The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Brings me to the question - "Why human advancement at all?*". Is it that happiness is directly proportional to human advancement?
On the other hand, I feel that happiness increases as the number of wants decreases. The lesser I possess, the happier I am. May sound philosophical, but such an idea works for me. Maybe age has taught this lesson - my age is 54.
*Yes, advancement in medicine is needed, to find remedies for modern day diseases. However, it looks like with the advancement in medicine, the types and complexity of diseases are also advancing - almost like the newer diseases are stubbornly saying "I will see how you cure me".
Are we getting more wise, or just more knowledgeable?
Neither, we just have easier access to more knowledge than before.
- all knowledge once lived in peoples heads, discovered by accident / trial "what happens if I eat these berries"
- then they drew/wrote it down because people forget "was it the red or the blue ones that killed my first wife",
- then those writings were shared.. Don't eat the yellow ones - unless....
throw in a few more years of sharing, also introduce
- copying: started by hand ... now electronic,
- travel: started as walking .. air planes (space travel not so useful for this purpose yet)
- knowledge repositories: village book .. libraries .. internet.
Yes, new knowledge is being added, as the trial (experimentation) method has itself benefited from the above. (long ago they knew and shared shaped glass made small things look bigger, some guy invented the microscope, shared the idea, other people improved them and shared and ...)
last time we only saw dinosaurs chasing us around, now we can see atoms (and figured how to throw the ones that go "bang!" at them pesky dinosaurs).
Knowledge: We don't have more as individuals, just access to more. i.e. People weren't stupider lets say 2000 years ago, they just had less recorded knowledge from others to refer too.
BTW: Consider that carefully with regard to what they DID write at the time.
Wisdom: is just application of knowledge, having access to more of the latter makes the former appear better. doctors, rocket scientists ... even consider last time cooks had to guess/or try what happens when they found a new color berry, now they can look it up and less people accidentally die, unless...
even consider last time cooks had to guess/or try what happens when they found a new color berry, now they can look it up and less people accidentally die, unless...
They didn't gamble with their lives like that.
You find a new berry (or mushroom, leaf or root), you crush it and put it on your skin (arm, leg). If nothing happens within a day, you do the same with your lips. Still nothing happens, you keep a tiny bit in your mouth. If that doesn't cause a reaction, than maybe it is edible.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Crap, now I'm breaking my own promise, but this is from a strictly theoretical point of view from my first response.
The gun itself is a tool, and the user needs to consider the consequences of his/her usage.
The constructor and lawmakers has a completely different responsibility in predicting how the tool might or will be used.
There are a lot of laws I consider stupid and that they shouldn't need to exist, but I also realize that people are assholes...
All I'm saying is I account for the accidental discharges of said firearm in terms of it's neutrality. I don't think a car is neutral. I don't think anything that grants power to an individual is neutral since by default it instills the user with additional responsibility. Just where I sit. Your position is understandable even if we don't agree. Just clarifying where I'm coming from.
This is why I still enjoy reading the classics and good literature.
Sometimes wisdom can only be communicated through metaphor and analogy rather than simply through instant access to huge volumes of information.
Aesop's fables, fairy tales and ancient Greek and Roman literature(originally songs and poems), even the Bible if you are that way inclined, do a pretty good job of cautioning against the belief that knowledge or technical mastery is enough to lead a good life.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Knowledge has always been in close relationship with Technology. Wisdom is always a close follow up. You cannot have a wisdom without knowing what's the potential of that knowledge. so wisdom is always a shadow of the knowledge.
Most importantly, knowledge is always a neutral thing. Wisdom comes after how the users use/misuse the knowledge.
Consider the knowledge of making fire. Wisdom came a step later realizing how it can destruction or make food more hygienic/tasty. This knowledge which led to advancement happened because of the majoritian wisdom about it.
If that time cavemen decided to play with fire and start burning everything for fun, then world perhaps would have ended.
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
What is missing in the equation is morality. To have wisdom requires having morals as well as knowledge. Wisdom is the good (or correct) and wise use of knowledge.
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
I tend to take the view I came away with after reading the Babylonian Talmud, and that is that morality is a facet of wisdom. That is to say, the most effective choices are also the most moral choices, but human morality itself is wanting, which is why it imposes a different way of computing morals through microcontracts.
It's an interesting way to approach it anyway. It's not for everyone. I'm not even jewish, but I stumbled onto this and it has appealed to me ever since.
I am currently looking for a gig, preferably remote since my medical situation has evolved to a 'work from home if possible'. I hate to sound biased, and I try my best not to be, but I would really like to talk to recruiters that have some modicum of knowledge speaking the English language. Caller IDs say they are anywhere from Wisconsin to Texas to Alabama, but very few of them can make themselves understood to the point I feel comfortable making any kind of agreements over the phone.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long