Compare NE 8th, a main thoroughfare in Bellevue to Mercer Street. Heck, compare ANY main thoroughfare in Seattle to any thoroughfare in Bellevue. I've lived here since 1967. I've bicycle commuted both cities for years. Although there are exceptions to the rule, Seattle streets are significantly worse than Bellevue's. There simply IS no comparison.
Oops, I imagined a "not" in your sentence. We agree about Bellevue vs. Seattle streets.
I find it fascinating that someone actually wants to social engineer us by INTENTIONALLY making it harder to use the roads I pay for.
Nope. My position supports making it easier to use the roads you pay for. With caps on growth, including population growth, the roads you pay for need not become congested. We're both promoting social engineering here.
And do you really want to get into the discussion about the effect of the emissions of tens of thousands of cars idling in hours of gridlock vs those same cars getting quickly and efficiently to their destination.
If it's quick and efficient, then people quickly reproduce, or increase consumption, until it's no longer quick and efficient. Until there's a solution to that, quick and efficient will remain a pipe dream.
Yes, there will always be more people, and the planet and environment can handle many billions more than are currently here.
Good science greatly disagrees. Just looking at one piece of evidence out of hundreds, fish stocks down some 50% in the last 20 years, shows that a collapse of modern civilization is more likely than not within the next 50 years. I think it's apparent that the collapse is underway already (it'll take decades).
God designed it for such.
There's no evidence of that. There's a good reason why we depend on science far more than faith. History is replete with the downfall of civilizations that were overly dependent on faith.
I'm glad there were fewer around of your ilk when I-5 was put through Seattle. We may not have even gotten the anemic two lanes we DID get.
Growth per se is not bad; too much growth is. I'm all for improvements, but not for a city that stretches from San Diego to Seattle, with 10-lane freeways.
The job of the DOT is to spend our road tax dollars to improve our driving experience as much as your job is to use the dollars your employer pays you to do the job he hired you for, not circumvent his wishes and pursue activities that go directly against his wishes. Likewise with our DOT. They are MY employee. I pay them to make sure that I have ample roads on which to drive my vehicle and that those roads remain in good repair. If either is in question (and both are), I need to hire someone else.
The goal in this case, unbridled growth, is clearly not sustainable. Since I'd like modern civilization to be sustainable for millions of years, with the highest possible average standard of living, I'm against unbridled growth. The DOT is my employee too. If a majority thought like I do, then the DOT's goals would change. But because only a minority think like I do, it seems that nature will force the issue.
If you want to lower the population and reduce traffic, then get a vasectomy (or have your tubes tied if you are female) and stop driving. But DO NOT FORCE others into your lifestyle because you think YOU know what is best for them.
As voters in a democracy, we compete at the poll booth to force our will on others. Do you think dictatorship is better?
If we had dedicated bus lanes we could almost eliminate the need for light rail. As the need arises, we just add more busses. As a route gets more busses, there are more departure times, increasing their desireability. It is like the 550 from Bellevue. If you miss one, just wait a few minutes.
If we had an efficient bus system, we wouldn't need dedicated bus lanes. Part of the bus system should work like subway systems typically do, with easy-to-remember color-coded routes that run every 10-20 minutes. When riders don't need a computer to figure out the route, don't fear getting lost / stuck, and don't need to transfer & wait as much, ridership should soar. As it soars, the roads become freer for buses.
The goal in this case, unbridled growth, is clearly not sustainable. Since I'd like modern civilization to be sustainable for millions of years, with the highest possible average standard of living, I'm against unbridled growth. The DOT is my employee too. If a majority thought like I do, then the DOT's goals would change. But because only a minority think like I do, it seems that nature will force the issue.
Just to play the devil's advocate, I don't think you are using the correct metric to determine the caliber of a society. If highest average standard of living were the goal, then a society where one guy is Bill Gates and everybody else is forced to dig roots with sticks and stones to eek our survival would have been a pretty OK one (especially since the population would be small with everyone dying from bad roots).
So, that's a bad example, but what if we use median average instead? It's still possible to imagine a world where 30% of the population live like kings while the rest live a subsistence lifestyle.
