Kids And Happiness

[pcprogrammer]

I reject cultural relativism, (cultures are objectively not equal), but I can see their point. I wish governments in rich countries such as this one, would work towards preserving the culture of their native peoples, rather than erasing it.

So your point of view is that it was ok for our forefathers to force our ways upon those tribes that did things their way and erase their culture, but now that our own culture is in decline due to immigration of people from those same countries that our forefathers tried to overtake and convert, it should be preserved by law?

You see some hypocrisy in that?

[Zero999]

I would appreciate references to societies so grand that they were "colored" by Western winners and historians. What definition of "civilized" do you wish to use? Nations of the past were "civilized" and enslaved their neighbors and sold them to traders. Given this is subjective, maybe consider expressing your viewpoints with more objective terms.  Even the term "Westerner" is subjective.

True, for me the term "Westerner" is a globalization for what is today's "modern" world.

One could say that just living a somewhat peaceful life can be called "civilized", and that entails not harming others with your beliefs. And by that standard basically nobody is civilized, because we all act based on our own believes and like to push that believe upon others. Sure it may improve on the others life, but does that give you the right to do so.

Throughout the ages there have been "civilizations" like for instance the Maya's who lived by their ideas of civilization, and yes that included human sacrifice to the gods etc. But who are we to say that they were not civilized.

Same applies to tribes Marco wrote about. Sure they have their own ideas about civilization, that in our eyes is not worthy. But who are we to judge based on our own history of pillaging, enslaving, exploitation, etc.

We humans like to control everything in our surroundings and don't seem to be able to find balance.

And what is wrong with "pink"?  I like pink, but prefer orange. Can I have orange goggles? Where is the far west, the middle west? 

How about rose colored then. Come on, it is an expression and you know it.

Why is this person brainwashed, and you're not brainwashed with your rhetoric?  None of this makes sense.

Because of his beliefs that the current civilization with all the technical advancement is the best there is, and that is questionable.

When it comes to it we are all brainwashed in one way or another. I won't deny that I have biases too.

Does this make kids happy?

This thread is not about kids being happy, it is supposed to be about having them making you happy, and with you I mean the person in question having a kid.

As always a problem with written forum based discussions it is very hard to bring across the meaning of your thoughts, so take from it what you will.

What you're talking about is cultural relativism, which is nonsense.

It appears as though what you're saying is, a society who has developed cures for the most deadly diseases, eliminated hunger and been too the moon, is no better than one who takes a crap in the woods.

If you're going to take that view, then one might as well say, a child's drawing of a stick man is no better than the Mona Lisa and some kids banging pots and pans and wailing isn't better music than Pachelbel's Canon.

Opinion doesn't come into it.

That is your opinion.

To be civilised, a society needs to have all virtually eliminated abject poverty, have low infant mortality rate, an educated population and have access to all of the technologies required for participating in today's economy. This is an objective test, rather than subjective.

Again your acceptance of some global opinion.

I put forward facts, which can be objectively measured, not opinion.

And lets put it to the test in how society in our countries is up to that opinion. Poverty still there and according to news feeds increasing. Education, again based on news feed in decline.

There is hardly any abject povery in the West. 99.9% of the population have access to adequate food, shelter, sanitation, along with things which are considered to be  luxuries in less developed countries such as reliable electricity. When the media talk about poverty here, they mean relative poverty, which is still a life of luxuary compared to the world's poor.

It appears as though you're taking from an ideological perspective, rather than a rational one.

Nothing to do with ideology, just looking at the human species as it is. And the outcome is that as a species we are bad in a lot of ways and far from real civilization, where we all live in peace and comfort and do not harm each other.

And richer countries are generally closer to that, compared to poorer ones. That doesn't mean they're perfect.

I reject cultural relativism, (cultures are objectively not equal), but I can see their point. I wish governments in rich countries such as this one, would work towards preserving the culture of their native peoples, rather than erasing it.

So your point of view is that it was ok for our forefathers to force our ways upon those tribes that did things their way and erase their culture, but now that our own culture is in decline due to immigration of people from those same countries that our forefathers tried to overtake and convert, it should be preserved by law?

You see some hypocrisy in that?

You're now putting words in my mouth.

If these poor people want to keep their primative lifestyles then why do so many of them want to move to richer countries?

EDIT:
Much of what you and Marco are talking about relates to uncontacted peoples, which are a different case, to those who live in poor countries and are receiving aid.

Arguments can be made, both for and against. As has been mentioned, there's the risk of dieases and violent conflict, along with the ethical question of whether it's acceptable to take action, which could erase another culture.

On the other hand, cultures have come and gone since the dawn of humanity. More advanced societies have defeated less advanced societies. If I lived in an undeveloped society and witnessed the horrors associated with it, in ignorance of the possibilitiy of a more comfortable life, then I'm not sure I'd be happy, if I discovered that there were solutions for the hardships I had endured, that  my wife needn't have died during childbirth and my many siblings who died from preventatable diseases could have been cured etc. yet no one told me about them, even though they knew about my suffering.

The idea we should protect uncontacted tribes is a bit paternalistic, like saving an endangered species of animal,  perhaps because they live like animals, whether one is willing to admit the latter to themselves, or not, because it offends modern sensitivities.

I'm ambivalent when it comes to the idea of contacting vs not contacting tribes; I can see it from both sides.

[Smokey]

This thread sure took an interesting turn... Do we now split this into another one so we can get back to babies?

Well.. I'm always down for a detour...

