Scientist seeks to banish evil, boost empathy

Originally posted by Chesster

Leave the genes to G-d,

How about leave the genes to nature, as a firm disbeliever in god, I don't find it desirable to attempt to "fix" humanity by leaving it in the hands of some entity that can't be touched, seen or talked to.

That said, OP, I don't believe there is "evil", as defined by some supernatural manifestation. There are evil people, but evil is subjective anyway. A lack of empathy is not "evil", were that the case, it would mean I wish to share all my pain with another (assuming I had any pain, I dont) or, in the case of this "professor" would EXPECT that another should share in that pain. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? It's swapping one "evil" for another, and the only common factor is, that's right, human nature. Then the "evil" would be in the expectation.

Life is full of unintended consequences, let's see if we can avoid the consequence. In nature, there IS no right or wrong, only consequences.

You should seriously watch Equilibrium before you actually hope for some utopian society. "Good, even if it kills you"

Nice thread though, very interesting

Originally posted by Chesster
As someone who is evil, I can honestly say who is he to try to change me. I like being evil. Why don;t they go mess with gay genes, or happy genes, or any other genes. People should leave genes to mother nature, even if it is trying to wipe evil. Messing with genes is more evil than evil itself.

You're stupid man.
I hope you fall on a pile of poodle and they cuddle you to death

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


This is an area that interests me very much. (Altruism and its opposite) You dont really need to isolate the gene or genes responsible. You could use the principle of natural selection to eliminate individuals who exhibit the qualities of "evil."

But we dont.

Most of the studies I have seen on Altruism conclude that you have to discriminate against those who prey on the altruistic, but who do not reciprocate altruism. In other words, you need to be cruel to be kind. If you do not eliminate what are called "cheaters" (those who prey on the altruism of others but do not reciprocate it) the evolutionary gain to them is so great they quickly come to dominate a population and in many simulations of this, evolutionarily, the cheaters will always overrun the altruists UNLESS the altruists begin to discriminate against them.

Good thread.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


The fact that he believes in evil means he is not a scientist...

Just like in the Donnie Darko scene where Donnie & Gretchen are trying to convince the class that nurture should only be encouraged by positive images. They didn't stop that perhaps sometimes people need evil as a way of developing. To make decisions later on in life, social interraction, and the like.
It sounds like Equilibrium where were going to be drugged not to feel anything but acceptance in the actions of those around us. Good OR bad.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


The fact that he believes in evil means he is not a scientist...

And the fact that you believe he believes in evil shows that you didnt read the article before blessing us with your wisdom.

www.jpost.com...

"We've inherited this word.. and we use it to express our abhorrence when people do awful things, usually acts of cruelty, but I don't think it's anything more than another word for doing something bad. And as a scientist that doesn't seem to me to be much of an explanation. So I've been looking for an alternative -- we need a new theory of human cruelty."

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


The fact that he believes in evil means he is not a scientist...

And the fact that you believe he believes in evil shows that you didnt read the article before blessing us with your wisdom.

www.jpost.com...

"We've inherited this word.. and we use it to express our abhorrence when people do awful things, usually acts of cruelty, but I don't think it's anything more than another word for doing something bad. And as a scientist that doesn't seem to me to be much of an explanation. So I've been looking for an alternative -- we need a new theory of human cruelty."

You are hilarious... even in your quote he says that... he uses the term "bad"... same difference...

Bad vs Good

Evil Vs Good

Cool vs Uncool... none of it exists but in our minds!

He is not a scientist... Scientists are not deluded by subjective paradigms of duality

A scientist realizes that it's all in the mind and all fed by fear which originates in the ID and is a survival mechanism... yes when I am cruel to you, it is not evil.. simply my own fears and insecurities becoming manifest...

As long as we are mortal, you will never remove that....

decided to rethink this one through....

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


The fact that he believes in evil means he is not a scientist...

And the fact that you believe he believes in evil shows that you didnt read the article before blessing us with your wisdom.

www.jpost.com...

"We've inherited this word.. and we use it to express our abhorrence when people do awful things, usually acts of cruelty, but I don't think it's anything more than another word for doing something bad. And as a scientist that doesn't seem to me to be much of an explanation. So I've been looking for an alternative -- we need a new theory of human cruelty."

You are hilarious... even in your quote he says that... he uses the term "bad"... same difference...