I would advocate that the best metric to use is the standard of living for the lowest common denominator. We are better off today, because even the poorest homeless citizens of USA have access to safe drinking water, edible food, and clothing appropriate for their climate. If we could say we had 0 homeless people (they all had someplace to stay that was dry and near 70 degrees) then I would think more highly of our society.
I would advocate that the best metric to use is the standard of living for the lowest common denominator. We are better off today, because even the poorest homeless citizens of USA have access to safe drinking water, edible food, and clothing appropriate for their climate. If we could say we had 0 homeless people (they all had someplace to stay that was dry and near 70 degrees) then I would think more highly of our society.
I wouldn't advocate that metric. If we had 0 homeless people, I'd probably suffer, because lots of people want to take from society more than they contribute, if anything, so I'd be paying more to support them. I advocate everyone having a minimum standard of living that includes a dry, warm place to live, except for those of sound mind & body, unless they contribute enough back to society. We already have a method for that; it's called the minimum wage. To work effectively it needs to be increased.
Good points about the problems with using an average or median. There is a way to do a good stat, like the shape of the curve of peoples' standard of living. For example, a smooth arc is rated better than a hockey-stick curve, where everyone is a peasant except for the king. There wouldn't be any Bill Gates in my society anyway, since there would be a maximum net worth by law that is "only" $20 million or so, whatever the optimal figure is (I'm confident that unlimited, or even billionaire, is sub-optimal.)
I suspect that if we did enough "social engineering", to use Robroy's term, most of us would not need to work more than 10 hours a week to have a better standard of living, with such society sustainable for thousands of future generations, and not doomed to collapse despite all our efforts to date, like the situation is today.
If you think the vast majority of homeless are of sound mind, then you need to go talk to them. They'll straighten you out quick!
I didn't suggest that that is the case. I think most of us would have a higher standard of living if every homeless person who is not of sound mind & body received free or subsidized services, with an emphasis on restoring to sound mind & body those who can be so restored. That is the policy of countries, like Australia, that are more civilized than the US.
It was also our policy until Reagan dismantled the mental health system in the 1980's. A large majority of the homeless problem in every city could be solved with free in-patient mental health services.
If you think the vast majority of homeless are of sound mind, then you need to go talk to them. They'll straighten you out quick!
I haven't talked to the "vast majority", but I have talked to a lot of them. I remember back in 1980 my friend was making fun of a homeless man and I rebuked him and basically said, "That could be you in ten to twenty years".
I've learned a lot since then. I now put responsibility for homelessness square on the back of the homeless person. Not that I would not help them, but all of us adults are responsible for where we are in life. With responsibility comes authority. Acknowledging responsibility empowers the individual to work to change their situation.
This is due to my wife's and my encounters/interviews with the homeless in the Seattle area and, to a lesser degree in Los Angeles. I am just a layperson here, but I have the brains God gave me to interpret information within the context of events and players.
I consider it mostly a personal responsibility issue. It also is a symptom of a culture that expects government to help those in need, which completely short-circuits the benefits of the concept of those that have, voluntarily giving to those that need.
That, and the bible describes two types of poor - 1. the infirm, widows and orphans, etc. and 2) Those that simply choose not to work. And the bible is clear about the latter: You don't work, you don't eat. I don't consider "mental illness" an excuse.
That, and the bible describes two types of poor - 1. the infirm, widows and orphans, etc. and 2) Those that simply choose not to work. And the bible is clear about the latter: You don't work, you don't eat. I don't consider "mental illness" an excuse.
I agree, except that I think true mental illness can be diagnosed with a high degree of confidence. If a healthy person refuses to work, and that leads to them being unhealthy, I think they should get public-funded help until they are healthy again. Society would need to make sure the person suffers while healthy, so that taking advantage of the system is not worth it. This is a pragmatic policy too, to more efficiently reduce crime & other problems. We spend a lot of money to keep people in prison, feeding them three squares a day and giving them a warm place to sleep, because it pays off for the public.
illness can be diagnosed with a high degree of confidence. If a healthy person refuses to work, and that leads to them being unhealthy, I think they should get public-funded help until they are healthy again. Society would need to make sure the person suffers while healthy, so that taking advantage of the system is not worth it. This is a pragmatic policy too, to more efficiently reduce crime & other problems. We spend a lot of money to keep people in prison, feeding them three squares a day and giving them a warm place to sleep, because it pays off for the public.
