science and ethics

[Athena]

Can science be ethical? Why and why not?

I want to argue there is are problem with science being ethical. The number one problem is the restrictions put on discussions of science. Science forums are held to a standard set by science, not by people in general, and certainly not by religion. These are public forums. One can only imagine how discussions go when only scientist are present.

I heard the people who worked on the Manhattan Project cheered and celebrated when they got reports on the success of their bomb. Some time later some of them realized the human meaning of what happened, the devastation, and the people killed and injured. We did not publically discuss the right or wrong of the Manhattan Project. Today, we can post the research of bird flu with the intent of making a biological weapon, but should not mention movies triggered by such science, and get into an ethical discussion of where science is taking us in these threads. By necessity science is very restricted and open and loose discussion would ruin the intent of science, which needs to be clear and precise.

Might we have a problem with today's reality?

[Whut]

In light of your question it would be interesting to know how the moral beliefs of those into "hard" sciences vs. everyone else in the population differ - if at all. I wonder if a study to shed light on that has ever been carried out. I.E. are scientists more inclined to moral nihilism, moral relativism and such; as opposed to moral realism or moral naturalism ect.

NOT to assume that nihilists behave any less moral than a moral realist, mind you.

[Watson]

Today, we can post the research of bird flu with the intent of making a biological weapon, but should not mention movies triggered by such science, and get into an ethical discussion of where science is taking us in these threads.

Athena, with all do respect, you were not asked not to mention such movies. Your comment was that "we should discuss favorite Sci-Fi movies". This was off topic of the thread. It was simply suggested that you take the Sci-Fi topic to the lounge. These comments could be misunderstood by some readers without the proper context, which I hope I have provided.

Today, we can post the research of bird flu with the intent of making a biological weapon, and get into an ethical discussion of where science is taking us in these threads

See it reads as well and is more to the point.

[Forest_Dump]

There are certainly many places where a discussion on the "ethics of science" would not be welcome. Chess games, at the movies, etc. Just as you would not want "favorite pop star" to be discussed in an "ethics of science" forum.

Of course, there would also always be a need to be clear what science is before you discuss its ethics. With the Manhattan Project, I would certainly say science was there at the onset, using science to determine that an atomic bomb could be made. But then it was engineering that constructed the bombs and then, finally, it was a strategic military decision on whether or not to use those bombs. I don't know whether the scientists and engineers cheered when they heard the bombs went off. Maybe they did on learning that their two experiments worked but I am sure they also cheered when they learned their bombs also ended the war and saved lots of lives. Were more lives saved than taken? Was it the right choice under the circumstances and knowledge of the time? I don't know but I guess it will always be debated. I do agree, however, that there is lots in the ethics of science and the use of science that can and should be debated but I think it is important to be clear what it is you are debating if you want to get any headway on the topic.

[Athena]

I had no idea this topic would be so unpopular.

Neither of the following links give as good an explanation of the cheering following the news of first atom bomb hitting Japan, but they do mention the celebrating.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug20 ... -a08.shtml

http://www.mphpa.org/classic/OR/OR_Story_1.htm

Now I hope this thread can be deleted. I didn't come here to cause a problem.

[Watson]

Athena,
I found this,

viewtopic.php?t=21811

I think your intentions are good, just poorly executed, and I aploigize for the frozen brain thing.

[Forest_Dump]

I did check one of the links that accused the US of using the bombs for purposes other than ending the war quickly. While I am not sure I buy into the argument, I am pretty sure the scientists and engineers who worked on the Manhattan Project didn't have much say in whether or how their bombs were to be used. Those decisions are made at a higher level and the people who did the work there and in countless munitions factories, shipyards, etc., were merely contributing to the war effort. My point here is that science can certainly be used for unethical purposes but as a rule those decisions, on how science is to be used, are not made by the scientists themselves but are made by politicians, businessmen, etc., who as often as not are making their decisions with as little input from the scientific community as possible and are not really held all that accountable for their decisions.

[Ursa Minimus]

Science is value neutral, in principle. Torturing prisoners to gain knowledge about medicine can be perfectly valid science. Immoral sure, but potentially scientifically sound. In general, formal rationality (of which science is one example) is not concerned with values. The goal is to know what is in the objective sense. Science is about epistemological questions. Ethics is about what should be. Ethics is about value questions.

So sayeth the Critical Theorists.

