It seems this fundamentally misunderstands human value. The value of a human is not whether they provide more resources than they consume. Imagine applying this to others, or a government systematically ridding citizens that are net negative. That would be a horrible genocide.
This again reveals the wisdom of very basic biblical truths, like “all men are made in the image of God”. Meaning all humans have value, a special value different from animals and plants
Interesting list. It’s striking that there are 10 rules, in a way taking the framework of the 10 commandments.
I’d say this set is weaker, in that it seems to reenforce a bit of self-centeredness and says little to nothing about loving your neighbor. Whereas the 10 commandments are summed up as love God and love your neighbor — both outward focusing. With dos and don’ts that are all outward facing, ex. Do not steal, do not covet, do not bear false witness, honor your mother and father.
That said #6 “‘There’ is no better than ‘here’” is a good reminder. A parallel to “do not covet your neighbor’s house, or your neighbor’s wife, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (paraphrase)
That’s a strange way to explain away Moses’ encounter with God (what is written), seeing as according to the text it occurred many times without the burning bush present. See Exodus 33 on the tent of meeting.
Reading in psychedelics into the text is eisegesis rather than exegesis (reading in the interpreters bias into the text rather than discerning the original author’s intent).
There is no evidence of Sagan’s theory though, that in death we will be in a long dreamless sleep. In fact, I would argue that the beauties of this life (suggested in his quote) point to an afterlife. To say that our experience here has much love and moral depth, leads one to ponder, why is there anything at all? And on top of that, why do morals and love exist? And why are these things good? The Christian perspective is that “the heavens declare the glory of God”, extrapolated to this discussion, the very things we marvel at in this life should lead to pondering what lies beyond.
Actually I think we have evidence there isn't any existence after death. Many religions claims various different things. Does everyone just get their own wish fulfillment? Probably not.
There are various random claims of proof of something happening after death, contradictory and with no real evidence. When there's no evidence, and people make very contradictory claims while claiming absolute evidence but having now, .... it's probable that there's nothing happening. I'd like to imagine my deceased loved ones are still around somewhere, but I don't think they are.
I agree with you on the point that the different world religions make mutually exclusive claims about the afterlife. Ultimately the only way to know what happens after death is to have an authoritative eyewitness. I personally don’t count NDE’s because we have to get into the question of what is truly “dead” (and also gauge the truthfulness of the individuals spiritual experience — that is if they are more than hallucinations)
I take the position that Jesus is that authoritative eye witness — the whole Christian religion hinges on that. I find his claims, the historical documents, and eye witness testimony that’s been preserved from the 1st century too compelling.
We simply don't know anything about what occurs after death.
It's possible that there is nothing (the dreamless sleep was just Sagan being poetic I would guess). It's also possible one or more of the many religions are correct.
But it seems to be more an observation of the world rather than a human construct. When we look out at the world we see causes and effects. The “why” in this case is asking what is the cause(s) of a subset of effects
cause and effect still doesn’t necessitate a “why”, just a cause. once you start leaving a realm where empirical evidence is not possible, I think you’re more into philosophy which…is a world of its own. in any case, I appreciate the discussion. have a good one!
This is far more nuance than I remember in public schools. At a young age there is quite a bit of rote memorization of facts. Sure parents can supplement their child’s education, but at the end of the day the child will be forced to adopt the schools viewpoint on certain perspective as the “correct” answer — or suffer in their grades
well the parent to child relationship is not a procreative one. New family units have to form that are procreative or that society will eventually crumble. So it’s not simply subjective. The marriage relationship is procreative and a bedrock for society. I don’t think a society having greater / lesser deference to parents as authority figures takes away from that reality. The parents themselves are in a procreative relationship, and are matriarchs and patriarchs to their line. And clearly the cultures that demand “more” love to parents than a spouse, do not (cannot rightly) demand intimate love. So I would question what “more” love is.
Why would monogamous relationships be better for society from your perspective? Shouldn't you be arguing that marriage is holding our "new family unit" generation back?
Well after procreation comes child rearing. We don’t abandon human children to the wild.
I don’t believe the benefits of monogamous marriage are simply cultural. One would have to pose a better ideal for generating and raising children (because nurturing the next generation is a key part of societal survival) that leads to human flourishing. Is it polygamy, or casual hookups, or absentee fathers?
That said I do think there is more to the marriage relationship than procreation. That 2 people are becoming one. With that comes life long friendship bound by a vow that weathers the storms of life, close intimacy etc.
The difference would be that you and a friend are on the same web page, like a news article (the same location), but you still retain control of your page. Scrolling, etc.
Also you can sync YouTube videos, so you get better quality than you would via screen share.
Agree. There's things you can do by virtualizing or instrumenting the browser that you can't with just screen sharing. It's a more specialized technology that powers more specific use cases.
Or even a similar work of my own company: BrowserBox Pro -- where you can share a link to a single browser with multiple people. Co-browsing or co-operative / collaborative browsing is the "term of art" I believe.
Point taken. This is a side project to get conversations going on social browsing in general (not my full time gig) -- I think I may just open source the repo so people can build themselves
This again reveals the wisdom of very basic biblical truths, like “all men are made in the image of God”. Meaning all humans have value, a special value different from animals and plants