Yeah, you and I kinda disagree on this. I think it is a difference in our foundational beliefs in the role of government in citizens lives. It doesn't make either of us right or wrong. We just disagree on strategy.
When I think of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I think of the governments role as one of creating and protecting an environment where each of us can do the best he can with the tools God has given him. That, of course, means I do not believe in welfare, unemployment benefits, social security or any of the other entitlements. I believe the government could preserve (via a good police force, laws, and the courts to enforce them) an environment where those that have could, if they so choose, help those that do not, but since the government get's it's funding through taxation, it is always spending someone elses money.
Therefore, when the government directly helps individuals it is removing responsibility and authority from those that have and choosing for them where that money should be spent. It also gives the haves a genuine excuse to give nothing whatsoever to charity. This ends up removing from them something that is a true blessing in the vein of "it is better to give than to receive". That is a tragedy of epic proportion in this country. Too many people never experience the benefits gleaned from choosing to give to others.
But I could write a book on this if given the chance...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are nuts if you believe this. :twisted:
The argument essentially comes down to this assertion in the first paragraph.
Mental illness, of course, is not literally a "thing" -- or physical object -- and hence it can "exist" only in the same sort of way in which other theoretical concepts exist.
Perhaps in 1960 (the paper's date), one could operate under this assumption, but it's essentially impossible to do so today. Though we do not fully understand how the mind works, the brain/mind theory has significant evidence. We see behavioral changes due to brain damage. Studies suggest that sexual preference is genetic. And specific mental diseases are treated quite well by drugs.
I get the impression that this paper is motivated not by science, but by the author's dualist beliefs. Dualism would be the argument that not all of a person's psyche exists in purely physical means (I.E. there's a soul hovering nearby).
Further, I find this hypothesis generally dangerous, as it might discourage people who do need help from getting it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are nuts if you believe this. :twisted:
The argument essentially comes down to this assertion in the first paragraph.
Mental illness, of course, is not literally a "thing" -- or physical object -- and hence it can "exist" only in the same sort of way in which other theoretical concepts exist.
Perhaps in 1960 (the paper's date), one could operate under this assumption, but it's essentially impossible to do so today. Though we do not fully understand how the mind works, the brain/mind theory has significant evidence. We see behavioral changes due to brain damage. Studies suggest that sexual preference is genetic. And specific mental diseases are treated quite well by drugs.
I get the impression that this paper is motivated not by science, but by the author's dualist beliefs. Dualism would be the argument that not all of a person's psyche exists in purely physical means (I.E. there's a soul hovering nearby).
Further, I find this hypothesis generally dangerous, as it might discourage people who do need help from getting it.
Like I said, you and I kinda come from foundational differences of opinion here.
That, of course, means I do not believe in welfare, unemployment benefits, social security or any of the other entitlements.
Unemployment is insurance, not an entitlement. Social security is an entitement only because those drawing from it today get more back than what they contributed plus their interest.
Therefore, when the government directly helps individuals it is removing responsibility and authority from those that have and choosing for them where that money should be spent. It also gives the haves a genuine excuse to give nothing whatsoever to charity. This ends up removing from them something that is a true blessing in the vein of "it is better to give than to receive". That is a tragedy of epic proportion in this country. Too many people never experience the benefits gleaned from choosing to give to others.
I doubt that the benefit you describe would be worth it. It's far more efficient for the government to help people than for millions of individuals to do that directly, even if they're just sending a check.
Would you put your money where your opinion is? For example, if it cost you $200 per year to let the homeless starve, but only $100 in taxes per year to help them, would you still let them starve? The $200 cost would be for scraping their bodies off the sidewalks, or for health problems their putrifying bodies (left on the sidewalks in your attempt to save money) caused you.
Like I said, you and I kinda come from foundational differences of opinion here.
Right, but what I'm saying is that your opinion is very probably wrong. It's basis is on a 50 year old paper, which was never accepted by the scientific community. In fact the overwhelming majority of evidence since then contradicts this paper.