Bad vs Good

Evil Vs Good

Cool vs Uncool... none of it exists but in our minds!

He is not a scientist... Scientists are not deluded by subjective paradigms of duality

A scientist realizes that it's all in the mind and all fed by fear which originates in the ID and is a survival mechanism... yes when I am cruel to you, it is not evil.. simply my own fears and insecurities becoming manifest...

As long as we are mortal, you will never remove that....

edit on 8-5-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)

I honestly don't know if those "self-help" narcissistic-laden books have brain washed you so, but your reasoning is full of holes.

You're selectively choosing what is just "in the mind" and what isn't. Entirely illogical.

You're rationalizing and choosing to deny key terminology which has done great benefit for our species.

My only explanation is that this "empowers" you to keep erring, without feeling guilt.

That's rather pathetic and quite detrimental towards society.

I must say it, shame on you!

reply to post by unityemissions


Once again .. hilarious... I'm not a christian... but you say these terms of duality have helped us?

Yet in the very ancient book known as Genesis the entire fall of humanity occurred after allowing the knowledge of good and evil to enter our minds.

You see when someone believes in these terms, they judge themselves in these terms... if the judgement be harsh enough it will actually stigmatize the human in to doing MORE of the same behavior...

This isn't narcissistic ... it begets the very behavior this man wishes to attain through some other means...

And likewise, if a man is convinced of his own goodness, he will commit horrible acts because of this sense of justification

first there were shackles... then there were laws... and now they want to try to solve this dilemma through gene manipulation when masters have known for centuries exactly how to get beyond this...

This was the Axial age was all about... have you ever read about that? The Golden rule was to treat others how you want to be treated.... in order to do that you can't be deluded by good or evil, because then you will grow resentment and justification for all sorts of atrocities... inquisitions, ethnic cleansing, and other times of annihilation...

Calling it good or bad is the most primitive form of dealing with the world that man has... Believing in Good and Evil is like believing in Gods.... primitive and creative forms of attempting to solve a problem.... a problem that exists only in the mind....

"Am I evil?
Yes I am!
Am I evil?
I am man!"
-- Metallica

reply to post by Kandinsky


Actually, if someone gets aggressive/violent after drinking, social pressure, whatever, the root cause is still inner misery or deep-rooted negativity, the source of which is different for all of us, but the outcome is the same - there is a seed of negativity (hatred/anger/jealousy/envy/self-pity/you name it) with deep-roots in your internal system.

Alcohol or groupthink removes your inhibitions, so all these deep-rooted negativities come to the foreground and manifest in your words and acts. However, if - just for this thread - let us say the guy has been given this empathy booster...well, even if his inhibitions are down, and his inner toxins are coming out for all to experience, the empathy booster would instantly clockwork-orange him i.e. it would make him feel the pain the other person is going to feel the second he says his cruel words or hits that person. If they feel that, their inner system will make them pause...because it would be like hitting themselves or a loved one (this is Empathy). So they are far less likely to Act on their Inner Urge.

Of course, this doesn't solve the root problem, that of permanently lodged negative toxins in most people - that requires meditation and/or some other techniques to get rid of permanently...but as an immediate solution, I reckon an empathy booster could only help reduce a lot of the strife going on in the world today.

Now, as far as Equilibrium goes (a great film, and what a fight scene!!!), yes, in a vaguely related way, if we are all overly empathetic and therefore too scared to move left or right and therefore basically walking zombies, maybe that's not so good - but in small doses for proven aggressors of a highly violent type, this empathy booster may not be so bad!!

My 2 cents

Originally posted by rainychica

Now, as far as Equilibrium goes (a great film, and what a fight scene!!!), yes, in a vaguely related way, if we are all overly empathetic and therefore too scared to move left or right and therefore basically walking zombies, maybe that's not so good - but in small doses for proven aggressors of a highly violent type, this empathy booster may not be so bad!!

My 2 cents

Hiya chica,

Interesting response, I'll say that, but let me expound a bit on my correlation such that it may not necessarily be as vague as it was intended.

I would imagine, were something of this nature to be implemented, that the intention not be one of fright with empathy as the conveyor, but total awareness. But, human nature would get in the way in that, groups of people would seek to retain their "natural" human tendencies yet, be in control of those who are otherwise overly empathetic. ie., Nefarious use.