Auschwitz was a rational place, but it was not a reasonable one. It was rational in that it was efficient and sophisticated for its given task. It would not have been practical or even seriously conceivable except for the technologies of modern science. Furthermore, except for the modern belief that thought and practice can be identical (a belief that is the basis of technology), the translation of Hitler’s nightmare image into practical reality would have been inconceivable.

The power of modern reason is that it feels itself honor bound to take everything seriously. This openness to everything is the result of our peculiar skepticism, in which we are reverent about nothing. The modern feels not only that everything is possible but also that all things possible are practical. The destruction of the Jews had always been imaginable. With Hitler it became practical. The skepticism of scientific reason sapped our critical reason. Our obligation to take the awful seriously meant that we were not free simply to condemn. Our social scientists and philosophers felt that there was something terribly wrong at Auschwitz, but their methodologies, their rational procedures, did not allow their personal revulsion to be turned into scientific principle. Their methods required neutrality. Revulsion was reduced to value judgments. Since moral values were viewed as irrational, and the irrational has no place in the scientific mode of thought, our social scientists had to be open to the suspicion that there was nothing demonstrably wrong with Auschwitz.

Not only was nothing sacred, but all things had possible merit. Reason denied itself the right to an a priori revulsion at Auschwitz. Modernity’s reason led us into a fully unreasonable condition in which the common sense of the humane tradition had to be denied. It was this unreasonable rationality, this modern paradox, that was the great concern of the Frankfurt School.

http://www.jahrbuch2003.studien-von-zei ... school.HTM

[mtbturtle]

I moved the thread to the Ethics forum which seems a better fit.

Athena,

I'm not sure what your difficulties were in the bird flu thread. You seem to have some misunderstandings about what the moderators were requesting previously. If you would like to discuss it further we can do so in Feedback where it is unlikely to decrease the level of participation by other members in this and other threads.

~thanks

[TAMallick]

Science is mathematics, so it has no ethics. But it give us true result. Our calculation or calculation process may wrong, but science is always true.

[Athena]

I see some attempted to answer the question, and I see some humor in them, because I was listening to lectures about the Roman Republic last night. Perhaps we are at a stand still with putting restrictions on science for the same reason people tolerated government without restrictions. There was a time when those who control with brute force ruled by whim. And there was usually some kind of religious story explaining why they were closer to the gods than the rest of us. People were in awe of them and what they could do. We know in some places in the world this is still true, but that in most the world, we live by rule law, not rule under the whim of others.

Is it possible that we do not this with science, because it is new to us? Religion has put some restrictions on science, such as the restriction against working on stem cells, but I think we can all agree there is a problem with basing our decisions on religion. This brings me to the nugget of the problem. If we do not base moral decisions on religion, than on what do we base moral decisions?

I have an answer, but first I want to know how you deal with the question.

PS. It is big mistake to think my questions are petty and limited to personal interest. Do not do that again. It would also be a mistake to think there are right or wrong answers to my questions. I can argue any side of just about every issue. This is how we consciousness and become enlightened.

[owleye]

I see some attempted to answer the question, and I see some humor in them, because I was listening to lectures about the Roman Republic last night. Perhaps we are at a stand still with putting restrictions on science for the same reason people tolerated government without restrictions. There was a time when those who control with brute force ruled by whim. And there was usually some kind of religious story explaining why they were closer to the gods than the rest of us. People were in awe of them and what they could do. We know in some places in the world this is still true, but that in most the world, we live by rule law, not rule under the whim of others.

Is it possible that we do not this with science, because it is new to us? Religion has put some restrictions on science, such as the restriction against working on stem cells, but I think we can all agree there is a problem with basing our decisions on religion. This brings me to the nugget of the problem. If we do not base moral decisions on religion, than on what do we base moral decisions?

I have an answer, but first I want to know how you deal with the question.

PS. It is big mistake to think my questions are petty and limited to personal interest. Do not do that again. It would also be a mistake to think there are right or wrong answers to my questions. I can argue any side of just about every issue. This is how we consciousness and become enlightened.

One of the things "The Enlightenment" brought about was the end in Europe to the idea that rulers were the channel by which the unwashed masses could be in touch with God. Prior to that period, it was commonly thought that the mere touch of some ruler would heal their tuberculosis, for example. The message of the Enlightenment was to confront the idea that rulers were mortals, like the rest of us.

So, in your view, what is or should be the role of government in our lives? Should government be infused with religion, something that "The Enlightenment" period sought to rid itself of, for example, by its role in motivating the founding of the American Constitution, or should religion be kept out of government, and vice-versa, to allow religion to govern our moral life? Or do you have some other idea in mind?