<rant> This is exactly why people worry that USA will fall behind other nations. Knowledge is the basis of every advance mankind has made in the last 500 years, and science is the underpinning of most of that knowledge. Arguing a point of "opinion" from outdated data is not valid.
</rant>
That said, there's always room for some interpretation. It's certain that all "mental illness" have physical components: genetic, physical damage (railroad spike through the head), chemical imbalance (caused by harmful environment), or some neurons wired in the wrong ways (PTSD potentially). What's up for debate is which behaviors we should actually consider illness, and which are not.
For example, if it cost you $200 per year to let the homeless starve, but only $100 in taxes per year to help them, would you still let them starve?
Let's change that question a little bit. Say it cost me $200/year to let N homeless people stave, but $100/year to let N homeless starve.
If I choose option A then N will likely decrease over time.
If I choose option B then N will likely increase over time.
There is probably some equilibrium value for option A where homeless 'exiting' the system is equal to new homeless entering. Let this equilibrium value be P.
There is also probably some equilibium value for option B. I doubt N would go to infinity. Let the equilibrium value for B be called Q.
If P < 2*Q then A is cheaper.
If P > 2*Q then B is cheaper.
Let's pretend that P<2*Q. (We don't know the real answer to this, but I think this would bed Robroy's expectation).
I place value on reducing human suffering. I do not place an infinite value on human suffering, but I don't know exactly what my monetary value is. I am willing to spend tax money to let N be above P. However, fear of suffering is necessary to prevent N from rising to Q so we can't help everyone. So you choose a mixed strategy. Let p be the percent of people that you feed. You pay $100*p to feed N*p people and you pay $200*(1-p) to clean up N*(1-p) people.
And this is how you get homeless shelters that turn away people every night.
Loosely translated, the author is saying "I'm moral and I'm not mentally ill, so anyone who claims to be mentally ill is really just immoral." Or am I missing something?
Honestly, I had to check and make sure this wasn't written in 1760 instead of 1960, as it seems to disregard everything that other psychologists had agreed upon at that point.
Like I said, you and I kinda come from foundational differences of opinion here.
Right, but what I'm saying is that your opinion is very probably wrong. It's basis is on a 50 year old paper, which was never accepted by the scientific community. In fact the overwhelming majority of evidence since then contradicts this paper.
Well, I honestly think your opinion is very probably wrong. Nyah, nyah.
BTW, I didn't base it on a fifty year old paper. I just used that one because it was the first place I ever actually saw it written down and did find his reasoning interesting. It challenged some of my paradigms.
Heck, I consider the best Christian book of the 20th century to be C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". It was basically an amplified transcript of mid-1940's radio interviews. Real wisdom is quite timeless.
Fact is, we know more than we did then, but not as much as we will know in 50 years, if the Lord waits. I will say that I have been around long enough to realise that no matter how "modern" modern times seem, it will not be long before what we believe based on the latest research will be viewed as quaint and naive.
Then again, I consider the best Christian book of the 20th century to be C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". It was basically an amplified transcript of mid-1940's radio interviews.
Fact is, we know more than we did then, but not as much as we will know in 50 years, if the Lord waits. I will say that I have been around long enough to realise that no matter how "modern" modern times seem, it will not be long before what we believe based on the latest research will be viewed as quaint and naive.
...
Real wisdom is quite timeless.
This belief, which is held by many, that all "human" knowledge will be surpassed and then relegated to the junk heap is a misunderstanding of science, logic, facts, and what exactly knowledge is.
Consider some very old theories for instance. The heliocentric theory of our solar system. The theory of gravity. The misnamed laws (they're really theories) of thermodynamics. The germ theory of disease.
Any theory is just a model of how a system works. As such, the theory will only seem quaint if proven to be exceptionally wrong. Consider the theory of gravity (and all Newton's theories for motion) for one moment. It has been completely surperceded by the general theory of relativity. Yet, if you take any beginning physics course you will be taught to calculate how far a frictionless cow will travel if launched from a catapult by using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics isn't more accurate, but it is much simpler and is accurate to many digits in all situations humans typically find themselves. So we still use it. And we don't label it naive.