In this instance, there is no practical difference between Hitler's vision of the perfect society and the professors, just a different mechanism. Instead of all blonde hair and blue eyes, now it's all empathetic. Then what happens, does it become a crime NOT to be empathetic? If I don't share in your sorrow or your joy, am I now a criminal?

You're right, it may NOT be such a bad thing to address some of the problems in the world, I will agree wholeheartedly, but a forced option is a forced option. Who knows maybe forced IS in fact the only way to go if the world at large believes it to be the best solution, as, I doubt highly you can find any mental trigger that would cause everyone to spontaneously acquiesce to this higher plane of existence.

In my head I tend to put things in their easiest form, and to me, inevitably it boils down to is the cost worth the benefit? I'm not quite sure yet.

reply to post by HunkaHunka



Hunka, seriously, sometimes, just try to stop being an attention seeker, we're talkin about something serious, show more interest, in a more coherent way.

Originally posted by Conciliatore
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Hunka, seriously, sometimes, just try to stop being an attention seeker, we're talkin about something serious, show more interest, in a more coherent way.

While I'm sure Hunka could have been somewhat less flippant about his original response, in a way he is right.

A scientist is not afforded the luxury of ascribing to any particular theology, lest they cannot call themselves a scientist.

Depending on the particular interpretation of "evil" is what makes all the difference though. This is why I had responded that I don't believe in evil as a supernatural manifestation. However, if evil can be categorized somehow as a physiologic process, and one is attempting to isolate genes or even chemicals that regulate that process or hamper it, then clearly, he who is attempting to providing they are not using religion as a means by which to guide their results (dogma runs counter-intuitive to science), then I think he can call himself a scientist.

So, depending on how this professor describes (in his own mind) "evil" is what makes all the difference in the world.

reply to post by alphabetaone


There is no abstract or absolute evil... there are things that stop life, cause pain etc... but these are all aspects of life... we can no more remove these than we can stop our system being devoured by a black hole... no matter what heights we reach in technology, we will not remove insecurity, and thus will never remove what most folks term "evil"

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Right, which makes it all come down to semantics. If one ascribes pain to "evil" or death to "evil" then it becomes it to them.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

A scientist realizes that it's all in the mind and all fed by fear which originates in the ID and is a survival mechanism... yes when I am cruel to you, it is not evil.. simply my own fears and insecurities becoming manifest...

As long as we are mortal, you will never remove that....

You are assuming that there is no logical, rational way to use the term "bad" and "good." Scientists are not philosophers, and they tend not to concern themselves with absolute concepts like "absolute good" etc. And for your information, the vast majority of science DOES deal with dualism. Only some branches of physics really explore the possibility that things are not "this or that." Life/Death is a dualistic concept, for instance, and you cannot tell me medicine does not deal with and operate within that dualistic framework.

And in the context this person is exploring, human behavior, you can create parameters for "good and bad."
Humans are social animals, and it is our willingness to cooperate as a group that has led, primarily, to our success as a species. In that framework, you can say that "anti social" behavior is "bad," and "social cooperative behavior good." And, not surprisingly, the sets of rules that have historically been used by societies, religion and law, both do say that pro-social behavior = good, and anti social behavior = bad.
Just like medicine can say that "anti social" behavior of your own cells, (in cancer for instance, or auto immune disease) is "bad."

You seem to be mixing some custom blend of spirituality and science that overlooks the way we in fact do evaluate things, and discuss things, simply to criticize the guy.

For those of you that still read books, I've just started it and it's a very good read.

Originally posted by alphabetaone

A scientist is not afforded the luxury of ascribing to any particular theology, lest they cannot call themselves a scientist.

What does theology have to do with anything? Science can look at morality and attempt to discern if there is some science based reason for the religious rules. Why can they not? And how is looking at it and analyzing it ascribing to it?

In fact, religion IS based on a type of science. Although most scientists and religious people do not recognize it. Judaism, (and others) for instance is clearly a set of rules for playing the game of group selection and winning. "Moral" in that religion, is doing what strengthens the group from within, (pro social behavior, certain health prescriptions, maintaining only one God so infighting doesnt occur, etc) and "immoral" is doing what harms the group or yourself as a member of that group.

Too many people get so caught up on the face value of religion that they fail to see its function. And if you DO see its function, you CAN make "scientific" claims about what is "good" or "bad" within that framework.