Your brother makes an excellent point, which is something I’ve always found amusing about atheists: despite their professed godlessness, their values have an uncanny resemblance to those of their Judeo-Christian heritage. It’s extremely difficult to find an atheist who takes his/her atheism seriously and is willing to really think “outside the book” about what kinds of morality are possible and act upon those ideas. Very few can resist the moral inertia of their culture; those who do are generally thought of as “evil”.
As an example, I have no trouble imagining a scientific civilization that is brutally unegalitarian, aggressive, atheistic, polygamous, Eugenicist, Darwinian, etc. in its values; in fact this would be my preference. As another example, I’ve always found the Star Trek Mirror Universe more appealing and more human than the normal one. But to espouse such ideas in a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values is to be labeled a “Nazi,” etc. We in the West are mentally colonized by these values from day one, even (or perhaps especially) here on this forum of rationalist moralists, and it is very difficult to find truly free thinkers who are willing to challenge the prevailing ethos.
I can likewise imagine (and could prefer) a scientific civilization that is freely polyamorous, atheistic, Eugenicist, etc.
But “brutally unegalitarian and aggressive”? Why in the seven hells would I prefer to live in such a horrid place? Historical precedent indicates that the more unegalitarian the society the most horrid it is for the majority of its people. Aggressiveness is even more likely to lead to a horrible society. My limited personal experience confirms (my one-year military service being the the worst sub-society I’ve been in).
Perhaps when you imagine such a society you imagine yourself being the boot, not the face it crushes forever? To evaluate it properly you need imagine both, giving weight according to the percentage of the crushers vs the crushees.
I can likewise imagine (and could prefer) a scientific civilization that is freely polyamorous, atheistic, Eugenicist, etc.
Scientific civilization that actually understands science of biology would steer clear of eugenics.
For pure pragmatic reasons—breeding better (whatewer value of “better” you choose) humans would last at least several centuries—and the problem is that you do not know what traits would be needed then.
Here is one actual historical example of human breeding. Had Frederick II and other kings of Prussia continued the work, Germany could well have a race of eight foot tall soldiers—just in time for WWI.
Your brother makes an excellent point, which is something I’ve always found amusing about atheists: despite their professed godlessness, their values have an uncanny resemblance to those of their Judeo-Christian heritage.
Not many atheists and secularists are willing to turn the other cheek when someone hits them, not look lustfully at the opposite sex, give everything to the poor and care not for the future. Neither are many Christians.
As an example, I have no trouble imagining a scientific civilization that is brutally unegalitarian, aggressive, atheistic, polygamous, Eugenicist, Darwinian, etc. in its values; in fact this would be my preference.
Look at The Domination. This would fit your vision better than the Sith.
Not for rebellion’s sake so much as for the sake of survival and power. As one who enjoys the benefits of modernity, I find it perplexing that modernity has become something that is, from any rational Darwinian perspective, a form of cultural suicide. What I’m looking for is a civilization whose prophets have more resemblance to Nietzsche than to Jesus or his secular disciple, Marx. I just don’t see much future for non-Nietzschean modernity; it is a dying culture of empty cathedrals and hospital-tombs. If secular people continue to abort themselves into extinction, the future will belong to the fundamentalists. I see nothing particularly rational about this!
Admittedly, it’s not atheistic or eugenic, but do the above listed elements contribute positively in your evaluation of Somalia as opposed to e.g. Sweden, which is less agressive and more egalitarian?
Not for rebellion’s sake so much as for the sake of survival and power. As one who enjoys the benefits of modernity, I find it perplexing that modernity has become something that is, from any rational Darwinian perspective, a form of cultural suicide. What I’m looking for is a civilization whose prophets have more resemblance to Nietzsche than to Jesus or his secular disciple, Marx. I just don’t see much future for non-Nietzschean modernity; it is a dying culture of empty cathedrals and hospital-tombs. If secular people continue to abort themselves into extinction, the future will belong to the fundamentalists. I see nothing particularly rational about this!
Strawman has a point. The Gods of human rights are cruel and inhuman (not the same as inhumane), they demand a great sacrifice. A sacrifice of genetic legacy, on a scale that wipes out its carriers, at least all their human carriers. Only way they can keep relevance is for us to spread their worship to every corner of the world.
