The press is overblowing again! Read the poll, it is on the New York Times website. Obama’s approval ratings are still VERY high, there’s just a minor blip in the numbers. And the part where the press says the public is “concerned” about aspects about the health plan: the poll also finds they are equally “concerned” about the current conditions without a plan. What they should be reporting is the public is concerned. They aren’t complaining, they are concerned.
I’m enjoying watching your discourse, but ask that you add in one other factor: The fact that the human population continues to increase geometrically.
It seems to me that no matter what happens with global warming, and despite continued advances in food production technology, we humans are going to surpass our resources – land, food, energy, water, etc.
It’s long been my contention that we’re headed to one or more of three possibilities (as mentioned by DrCanuck): Mass starvation, war over resources, and/or mass lethal disease.
Given that all the major religions fight off any attempts at slowing population growth, I just don’t see any other possible outcome.
Even if Yellowstone Park takes out half the United States in a Toba scenario, I still don’t see any other outcome.
As a “biologist”, I had a daughter, son, and vasectomy- that was 30 years ago. It was an economic, and ecologic, decision, called “planning”. At THAT time, those paying any attention knew there was a difference between population and the surface area of the planet, versus the ARABLE LAND, and production capacity of the seas, to support a soaring population of the planet’s most consuming species, humans.
When any species over-exploits the resources of it’s niche, collapse in population follows, often to extinction. OUR problem isn’t “our” big brains, but the fact politics, desires, and decisions are driven by the most socially and environmentally retarded in the population. It isn’t the blind leading the blind, it’s the lobotomized following the anencephalic.
Given that most religions require faith without evidence, they’re all dependent on keeping yourself surrounded with like-minded people.
Therefore, could it be said religion helped to enhance social grouping, giving a safety-in-numbers advantage?
And if you don’t participate in the group’s religion, you’re ostracized…lose the advantage of the group…and therefore less likely to keep your genes in the gene pool.
churchill is right; I’ve known for years that the only reason why “first-world” industrialized nations are growing in population is immigration. Some have used this as logic to help the Third World get to full modernization, because modern, industrialized cultures tend to stabilize population. Women’s rights (including the ability to use birth control) help a lot, too.
As for fennec’s point on the evolutionary value of religion - I see you agree with E. O. Wilson’s views of sociobiology rather than Richard Dawkin’s purely “selfish gene” approach. The fact that religion – or, more accurately, religiosity and belief-driven behavior – is universally found in human culture does suggest it didn’t come from nowhere but is embedded in our genotype, but I am hesitant to go further than that. Being willing to trust others and having “Oneness motivation” – wanting to be part of a group – is easy to explain in evolutionary terms. Religion as such is not. It could be like reading – we didn’t evolve to read, but we evolved all the abilities that enable us to read. Can’t remember the term for that.
I think there’s a religious gene. If you’re RR, you’re a fundie/fanatic. If you’re Rr, you’re the average person. Goes to church, but doesn’t obsess over it. If you’re rr, you’re atheist.
(Okay, obviously I need more than 3 possibilities, so make it multi-allele or variable penetrance or something…)
I vaguely remember seeing some story many years ago about a couple of researches flying a small plane to a remote primitive tribal area, and then revisiting the area later, to find that the natives had built a fairly accurate model of the plane and were now worshipping it as something that brought beings down from the sky.
Anyone else know about this? I’ve forgotten all the details, but I’m pretty sure it was relating a real event.
seniorbullwinkle - the Chinese have had very strong belief systems, largely indistinguishable from religion in terms of dictating appropriate behavior to others and society. Confucianism was a dominant belief system for centuries; Mao inserted his own, but lifted a lot from Confucius for continuity. Still a lot around.
There’s a book called “Why We Believe What We Believe” by a scientist named Andrew Newberg. He was featured (positively) in Bill Maher’s film “Religulous”, but while Maher didn’t represent Newberg’s findings inaccurately, he was shall we say “selective” in his use of them (that is, even if you find Maher intolerable, that doesn’t mean you’d necessarily disagree with Newberg). It’s been a while I’ve read this, but here are some bullet points to the best of my recollection.