Just to stop any arguments about semantics before they begin. First, any theorem proven in mathematics is from that point on truth. It will not change. To be a theory in any hard science (physics, chemistry, biology), the model must have already been proven to work on a massive quantity of facts (observations, test results, etc). Therefore, any theory may be surpassed in the future, but it will still be a fundamentally sound if simplistic model of the world. This is why we still use Newton. Finally, we have hypotheses.
This is where people get into trouble. Biology is so complex, for example, that the FDA might release a hypothesis (perhaps tempered by industry lobbyists in the FDA's case) that the healthiest human diet can be drawn as a pyramid with Wonder Bread and Frosted Flakes at the bottom. When such a hypothesis gets disproven, it means the process is working. This is not embarrassing, unless we decide to hold to that hypothesis long after it has been falsified. This is how we can turn a valid hypothesis into a ridiculous belief.
Example: I snap my fingers while thinking about a hamburger, and immediately notice $1.49 on the sidewalk. I pick it up and look up to see a local burger dealer advertising a delicious $1.49 hamburger. So, I form the hypothesis that I have magic powers to summon what I desire by thinking about it and snapping my fingers. So far, my hypothesis fits the facts and is actually reasonable, if outlandish. Using my hypothesis, I start wishing for other things, dozens of things, none of which come true. My hypothesis is disproven - it was a lousy one to begin with - and I am forced to conclude that snapping my fingers does not grant magic wishes. If I now hold to this belief, it is just a belief and nothing more. In the future, people will learn about it and rightly think me naive, quaint, a fool, or insane.
And that's why this referenced paper can be derided as foolishness only 50 years in the future.
Fact is, we know more than we did then, but not as much as we will know in 50 years, if the Lord waits. I will say that I have been around long enough to realise that no matter how "modern" modern times seem, it will not be long before what we believe based on the latest research will be viewed as quaint and naive.
...
Real wisdom is quite timeless.
This belief, which is held by many, that all "human" knowledge will be surpassed and then relegated to the junk heap is a misunderstanding of science, logic, facts, and what exactly knowledge is.
Consider some very old theories for instance. The heliocentric theory of our solar system. The theory of gravity. The misnamed laws (they're really theories) of thermodynamics. The germ theory of disease.
...
I disagree.
And I base it on your leading statement: "This belief, which is held by many, that all "human" knowledge will be surpassed and then relegated to the junk heap is a misunderstanding of science, logic, facts, and what exactly knowledge is."
I know few who believe that. If you replace the word "all" with the words "much of", the statement would reflect my beliefs. But your argument does not respond to that.
And no, the paper cannot be derided as foolishness any more than Darwin's. Come to think of it, not as much as Darwins. Most of what he posited has been PROVEN baloney.
"And no, the paper cannot be derided as foolishness any more than Darwin's. Come to think of it, not as much as Darwins. Most of what he posited has been PROVEN baloney.
But I digress..."
Yes, you have digressed. You've moved away from science, and towards super-naturally influenced nonsense.
And no, the paper cannot be derided as foolishness any more than Darwin's. Come to think of it, not as much as Darwins. Most of what he posited has been PROVEN baloney.
So let's leave Mr. Thomas S. Szasz be for the time being.
We are getting very off topic now, but where are you getting your information that most of Darwin's theory has been proven to be baloney? There are essentially two pillars to Darwin's theory.
1) Evolution from common decent explains the variety of life on earth.
2) Natural selection is the mechanism that directs evolution.
Every legitimate biologist (admittedly it's closer to 99%) agrees with #1, and agrees that #2 is one of the mechanisms. This isn't to say that every word of the Origin of the Species has born out. Just the fundamental premise accurately predicts genetic, behavioral, and spatial relationships between species. Here's some more information, none of which proves evolution, but the overwhelming body of evidence for and the dearth of evidence against is why evolution has earned the lofty designation as a theory.
That was a good read. I have to say that moving here to Seattle was a good move on my part from St. Louis. That city has enough interesting things to last maybe a full three months before you've explored everything. Maybe a year if you're a home-body. I keep discovering cool things about Seattle and I've lived here for two years! There aren't many cities out there that boast Seattle's quirks and unique things. I also have had a fun time and met my wife here, so my judgment may be a little rose-colored.
