Do you know what "double cones" means? Does it have twice as many cones in its retina as most mammals? (Not that would make sense, since different mammals have wildly different numbers of cones.)
Absolutely brilliant! The Marsh family voiced their opinion about the US #elections and especially Donald #Trump with an adaptation of Bohemian Rhapsody by #Queen. The lyrics are totally spot on! https://youtu.be/YY_8WzcHqMQ #music #politics
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Bleisatz am abend: Mit den Bildern von Valencia vor den Augen und eingedenk der Statements von Dürr, Söder und Linnemann, die in den letzten […] …
Technisch durchaus machbar, habe ich aus technischem Interesse auch schon gemacht. Jedoch stehen bei Aufklebern das was marktüblich für Aufkleber bezahlt wird und das, was ich rein zeitlich pro Stück nehmen müsste in keinem positiven Verhältnis. Zum Verständnis: Ich drucke hier aus reiner Liebhaberei in meiner Freizeit von Hand auf historischen Maschinen, die nicht maschinell angetrieben werden.
ich finde es total schön, wieviel Herzblut du in die Sache steckst. Meine Mutter war Druckerin und hat Bleisatz und Offset gelernt. Wir haben einige Setzkästen zu Hause und sogar einige Lettern. Ich hätte niemals gedacht, dass damit heutzutage in irgendeiner Form noch überhaupt ein Auskommen möglich ist. Und dann bist da du, der ständig über Schriftformen postest, die mir alle ähnlich scheinen, deren Unterschiede ich nur ahnen kann und die einfach nur dann wirken, wenn man die in die
richtige Aussage packt. Ich weiß nicht, wie vielen es ähnlich geht. Meine Schriftartskills beschränken sich auf MS Word und ich hatte nie das Gefühl, mir fehlte irgendwas. Was du hier machst, ist so fucking high end, dass man niederknien möchte, aber auch absolut keinerlei Möglichkeit hat, irgendwas sinnvolles zu deinem Post beizutragen, außer ein blödes Like oder so. Sorry. Wollte das mal sagen. Bin aber betrunken.
According to evolutionary game theory, there must necessarily always be a nonzero number of "hawks" (evil people) in any society.
To me, this conclusion implies that the best we can hope to do is control their malevolent influence.
The obvious solution to this problem is to make laws that crack down severely on malevolent behavior, but the problems with this solution are that (a) it is nigh impossible to anticipate a priori what exactly those behaviors will be, and (b) the malevolent, some of whom are intelligent, will figure out how to make those laws work in their favor.
The other, perhaps more realistic, thing we can do is to minimize the amount of power any one individual can wield in society. This is at least related to the original idea behind Democracy as a form of government.
But to make this idea workable, we must necessarily strictly limit the amount of money (and therefore power) any one individual can control. As I said on a different post, in order to ensure a stable society, we must eliminate the possibility of billionaires. Under an oligarchy such as ours, such people are effectively emperors.
@John Hummel First limiting how much someone can possess is limiting the ability to concentrate capital enough for any significant projects such as nuclear reactors. Leave that up to the state you say? Well just look at how well the state has handled anything significant. What you suggest leads to death Bolshevik style. Equality of opportunity okay, but equality of outcome, no good.
"Good" and "evil" are a religious dualism not found very often in nature. We are all born to survive. Some methods of survival are pro-social and life-affirming, others are destructive and self-serving.
Many of us do have an ability to grow and recognise the value of pro-social behaviour. Some are raised to be anti-social. Some are born with something seriously wrong with their heads that cannot be reached by any amount of good training or persuasion.
Our culture is designed to breed narcissists. Capitalism has proven an exceptional tool for propping up systems of hierarchy. We are never allowed to feel good enough, and we are forever chasing after being special.
Harm Reduction is often a better way to think about managing unwanted behaviors (by individuals, AND systems). But we have a tendency towards binary thinking, and trying to label “bad” behavior as “sin”, and then making prescriptive/prohibitive rules and punishments, which often don’t work, but make folks feel more virtuous. I think one of the more persistent problems of the modern age is scale, where individuals/corporations can inflict greater harm to more people than ever before, while profiting off it and escaping any consequences.
Our culture seems to be the deep roots of narcissistic traits and capitalism aggressively cultivates just that and weeds out those who want better environment
“Good” and “evil” are a religious dualism not found very often in nature.
As an atheist, I generally try to eschew such terms, but the sad (and pragmatic) fact is that sometimes it's much more economical (and understandable) simply to use them.
I respect the sentiment, @Adam Hunt, but I would characterize those the religious would call "evil", not as "unskillful", but as "skillful at other things".
A smart psychopath is extremely skilled at manipulating people/the system to their advantage.
Calling them "unskillful" is at variance with all they have been able to achieve by nefarious means.
Buddhism has a very specific idea about what being a successful person means. I happen to respect that idea, but evolution seems not to.
@John Hummel I believe you need to consider: unskillful at what? For Buddhism that would be at maintaining thoughts and actions that avert suffering and bring greater contentment.
Philosophy is much reviled, but at the end of the day it's simply, as observed by Clark Glamour, the ability to "think things through" -- that is, think clearly and carefully.
