Possibly, but it could be that intelligence is not what is needed. Humans may prove to be an evolutionary experiment that failed. Intelligence may not necessarily be the apex of evolution.

Unhappyfully these "bad" strategies are usually those that help we pass our dna forward. So, while our brains may be shaped by the world to think in the society, our dna is shaped to make us think on ourselves, instinct that can mostly only be countered by pro-society education.

So I think we wont be getting our feet out of the mud until we either modify ourselves or develop an educational system powerfull enough to steer the majority away from individualism.

Possibly, but it could be that intelligence is not what is needed. Humans may prove to be an evolutionary experiment that failed. Intelligence may not necessarily be the apex of evolution.

The world refuses to change because it enjoys ignorance over investigation.

Curious remark. Do you mean maybe the winner society in terms of evolution is something like ants' or bees'? I mean, in some senses they do have advantages.

I'm not sure that DNA is able to carry strategies as such. And I'm quite sure that, even if a very big child will certainly has a high probability of becoming a bully this is not always the case.

And I think nobody works for society unless they expect some kind of reward (of course, they might be wrong and get nothing). The point would be to be sure that cooperate is more profitable than fight. Which would almost certainly be the case if nobody were fighting. An intelligent cooperative society seems to be quite a stable system to me. With all the individuals being purely selfish, of course.

I don't know what you mean by modifying ourselves, but I agree that education is a very powerful tool. Imagine the things we could avoid to learn with a perfect educational system.

I mean, of course, if there is anyone in here that thinks that thinking is the way to discover how to redirect society to improve it.

Or if you think that philosophy's goal is just to understand what happens, not to modify it.

Lol I dunno, I'm Muslim, I think the signs of his coming may be different to those mentioned in Christian scriptures. But you may be right. What I was getting at is I do not believe you can enlighten everyone through a slow process of education. It would have to come via something quite spectacular, or at least something amazing would have to happen to make people want to change.

True, it really depends of the point of view. From the point of view of "passing genes forward", intelligence, or perhaps our level of it, doesnt really seens like a good thing, since it allows us to decide to not pass our genes forward, what we oftenly do.

But intelligence also allows us to decide what is good and what is bad, so we just decide that passing genes forward doesnt really matters. Problem solved =)

(...) it seens the more world-changing potential one person has, more confortable its situation, and, thus, less reasons it has to change the world.

If people were purely selfish, they would try to backstab each other all the time. I think there needs to be a balance between self and society. I think that, ideally, people should put the society above thenselves, so that they do not damage the society to improve their own situation. Kind of: if you had to chose between your life and someone's else, your decision would be based on your jugment about who is more valuable to the society, winhout your desire to live involved.

Modifying the dna of those to come to make then less evil, basically. Is messing up with the mind of someone who hasnt got a mind yet evil? I think not =)

I dont like the idea of "avoiding to learn". If we dont know something we are vulnerable for those who do. If nobody knew evil, a drop of evil would be devastating.

So, we shouldnt teach our children that lying is a good thing, but we must teach then that lies do exist and what they are like. Having the gun doesnt means you need to fire it =)

So, if you desire to change the world for the better [idiom intended], find the ways, if they exist, in teaching man how to think, instead of the common fad of worshipping contradiction, myth, and ignorance.

Other than the return of Jesus, I can't see how the world will change. No seriously, it would take some major event such as this for people to wake up and actually see beyond what's in front their face.

The real problem is that pleasure is not always proportional to utility.

Quote:

If you examine the human bodies environmental acquisition systems, you might find something interesting.

1) The digestive system, 2) the ocular system, 3) the respiratory system, 4) the vestibular system, 5) the manipulative system, 6) the procreative system, 7) the judgmental system.

Most, if not all, have secondary systems that generate "pleasure" even the judgmental system, as pride, ego, vanity. etc.

Not one of these subsidary pleasure systems are required for survival. One can live without smell, taste, etc.

Not one of them require the judgmental system to work, but all of them can effect an abridgment for its dysfunction.

Humm, imagine that. After all, it is provable that the judgmental system is not yet wholly functional in man.

The greatest thing in that regard today, which man is yet unaware is lucid dreaming. It was written that it would be taken from man for a very long time, so long man would forget what it was for, how to use it. It has been back for over fourty years and man still thinks it is a free for all fantasy state.

Lol I dunno, I'm Muslim, I think the signs of his coming may be different to those mentioned in Christian scriptures. But you may be right. What I was getting at is I do not believe you can enlighten everyone through a slow process of education. It would have to come via something quite spectacular, or at least something amazing would have to happen to make people want to change.

My belief is that as the human intellect evolves it will bring humanity to increasingly higher levels of understanding which will result in a more tolerant acceptance of each others incompatibilities.

Will there ever be a world without the negative aspects of humanity? I think not. These are as natural as are the positive aspects. But harmony will be found in our ability to balance these two sides of our nature, and that ability will come as we develop our intellectual understandings.

We are much farther ahead than we were two thousand years ago. And who knows how this growth will increase exponentially over the next thousand years.

I believe that harmony is the goal of the human race and that we evolve toward it with every passing generation. Humanity will not realize its potential until it realizes that harmony.

Well, there remains the fact that some people, knowing about their "bad" genes, decide not to pass them on.

I strongly disagree with you here. No one should prefer other's life to his own. How can someone sincerely want to improve a society he won't have the chance to live in?

I personally don't see evil at all in modifying DNA, but somehow I don't think it's so critical for the development of a series of strategies.

Even if this is a little off topic, I'll explain myself better .

I think the way you really learn a strategy is by implementing it. Before trying something, you really don't associate a feeling of pleasure or displeasure to it. I know drugs exist, but I have never tried none of them, so I haven't learnt to use them. Same for say, guns. Neither drugs nor guns are things I'm likely to consider a resource if things go wrong.

I think its possible, if we start "enlightening" children since a very young age and do so for many years, and if that view is indeed superior to the old ones, (Aka: They cant be undone by convivence with those with the old views) we will eventually enlighten everone.

I think there are very little people that think lowly about thenselves, and even less of those who would think of not having children due to this.

Well:
1. That may be your objective, or purpose, in life. It is mine =) (Cant say I am ready to die at any moment for someone more important though...)

2. Your children and loved ones will live in that society

3. If nobody makes such sacrifices society wont be good

4. There is the possibility of continuing to interact or watch society in after-life

I dont disagree, but I think it makes us too vulnerable. Its like not having an army: You wont fell tempted to invade another country, but you will probally be invaded yourself in short time.

Another example: If you dont know that crying is not always a sign of serious trouble, you will be easly manipulated by criers.

Anyway, first we would need to know how to enlighten people and what shape the light has.

I think somebody with some serious hereditary illness is quite unlikely to have children. And I don't think any other feature directly associated to DNA is likely to determine the role you are to play in society.

1. I'm not sure I get your meaning.

2. I don't think children and loved ones ought to mean something if you are dead.

3. I don't think a society requiring sacrifices can be stable or healthy.

4. That would require a society of believers.

I think I haven't succeeded in explaining myself.

I don't think we really learn a strategy unless we implement it obtaining a benefit. I know what drugs and guns do, I simply haven't tried them, so I don't associate any kind of pleasure with the idea of using them. When I feel bad, I'm very unlikely to seek relief in shooting or taking drugs.

I've never been sure about what human nature is assumed to be.

I excuse for the lateness of the post, but better sometime then never.

Human nature: humans act first, think later, and feel last of all. And it has not changed.

Regards,
S. Segnan