spite of your continual reference to it. EVIDENCE is not the be-all and end-all that you seem to imagine. What is ultimately important at the end of the day – is the INTERPRETATION of the data and what you do with it!
    Thank you very much indeed for reading this and may I wish you all the best in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Your suggestion that young babies cannot feel pain is preposterous.":

    I read what you had to say about babies, but you never gave a case to why we need to assume that they are capable of having feelings. I agree that young children have feelings. I am not suggesting to put young children into blenders - feet first so you can see the expression on their little faces. I am suggesting to put babies into blenders. Because I cannot come up with a reason to why I should imagine that babies are capable of feeling.

    I do not believe in a metaphysical soul. That is just modern-age sprirituality non-sense. I am a materialist and do think that ultimately, in some strange manner, the soul (which is my metaphor for consciousness) is entirely generated from the material brain. I further believe that this generation of consciousness happens from an emergent complex interaction of neurons. Babies do not have this complexity of neurons yet. As people get older they develop a better and better consciousness. As I, and others, think back to when they were children our experiences become more and more "fuzzy". This is caused by the "fuzziness" of the soul. If you go all the way back to when you were a baby, all that fuzziness is missing because the consciousness did not develop yet.

    Everything people say about how they cry and all that does not convince me at all. That is just a behavior associated with a stimuli. That is it. As far as experiences goes I cannot possibly come up with any reason to imagine that a baby can feel.

    If you can convince me of that, then I would take back what I said about putting babies into blenders and admit my error. But until that time I see no problem with doing this.

    "Maybe you think baby giraffes can’t experience pain.":

    Same reason. Though I do think that grown up gifarres can experience pain. This is why I am against animal cruelty and think it is a terrible thing. But not as bad as human cruelty for the reason that animal consciousness is more "fuzzy" than human consciousness - since humans have better developed brains.

    "I think perhaps you may have had some traumatic event in your life which has warped and embittered you. You may need to seek psychiatric help. You certainly do not sound very happy -which is a pity because we all deserve to be happy unless we have deliberately set out to make others unhappy.":

    Why does almost everybody have to assume that I had some traumatic event that happened in my life? And I am a mostly happy person, I think of myself as a cheerful pessimist. I am lonely, oh yes, so so lonely, so terribly lonely. But I am not depressed.

    "EVIDENCE is not the be-all and end-all that you seem to imagine. What is ultimately important at the end of the day – is the INTERPRETATION of the data and what you do with it!":

    I know, this is what I have been saying for a long time. This is also why I am unpersuaded by statistics in general because they lack all interpretation for them. And I do not always go with the evidence. I like to also reason my way through a problem with no evidence to it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, all I can say now is that you have me as confused as you seem to be. I am very sorry, but not the least surprised, to hear how lonely you are as you seem to be going out of your way to be utterly, selfishly, arrogantly, illogically and extremely radical. I do not believe for one minute that you have ever seriously considered the possibility that you could be wrong about the twisted and totally subjective logic that you apply. You should at least try to put some of that pent-up wasted energy you have to fathom out how to make this world a better place and not one based on your nazi-istic / unrealistic views. About the most self-revealing thing you have said is “I like to also reason my way through a problem with no evidence to it at all". You are very fond of telling others that they have missed your point - but in this case you have utterly missed the point - because to apply true science you need base your conclusions on REAL evidence. To live entirely in the hypothetical world can be extremely dangerous and non- productive when dealing with such matters as humanity. Your approach may have paid dividends when applied to matters such as quantum mechanics and sub-atomic particle physics but I do not believe it has any place in the study of humanity. Believe me when I tell you that very young children do experience pain. One of my kids screamed all night long following a measles vaccination - not because of the needle jab itself but because of the suffering as a result of the vaccine. So much so that the child nearly had permanent brain damage because of overheating. It broke our hearts to see that child suffer. We were not in the least bit entertained by it!

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I do not believe for one minute that you have ever seriously considered the possibility that you could be wrong about the twisted and totally subjective logic that you apply.":

    I have changed my positions on nearly every belief I have ever had in my life. I constantly doubt myself. Just because I do not agree with you no matter what you say does not mean I am closed-minded, it just means I do not consider your arguments to be compelling.

    "You should at least try to put some of that pent-up wasted energy you have to fathom out how to make this world a better place and not one based on your nazi-istic / unrealistic views.":

    Yes, I am a Nazi. I am also a child molestor. I am also a racist. I am also a sexist. I also eat little babies. But does it make me wrong? Your entire response to me was about my personality and how foolish I am and how vile I am. But you did not address the points I brought up about consciousness.

    "because to apply true science you need base your conclusions on REAL evidence.":

    Of course, science needs to be based on evidence. But I am not a scientist. Science determines what is true and what is not true. But truth does not need to be determined with the use of science alone. There are other ways to determine what is true and what is not. Mathematics determines what is true and what is not without any evidence at all. Why is that so wrong? If I want to be scientific then I have to base my conclusions based on evidence. But here is the thing, I am not trying to be scientific. However, this does not make me wrong. I can still be correct in what I say by my reasoning.

    "I do not believe it has any place in the study of humanity.":

    Why not? Friedrich Nietzsche had some interesting things to say about humanity, but he was no scientist, and I think he was largely correct.

    "Believe me when I tell you that very young children do experience pain.":

    We are not talking about children. We are talking about babies. More specifically new-born babies.

    "It broke our hearts to see that child suffer.":

    Child abuse is a terrible thing but so is abuse towards adults. I do not understand why children need to be singled out in abuse. It is abuse in both cases. Abuse is wrong. Regardless whether it is adults or children.

    ReplyDelete