Things which we “know” (factual information based on sensory experience or logical deduction) are stored in a different area of our brains than things we “believe” (value-based information, the sense that something is “true” in essence whether or not it can be objectively verified).
What we “know” can actually be adjusted fairly easily when further experiences call our previous understanding of facts into question, but once something is a “belief” it’s almost impossible to shift it.
When our “knowledge” (which can be verified) is in conflict with our “beliefs” (which can neither be verified nor the opposite), we tend to hold tighter to our beliefs.
The brain activity of a Buddhist monk sitting in spiritual (but nontheistic) meditation is more similar to that of a nun in contemplative prayer to God than to an atheist who meditates (using the same methods as the monk) for tranquility and clarity.
Not everybody has “religious experiences”, but those who do, WHATEVER religion they practice (this includes paganism, animism, pantheism, nontheistic spiritualism, or the major brands of monotheism), exhibit basically the same brain phenomena; nobody does it “better” than anybody else.
For myself, perhaps I should say I’m agnostic in that I don’t “know” whether God (or gods, or nirvana, or whatever) exists, but then again I doubt that anyone really does. But I’m also an atheist in that I “believe” that there’s no God (or gods, etc.), no world other than the world in which we live.
A tangentially-related anecdote from a different book (“Quirkology”, I think).
A massive study was conducted to find out which classes of humanity responded most favorably to which types of jokes. Results were tabulated and broken down by gender, nationality, sexual orientation, age, education, occupation, pretty much every category you could think of.
It was no surprise that most people responded least favorably to that humor which they felt to be at their expense: Women didn’t like dumb-blonde jokes, Jews didn’t like penny-pinching Jew jokes (1), lawyers didn’t like lawyer jokes, and so on.
Adherents of different religions obviously didn’t find much to laugh about when jokes were at the expense of their beliefs, as you might imagine, but it turned out that those respondents who categorized themselves as “very religious” were the LEAST likely to find ANY of the jokes funny. This is true whether they were Moslems or Catholics or Evangelical Christians or whatever (2). One explanation floated for this finding was that, insofar as humor is to a large extent based on the confounding of expectations, the “very religious” were the most upset at having their expectations confounded.
(1) One of the experiments had to be retooled, when an anamolous response was manifesting. A study of Jewish subjects was offered a collection of Scotsmen jokes as a control, but it turned out that many of the Scottish jokes also hinged on the stereotype of penny-pinching, and the Jewish evaluators felt they hit too close to their OWN stereotype.
(2) This held true of purely silly jokes which would be unlikely to be resented by anybody, such as: There were two goldfish in a tank. On turns to the other and says “Got any idea how to drive this thing?”
Anecdotally, I’m sort of a lawyer, and I love lawyer jokes.
Of course, I was a doctor first…
Favorite: Guy walks into a bar, slaps his palm on the counter, and yells, “ALL LAWYERS ARE ASSHOLES!” A biker-type at the other end of bar jumps up and yells back, “Hey! I resent that!”
maxdog357 almost 15 years ago
It’s going to take more than a beer.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
DrCanuck, speaking on behalf of the majority of the American people, nope.
benbrilling almost 15 years ago
The press is overblowing again! Read the poll, it is on the New York Times website. Obama’s approval ratings are still VERY high, there’s just a minor blip in the numbers. And the part where the press says the public is “concerned” about aspects about the health plan: the poll also finds they are equally “concerned” about the current conditions without a plan. What they should be reporting is the public is concerned. They aren’t complaining, they are concerned.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I’m enjoying watching your discourse, but ask that you add in one other factor: The fact that the human population continues to increase geometrically.
It seems to me that no matter what happens with global warming, and despite continued advances in food production technology, we humans are going to surpass our resources – land, food, energy, water, etc.
