The Pan Narrans Approach to Science
The reasons I haven't said much about the discussions of race in science fiction and fantasy that have been ricocheting around the relevant sections of the internet this year can be summed up by two points; I've been reading and listening more than having anything to say, and most of my friends have had better things to say than I have
( Read more... )
Xenophobia means, loosely, fear of strangers. I don't take it to mean prejudice based on anything: it's simply an evolutionary trait in a group- (extended family-, clan-) based species of great ape. You can't remove the "instinct to divide the world into 'us and them'", but, by encouraging co-existence, and enforcing it peaceably, you can remove the "them".
"IDK, humans have the ability to understand consequences and actions, and all that free-will stuff, and so yes, we're to blame for the consequences of our actions, whether the consequence was intended or not."
'blame' implies wrongdoing implies absolute morality. Our actions have consequences, but those actions are also consequences, so how far back do you go before you hit the 'absolute action'? I am not to blame for wiping out the mammoths, and I don't see why I should be expected to feel guilty. And I'm sure their contemporary, the smilodon, would have had no compunction about wiping out us.
As I say, perhaps we now understand enough to be expected to accept responsibility, but we can't be blamed for actions whose consequences we couldn't be expected to foresee.
"SELF-control. You mean SELF-control, right?"
No, I meant 'control'. Humans manipulate nature as a matter of routine and in order to survive. With understanding comes the ability to channel that control more precisely (for good or ill, but especially for good). Without understanding, there is no opportunity.
(signed) ID.
Reply
(Removing the them = loss of diversity or ignoring diversity, and that's not desirable)
'blame' implies wrongdoing implies absolute morality. Our actions have consequences, but those actions are also consequences, so how far back do you go before you hit the 'absolute action'? I am not to blame for wiping out the mammoths, and I don't see why I should be expected to feel guilty. And I'm sure their contemporary, the smilodon, would have had no compunction about wiping out us.
I was using 'blame' and 'responsibility' more or less synonymously, and I wasn't talking about living humans accepting blame or feeling guilty. Humans having caused extinctions in the past confers a responsibility (and yes, blame, because humans are aware of consequences) on those humans, not on their descendants.
I'm not to blame for any of your actions, but you are. Because humans have the responsibility that comes with actions.
we can't be blamed for actions whose consequences we couldn't be expected to foresee.
Ah, I get you. Sorry, I was using 'blame' in a slightly more pragmatic way; without condemnation of actions that had a probably unforeseen action. But if your actions have negative consequences, you accept those consequences, that's what I mean by blame.
No, I meant 'control'. Humans manipulate nature as a matter of routine and in order to survive. With understanding comes the ability to channel that control more precisely (for good or ill, but especially for good). Without understanding, there is no opportunity.
I have moral issues with the idea of controlling other human beings.
Reply
Leave a comment