Yeah the roads absolutely suck (worst than any place I've ever driven). Yeah, if given the chance to go back to my hometown of Chicago I'd go in a heartbeat. But the natural scenery is just unbeatable here. The local culture is varied and people complain about the "Seattle freeze" but in my honest opinion all you need to do is find something you find interesting and join a club or something. I'm used to cloudy winters (Chicago is very gloomy as well).
Comments
Nope. My position supports making it easier to use the roads you pay for. With caps on growth, including population growth, the roads you pay for need not become congested. We're both promoting social engineering here.
If it's quick and efficient, then people quickly reproduce, or increase consumption, until it's no longer quick and efficient. Until there's a solution to that, quick and efficient will remain a pipe dream.
Good science greatly disagrees. Just looking at one piece of evidence out of hundreds, fish stocks down some 50% in the last 20 years, shows that a collapse of modern civilization is more likely than not within the next 50 years. I think it's apparent that the collapse is underway already (it'll take decades).
There's no evidence of that. There's a good reason why we depend on science far more than faith. History is replete with the downfall of civilizations that were overly dependent on faith.
Growth per se is not bad; too much growth is. I'm all for improvements, but not for a city that stretches from San Diego to Seattle, with 10-lane freeways.
The goal in this case, unbridled growth, is clearly not sustainable. Since I'd like modern civilization to be sustainable for millions of years, with the highest possible average standard of living, I'm against unbridled growth. The DOT is my employee too. If a majority thought like I do, then the DOT's goals would change. But because only a minority think like I do, it seems that nature will force the issue.
As voters in a democracy, we compete at the poll booth to force our will on others. Do you think dictatorship is better?
Just to play the devil's advocate, I don't think you are using the correct metric to determine the caliber of a society. If highest average standard of living were the goal, then a society where one guy is Bill Gates and everybody else is forced to dig roots with sticks and stones to eek our survival would have been a pretty OK one (especially since the population would be small with everyone dying from bad roots).
So, that's a bad example, but what if we use median average instead? It's still possible to imagine a world where 30% of the population live like kings while the rest live a subsistence lifestyle.
I would advocate that the best metric to use is the standard of living for the lowest common denominator. We are better off today, because even the poorest homeless citizens of USA have access to safe drinking water, edible food, and clothing appropriate for their climate. If we could say we had 0 homeless people (they all had someplace to stay that was dry and near 70 degrees) then I would think more highly of our society.
Good points about the problems with using an average or median. There is a way to do a good stat, like the shape of the curve of peoples' standard of living. For example, a smooth arc is rated better than a hockey-stick curve, where everyone is a peasant except for the king. There wouldn't be any Bill Gates in my society anyway, since there would be a maximum net worth by law that is "only" $20 million or so, whatever the optimal figure is (I'm confident that unlimited, or even billionaire, is sub-optimal.)
I suspect that if we did enough "social engineering", to use Robroy's term, most of us would not need to work more than 10 hours a week to have a better standard of living, with such society sustainable for thousands of future generations, and not doomed to collapse despite all our efforts to date, like the situation is today.
I've learned a lot since then. I now put responsibility for homelessness square on the back of the homeless person. Not that I would not help them, but all of us adults are responsible for where we are in life. With responsibility comes authority. Acknowledging responsibility empowers the individual to work to change their situation.
I tend to agree with Thomas S. Szasz in his 1960 article in American Psychologist called "The Myth of Mental Illness". http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Szasz/myth.htm
This is due to my wife's and my encounters/interviews with the homeless in the Seattle area and, to a lesser degree in Los Angeles. I am just a layperson here, but I have the brains God gave me to interpret information within the context of events and players.
I consider it mostly a personal responsibility issue. It also is a symptom of a culture that expects government to help those in need, which completely short-circuits the benefits of the concept of those that have, voluntarily giving to those that need.
That, and the bible describes two types of poor - 1. the infirm, widows and orphans, etc. and 2) Those that simply choose not to work. And the bible is clear about the latter: You don't work, you don't eat. I don't consider "mental illness" an excuse.