It’s long been my contention that we’re headed to one or more of three possibilities (as mentioned by DrCanuck): Mass starvation, war over resources, and/or mass lethal disease.
Given that all the major religions fight off any attempts at slowing population growth, I just don’t see any other possible outcome.
Even if Yellowstone Park takes out half the United States in a Toba scenario, I still don’t see any other outcome.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Church, is it time for you to educate me again? Which major industrial nations already have negative population growth?
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
Dtroutma almost 15 years ago
As a “biologist”, I had a daughter, son, and vasectomy- that was 30 years ago. It was an economic, and ecologic, decision, called “planning”. At THAT time, those paying any attention knew there was a difference between population and the surface area of the planet, versus the ARABLE LAND, and production capacity of the seas, to support a soaring population of the planet’s most consuming species, humans.
When any species over-exploits the resources of it’s niche, collapse in population follows, often to extinction. OUR problem isn’t “our” big brains, but the fact politics, desires, and decisions are driven by the most socially and environmentally retarded in the population. It isn’t the blind leading the blind, it’s the lobotomized following the anencephalic.
p.s. it’s chipmunk on amphetamines.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Given that most religions require faith without evidence, they’re all dependent on keeping yourself surrounded with like-minded people.
Therefore, could it be said religion helped to enhance social grouping, giving a safety-in-numbers advantage?
And if you don’t participate in the group’s religion, you’re ostracized…lose the advantage of the group…and therefore less likely to keep your genes in the gene pool.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
churchill is right; I’ve known for years that the only reason why “first-world” industrialized nations are growing in population is immigration. Some have used this as logic to help the Third World get to full modernization, because modern, industrialized cultures tend to stabilize population. Women’s rights (including the ability to use birth control) help a lot, too. As for fennec’s point on the evolutionary value of religion - I see you agree with E. O. Wilson’s views of sociobiology rather than Richard Dawkin’s purely “selfish gene” approach. The fact that religion – or, more accurately, religiosity and belief-driven behavior – is universally found in human culture does suggest it didn’t come from nowhere but is embedded in our genotype, but I am hesitant to go further than that. Being willing to trust others and having “Oneness motivation” – wanting to be part of a group – is easy to explain in evolutionary terms. Religion as such is not. It could be like reading – we didn’t evolve to read, but we evolved all the abilities that enable us to read. Can’t remember the term for that.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I think there’s a religious gene. If you’re RR, you’re a fundie/fanatic. If you’re Rr, you’re the average person. Goes to church, but doesn’t obsess over it. If you’re rr, you’re atheist.
(Okay, obviously I need more than 3 possibilities, so make it multi-allele or variable penetrance or something…)
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Oh, sorry, Church, thought I’d already thanked you!
‘Tis good news. Now if you could just show me that the overall world population was stable or shrinking…
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Church, I will try to assume your optimism…while attempting not to push my head into the sand.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I vaguely remember seeing some story many years ago about a couple of researches flying a small plane to a remote primitive tribal area, and then revisiting the area later, to find that the natives had built a fairly accurate model of the plane and were now worshipping it as something that brought beings down from the sky.
Anyone else know about this? I’ve forgotten all the details, but I’m pretty sure it was relating a real event.
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Thanks, Senor! Not exactly what I remembered, but close enough!
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Dr. Canuck, what Fennec just said is what I was trying to say, uh, umpteen posts ago.
Gladius almost 15 years ago
Senor, The sun coming up is a repetitive, obsevable phenomenon. Tell me why, and we might have a religion.
OmqR-IV.0 almost 15 years ago
All I can comment is that I’m learning fast & furious with your discussion and I’m on holiday. Comics….who knew, eh?