I feel like we need to treat cultures like we treat morality, so contextually, and with a full understanding of everything we presently know about how the world works (and how the world worked when those cultures were relevant).  If something like a Sam Harris type moral landscape exists, then those same concepts can be used for the cultural landscape (since they are essentially the same thing anyway).  ie we can make statements, given our present vantage point, about what is "better" and "worse" given all that we now know about how the world works.  And always try to collectively keep moving in the direction of higher "better" landscape.  This is not a deontological objective evaluation, but a subjective one that takes all modern knowledge and cultural advancement into account.  When more knowledge is attained it must be re-evaluated, including what we consider "better".  Pretending that because there is no global absolute scale that all things are equivalent is silly and not helpful (and almost no one actually believes that).  But looking at things in context in enlightening. 

What that ends up meaning is just because something culturally existed, or exists, does not mean that it represents what we would now consider "good" (or even acceptable) from our location on the cultural landscape.  We can appreciate and respect a thing from a historically cultural context, but it does not mean that everything historically cultural deserves respect and preservation and deference in the modern context.  What may have been culturally progressive and morally righteous historically can now be backwards and ethically problematic given more information and understanding of the world.  Both of those things could be true at the same time and we can at the same time respect historically and reject it today. 

Apart from a historical anthropological interest, I have a hard time saying we should be carving out a space where we intentionally persist and defer to "legacy" cultures and cultural traditions for their own sake.  I'm pretty sure it's not hard for most of us to find examples of historical cultures (either extinct or still around) that contradict what we presently consider "good" on issues like women, sacrifice, slavery, mysticism, violence, governance, etc.  Those things may have served an important purpose in the historical context, and we can appreciate that, but they are no longer acceptable now given what we know.  There are a lot of people who make noises about honoring this culture or that but not many of them are willing to actually give up their modern world to go live like that, because they are internally making similar modern judgements of "better" as the rest of us.

Silly example:
The Mayans were displaced by the Spanish.  We can look at them as a "historically marginalized group" or something of that nature and from an anthropological perspective appreciate what they accomplished as a culture and acknowledge what happened to them.  But I'm pretty sure if a group of people showed up and identified as fundamentalist neo-Mayans and demanded some part of their historical cultural lands back so they can accurately recreate ancient Mayan culture (complete with ritual sacrifice of children in exchange for rain or fertility or whatnot).  I would hope we could all agree that is not acceptable and reject what is fundamentally a step backwards (downhill) on the cultural (and moral) landscape.  Granting such a request rights no wrongs, and moves nothing forward.

[EEVblog]

This thread sure took an interesting turn... Do we now split this into another one so we can get back to babies?

Kids are cool. Fight me.

[Smokey]

This thread sure took an interesting turn... Do we now split this into another one so we can get back to babies?

Kids are cool. Fight me.

No way.. it's 3 (you and two kids) against 1 (just me). 

[EEVblog]

No way.. it's 3 (you and two kids) against 1 (just me).

You forgot Mrs EEVblog. I wouldn't mess with her.

[Smokey]

No way.. it's 3 (you and two kids) against 1 (just me).

You forgot Mrs EEVblog. I wouldn't mess with her.

In that case I get to bring Ms. Smokey (who would probably be super confused why I'm asking her to fight an Australian family).

[Marco]

It appears as though what you're saying is, a society who has developed cures for the most deadly diseases, eliminated hunger and been too the moon, is no better than one who takes a crap in the woods.

In and of themselves I think those qualities are irrelevant for assessing the value of society, only when they increase the average enjoyment of life (for all conscious creatures) do I consider it superior.

We aren't really getting closer to that, especially for other animals, though maybe AI will create an ethical singularity ... preferably with humans surviving it.

[soldar]

You forgot Mrs EEVblog. I wouldn't mess with her.

Ha ha. I still have and regularly use that original Garmin GPS receiver. I carry it with me in all my travels and download the tracks to my computer. I have saved my travel tracks for over 20 years.

My Mrs is better looking though. And I say this in all sincerity and not because she happens to be here reading what I type.

[Zero999]

It appears as though what you're saying is, a society who has developed cures for the most deadly diseases, eliminated hunger and been too the moon, is no better than one who takes a crap in the woods.

In and of themselves I think those qualities are irrelevant for assessing the value of society, only when they increase the average enjoyment of life (for all conscious creatures) do I consider it superior.

We aren't really getting closer to that, especially for other animals, though maybe AI will create an ethical singularity ... preferably with humans surviving it.

I've appended an edit to my previous post, rather than making a new one. The intention is to provide a bit of clarification and context to my points.

What so you think the likes of rats and mice should be preserved the same as humanity itself? You do know that poorer societies tend to treat animals less humanely than richer ones?

Nature is amoral, indifferent to suffering and whether one species survives or not. We has humans have morals and most of us want to preserve our species and improve our society and technology to maximise our over all quality of life.

In order to do the above, we need to be having enough children to sustain this, otherwise things will deteriorate rapidly.

[Marco]

What so you think the likes of rats and mice should be preserved the same as humanity itself?

I think preservation only has sentimental value and must be subservient to ethics in the end. Which includes humanity.

Should we keep some kind of idealized immortal rats/humans living in perpetual bliss, without the instincts/freedom to impose suffering on others, in a global garden of Eden? Maybe, I'll leave the details to the AI.

You do know that poorer societies tend to treat animals less humanely than richer ones?

They lack our ability of scale though.

Nature is amoral, indifferent to suffering and whether one species survives or not.

I'm anti-nature.

We has humans have morals and most of us want to preserve our species and improve our society and technology to maximise our over all quality of life.

Really? I see more use of it to force ideologies and rituals down each others throats and resource competition. I think humanity is beyond peak ethics.

In order to do the above, we need to be having enough children to sustain this, otherwise things will deteriorate rapidly.

An AI is fine too.