When I think of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I think of the governments role as one of creating and protecting an environment where each of us can do the best he can with the tools God has given him. That, of course, means I do not believe in welfare, unemployment benefits, social security or any of the other entitlements. I believe the government could preserve (via a good police force, laws, and the courts to enforce them) an environment where those that have could, if they so choose, help those that do not, but since the government get's it's funding through taxation, it is always spending someone elses money.
Therefore, when the government directly helps individuals it is removing responsibility and authority from those that have and choosing for them where that money should be spent. It also gives the haves a genuine excuse to give nothing whatsoever to charity. This ends up removing from them something that is a true blessing in the vein of "it is better to give than to receive". That is a tragedy of epic proportion in this country. Too many people never experience the benefits gleaned from choosing to give to others.
But I could write a book on this if given the chance...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are nuts if you believe this. :twisted:
The argument essentially comes down to this assertion in the first paragraph.
Perhaps in 1960 (the paper's date), one could operate under this assumption, but it's essentially impossible to do so today. Though we do not fully understand how the mind works, the brain/mind theory has significant evidence. We see behavioral changes due to brain damage. Studies suggest that sexual preference is genetic. And specific mental diseases are treated quite well by drugs.
I get the impression that this paper is motivated not by science, but by the author's dualist beliefs. Dualism would be the argument that not all of a person's psyche exists in purely physical means (I.E. there's a soul hovering nearby).
Further, I find this hypothesis generally dangerous, as it might discourage people who do need help from getting it.
I doubt that the benefit you describe would be worth it. It's far more efficient for the government to help people than for millions of individuals to do that directly, even if they're just sending a check.
Would you put your money where your opinion is? For example, if it cost you $200 per year to let the homeless starve, but only $100 in taxes per year to help them, would you still let them starve? The $200 cost would be for scraping their bodies off the sidewalks, or for health problems their putrifying bodies (left on the sidewalks in your attempt to save money) caused you.
Right, but what I'm saying is that your opinion is very probably wrong. It's basis is on a 50 year old paper, which was never accepted by the scientific community. In fact the overwhelming majority of evidence since then contradicts this paper.
<rant>
This is exactly why people worry that USA will fall behind other nations. Knowledge is the basis of every advance mankind has made in the last 500 years, and science is the underpinning of most of that knowledge. Arguing a point of "opinion" from outdated data is not valid.
</rant>
That said, there's always room for some interpretation. It's certain that all "mental illness" have physical components: genetic, physical damage (railroad spike through the head), chemical imbalance (caused by harmful environment), or some neurons wired in the wrong ways (PTSD potentially). What's up for debate is which behaviors we should actually consider illness, and which are not.
Let's change that question a little bit. Say it cost me $200/year to let N homeless people stave, but $100/year to let N homeless starve.
If I choose option A then N will likely decrease over time.
If I choose option B then N will likely increase over time.
There is probably some equilibrium value for option A where homeless 'exiting' the system is equal to new homeless entering. Let this equilibrium value be P.
There is also probably some equilibium value for option B. I doubt N would go to infinity. Let the equilibrium value for B be called Q.
If P < 2*Q then A is cheaper.
If P > 2*Q then B is cheaper.
Let's pretend that P<2*Q. (We don't know the real answer to this, but I think this would bed Robroy's expectation).
I place value on reducing human suffering. I do not place an infinite value on human suffering, but I don't know exactly what my monetary value is. I am willing to spend tax money to let N be above P. However, fear of suffering is necessary to prevent N from rising to Q so we can't help everyone. So you choose a mixed strategy. Let p be the percent of people that you feed. You pay $100*p to feed N*p people and you pay $200*(1-p) to clean up N*(1-p) people.
And this is how you get homeless shelters that turn away people every night.
Loosely translated, the author is saying "I'm moral and I'm not mentally ill, so anyone who claims to be mentally ill is really just immoral." Or am I missing something?
Honestly, I had to check and make sure this wasn't written in 1760 instead of 1960, as it seems to disregard everything that other psychologists had agreed upon at that point.
Well, I honestly think your opinion is very probably wrong. Nyah, nyah.