Michigander almost 15 years ago
One beer for each man, woman and child in our country. That is our approximate population, by the way; 300,000,000.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
seniorbullwinkle - the Chinese have had very strong belief systems, largely indistinguishable from religion in terms of dictating appropriate behavior to others and society. Confucianism was a dominant belief system for centuries; Mao inserted his own, but lifted a lot from Confucius for continuity. Still a lot around.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
There’s a book called “Why We Believe What We Believe” by a scientist named Andrew Newberg. He was featured (positively) in Bill Maher’s film “Religulous”, but while Maher didn’t represent Newberg’s findings inaccurately, he was shall we say “selective” in his use of them (that is, even if you find Maher intolerable, that doesn’t mean you’d necessarily disagree with Newberg). It’s been a while I’ve read this, but here are some bullet points to the best of my recollection.
Things which we “know” (factual information based on sensory experience or logical deduction) are stored in a different area of our brains than things we “believe” (value-based information, the sense that something is “true” in essence whether or not it can be objectively verified).
What we “know” can actually be adjusted fairly easily when further experiences call our previous understanding of facts into question, but once something is a “belief” it’s almost impossible to shift it.
When our “knowledge” (which can be verified) is in conflict with our “beliefs” (which can neither be verified nor the opposite), we tend to hold tighter to our beliefs.
The brain activity of a Buddhist monk sitting in spiritual (but nontheistic) meditation is more similar to that of a nun in contemplative prayer to God than to an atheist who meditates (using the same methods as the monk) for tranquility and clarity.
Not everybody has “religious experiences”, but those who do, WHATEVER religion they practice (this includes paganism, animism, pantheism, nontheistic spiritualism, or the major brands of monotheism), exhibit basically the same brain phenomena; nobody does it “better” than anybody else.
For myself, perhaps I should say I’m agnostic in that I don’t “know” whether God (or gods, or nirvana, or whatever) exists, but then again I doubt that anyone really does. But I’m also an atheist in that I “believe” that there’s no God (or gods, etc.), no world other than the world in which we live.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
A tangentially-related anecdote from a different book (“Quirkology”, I think).
A massive study was conducted to find out which classes of humanity responded most favorably to which types of jokes. Results were tabulated and broken down by gender, nationality, sexual orientation, age, education, occupation, pretty much every category you could think of.
It was no surprise that most people responded least favorably to that humor which they felt to be at their expense: Women didn’t like dumb-blonde jokes, Jews didn’t like penny-pinching Jew jokes (1), lawyers didn’t like lawyer jokes, and so on.
Adherents of different religions obviously didn’t find much to laugh about when jokes were at the expense of their beliefs, as you might imagine, but it turned out that those respondents who categorized themselves as “very religious” were the LEAST likely to find ANY of the jokes funny. This is true whether they were Moslems or Catholics or Evangelical Christians or whatever (2). One explanation floated for this finding was that, insofar as humor is to a large extent based on the confounding of expectations, the “very religious” were the most upset at having their expectations confounded.
(1) One of the experiments had to be retooled, when an anamolous response was manifesting. A study of Jewish subjects was offered a collection of Scotsmen jokes as a control, but it turned out that many of the Scottish jokes also hinged on the stereotype of penny-pinching, and the Jewish evaluators felt they hit too close to their OWN stereotype.
(2) This held true of purely silly jokes which would be unlikely to be resented by anybody, such as: There were two goldfish in a tank. On turns to the other and says “Got any idea how to drive this thing?”
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Very interesting, Fritz; thanks for sharing.
Anecdotally, I’m sort of a lawyer, and I love lawyer jokes.
Of course, I was a doctor first…
Favorite: Guy walks into a bar, slaps his palm on the counter, and yells, “ALL LAWYERS ARE ASSHOLES!” A biker-type at the other end of bar jumps up and yells back, “Hey! I resent that!”
First guy says, “Why? You’re a lawyer?”
Response: “No, I’m an asshole!”
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I’m just amazed I could type “asshole” and not have it replaced with a “bleeep”.
Whenever I type “bleeep” it sure gets replaced with “bleeep”.