Remember how infectious diseases are just “kind “enough to the host to ensure their own survival? With better hygiene less lethal strains of Cholera prevail. Mass media, the internet, high literacy and the support of powerful states … I think this qualifies as poor hygiene for the outdated biological tribal brain exposed to all the (occasionally toxic!) memes of 7 billion other vulnerable brains. The values can drift to be more genetically lethal to humans, since this dosen’t impede their spread. If this line of thinking is a valid analogy, considering current trends, what we see today may be only the beginning of their ever growing maladaptivity for the hosts.
Your brother makes an excellent point, which is something I’ve always found amusing about atheists: despite their professed godlessness, their values have an uncanny resemblance to those of their Judeo-Christian heritage. It’s extremely difficult to find an atheist who takes his/her atheism seriously and is willing to really think “outside the book” about what kinds of morality are possible and act upon those ideas. Very few can resist the moral inertia of their culture; those who do are generally thought of as “evil”.
As an example, I have no trouble imagining a scientific civilization that is brutally unegalitarian, aggressive, atheistic, polygamous, Eugenicist, Darwinian, etc. in its values; in fact this would be my preference. As another example, I’ve always found the Star Trek Mirror Universe more appealing and more human than the normal one. But to espouse such ideas in a society dominated by Judeo-Christian values is to be labeled a “Nazi,” etc. We in the West are mentally colonized by these values from day one, even (or perhaps especially) here on this forum of rationalist moralists, and it is very difficult to find truly free thinkers who are willing to challenge the prevailing ethos.
I can likewise imagine (and could prefer) a scientific civilization that is freely polyamorous, atheistic, Eugenicist, etc.
But “brutally unegalitarian and aggressive”? Why in the seven hells would I prefer to live in such a horrid place? Historical precedent indicates that the more unegalitarian the society the most horrid it is for the majority of its people. Aggressiveness is even more likely to lead to a horrible society. My limited personal experience confirms (my one-year military service being the the worst sub-society I’ve been in).
Perhaps when you imagine such a society you imagine yourself being the boot, not the face it crushes forever? To evaluate it properly you need imagine both, giving weight according to the percentage of the crushers vs the crushees.
Scientific civilization that actually understands science of biology would steer clear of eugenics.
For pure pragmatic reasons—breeding better (whatewer value of “better” you choose) humans would last at least several centuries—and the problem is that you do not know what traits would be needed then.
Here is one actual historical example of human breeding. Had Frederick II and other kings of Prussia continued the work, Germany could well have a race of eight foot tall soldiers—just in time for WWI.
Not many atheists and secularists are willing to turn the other cheek when someone hits them, not look lustfully at the opposite sex, give everything to the poor and care not for the future. Neither are many Christians.
Look at The Domination. This would fit your vision better than the Sith.
Or maybe no one has a sufficient thirst fo rebellion-for-rebellions sake to be attracted by your vision of society.
Not for rebellion’s sake so much as for the sake of survival and power. As one who enjoys the benefits of modernity, I find it perplexing that modernity has become something that is, from any rational Darwinian perspective, a form of cultural suicide. What I’m looking for is a civilization whose prophets have more resemblance to Nietzsche than to Jesus or his secular disciple, Marx. I just don’t see much future for non-Nietzschean modernity; it is a dying culture of empty cathedrals and hospital-tombs. If secular people continue to abort themselves into extinction, the future will belong to the fundamentalists. I see nothing particularly rational about this!
I would like to point out that it was a Judeo-Christian culture that developed modernity in the first place.
Which modern day community would you say comes closest to your hopeful vision of a future civilization?
Somalia seems to fit your criteria of polygamy, aggressiveness, unequality, etc
Admittedly, it’s not atheistic or eugenic, but do the above listed elements contribute positively in your evaluation of Somalia as opposed to e.g. Sweden, which is less agressive and more egalitarian?
Strawman has a point. The Gods of human rights are cruel and inhuman (not the same as inhumane), they demand a great sacrifice. A sacrifice of genetic legacy, on a scale that wipes out its carriers, at least all their human carriers. Only way they can keep relevance is for us to spread their worship to every corner of the world.
Remember how infectious diseases are just “kind “enough to the host to ensure their own survival? With better hygiene less lethal strains of Cholera prevail. Mass media, the internet, high literacy and the support of powerful states … I think this qualifies as poor hygiene for the outdated biological tribal brain exposed to all the (occasionally toxic!) memes of 7 billion other vulnerable brains. The values can drift to be more genetically lethal to humans, since this dosen’t impede their spread. If this line of thinking is a valid analogy, considering current trends, what we see today may be only the beginning of their ever growing maladaptivity for the hosts.
Following a syphilitic madman like prophet and divine being? Had been tried before :-P