BTW, I didn't base it on a fifty year old paper. I just used that one because it was the first place I ever actually saw it written down and did find his reasoning interesting. It challenged some of my paradigms.
Heck, I consider the best Christian book of the 20th century to be C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". It was basically an amplified transcript of mid-1940's radio interviews. Real wisdom is quite timeless.
Fact is, we know more than we did then, but not as much as we will know in 50 years, if the Lord waits. I will say that I have been around long enough to realise that no matter how "modern" modern times seem, it will not be long before what we believe based on the latest research will be viewed as quaint and naive.
Then again, I consider the best Christian book of the 20th century to be C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". It was basically an amplified transcript of mid-1940's radio interviews.
Real wisdom is quite timeless.
This belief, which is held by many, that all "human" knowledge will be surpassed and then relegated to the junk heap is a misunderstanding of science, logic, facts, and what exactly knowledge is.
Consider some very old theories for instance. The heliocentric theory of our solar system. The theory of gravity. The misnamed laws (they're really theories) of thermodynamics. The germ theory of disease.
Any theory is just a model of how a system works. As such, the theory will only seem quaint if proven to be exceptionally wrong. Consider the theory of gravity (and all Newton's theories for motion) for one moment. It has been completely surperceded by the general theory of relativity. Yet, if you take any beginning physics course you will be taught to calculate how far a frictionless cow will travel if launched from a catapult by using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics isn't more accurate, but it is much simpler and is accurate to many digits in all situations humans typically find themselves. So we still use it. And we don't label it naive.
Just to stop any arguments about semantics before they begin. First, any theorem proven in mathematics is from that point on truth. It will not change. To be a theory in any hard science (physics, chemistry, biology), the model must have already been proven to work on a massive quantity of facts (observations, test results, etc). Therefore, any theory may be surpassed in the future, but it will still be a fundamentally sound if simplistic model of the world. This is why we still use Newton. Finally, we have hypotheses.
This is where people get into trouble. Biology is so complex, for example, that the FDA might release a hypothesis (perhaps tempered by industry lobbyists in the FDA's case) that the healthiest human diet can be drawn as a pyramid with Wonder Bread and Frosted Flakes at the bottom. When such a hypothesis gets disproven, it means the process is working. This is not embarrassing, unless we decide to hold to that hypothesis long after it has been falsified. This is how we can turn a valid hypothesis into a ridiculous belief.
Example: I snap my fingers while thinking about a hamburger, and immediately notice $1.49 on the sidewalk. I pick it up and look up to see a local burger dealer advertising a delicious $1.49 hamburger. So, I form the hypothesis that I have magic powers to summon what I desire by thinking about it and snapping my fingers. So far, my hypothesis fits the facts and is actually reasonable, if outlandish. Using my hypothesis, I start wishing for other things, dozens of things, none of which come true. My hypothesis is disproven - it was a lousy one to begin with - and I am forced to conclude that snapping my fingers does not grant magic wishes. If I now hold to this belief, it is just a belief and nothing more. In the future, people will learn about it and rightly think me naive, quaint, a fool, or insane.
And that's why this referenced paper can be derided as foolishness only 50 years in the future.
And I base it on your leading statement: "This belief, which is held by many, that all "human" knowledge will be surpassed and then relegated to the junk heap is a misunderstanding of science, logic, facts, and what exactly knowledge is."
I know few who believe that. If you replace the word "all" with the words "much of", the statement would reflect my beliefs. But your argument does not respond to that.
And no, the paper cannot be derided as foolishness any more than Darwin's. Come to think of it, not as much as Darwins. Most of what he posited has been PROVEN baloney.
But I digress...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
But I digress..."
Yes, you have digressed. You've moved away from science, and towards super-naturally influenced nonsense.
Well, case closed then. This went remarkably easier than usual.
Yeah the roads absolutely suck (worst than any place I've ever driven). Yeah, if given the chance to go back to my hometown of Chicago I'd go in a heartbeat. But the natural scenery is just unbeatable here. The local culture is varied and people complain about the "Seattle freeze" but in my honest opinion all you need to do is find something you find interesting and join a club or something. I'm used to cloudy winters (Chicago is very gloomy as well).
... but I would love to stay here.