James

[Athena]

I said I think we agree basing our moral decisions on religion is not a good idea. Is it not obvious I am not suggesting we have a theocracy, instead of democracy? The question is, without religion, what can be the bases of our moral judgments? There is an answer to the question.

[anc0de]

Can science be ethical? Why and why not?

I want to argue there is are problem with science being ethical. The number one problem is the restrictions put on discussions of science. Science forums are held to a standard set by science, not by people in general, and certainly not by religion. These are public forums. One can only imagine how discussions go when only scientist are present.

... Today, we can post the research of bird flu with the intent of making a biological weapon, but should not mention movies triggered by such science, and get into an ethical discussion of where science is taking us in these threads. By necessity science is very restricted and open and loose discussion would ruin the intent of science, which needs to be clear and precise.

Might we have a problem with today's reality?

In my opinion, science is completely removed from ethics. Just look at the classical conditioning experiment's that were done with Little Albert. At the time, the experiment it was done in the name of science, but by today's standard such an experiment would be considered unethical. Also, I agree with Ursa Minimus' post on this subject.

I think you condradict yourself a bit here: "By necessity science is very restricted and open and loose discussion would ruin the intent of science, which needs to be clear and precise". You are correct that science needs to be clear and precise, which is exactly why abstract generalizations and dubious ethics need to be excluded from science altogether.

... Perhaps we are at a stand still with putting restrictions on science for the same reason people tolerated government without restrictions. There was a time when those who control with brute force ruled by whim. And there was usually some kind of religious story explaining why they were closer to the gods than the rest of us. People were in awe of them and what they could do. We know in some places in the world this is still true, but that in most the world, we live by rule law, not rule under the whim of others.
Is it possible that we do not this with science, because it is new to us? Religion has put some restrictions on science, such as the restriction against working on stem cells, but I think we can all agree there is a problem with basing our decisions on religion. This brings me to the nugget of the problem. If we do not base moral decisions on religion, than on what do we base moral decisions?...

Could you please define what you are referring to in your question: "Is it possible that we do not this with science, because it is new to us?" I am at a loss as to what "this" is referring to. If you mean to ask "Why don't we put restrictions on science?", then my answer would be that science does have restriction in the form of regulations and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Also, to put some things in perspective, religion has not put restrictions on science. It merely has a conflict with the science behind stem cell research and the evolution theory (to name a few). I think that the potential and impact that stem cell research can have in medical science is pretty evident, however I believe it boils down to politics where religion is used to gain cheap popular votes.
To answer your last question: "If we do not base moral decisions on religion, than on what do we base moral decisions?...", I believe that moral standards are merely based on an individual's opinions or feelings.

Science is mathematics, so it has no ethics. But it give us true result. Our calculation or calculation process may wrong, but science is always true.

This is partially true of chemistry and physics but not so much with biology for instance. I also think it serves to point out that "truth" is relative. In other words, there is no real ‘truth’ in science. Theories have evidence to support its claims or evidence proves that a theory is inaccurate. But even if the evidence supports a theory today, tomorrow, new evidence may show the theory needs revision.

[Athena]

I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying scientist are like the gods and are above the law?

[Keep_Relentless]

I agree that a near-perfect ethical framework must be established immediately, and be practically feasible and able to be appropriated successfully so as to minimise injustice of all kinds... We are pouring an unknown amount of value in the world down the drain in the meantime, perhaps particularly in parenting methods, mass doctrines, and the direction of our own actions... There is not as much passion for this as would be ideal, with a purely objective view, because each being seeks happiness, which is only personal. That is to say, we work for our own respective universe. Hence why we don't contribute more for others generally, devote our lives to humanitarian efforts, or even bother to go out of our way due to global warming.
The application of ethics is also going to be extremely rough in the meantime. Where do we direct our reforms? Perhaps it is found that the entire cosmetic sect of industries must disappear, or that we have a moral duty to make as many children as possible? Just some profound yet very possible examples. Succeeding in, or even bothering to, implement leading ethical theories is at least half of the battle in itself, we see this in addictions chiefly.

[Keep_Relentless]

My point is that if you want to stamp out injustice entirely you would be asking for every human to work tirelessly toward an ethical theory and then uphold it. Which isn't a bad idea mind you, only that humans are far too pathetic for it to work. xP

We simply are not wired that way. We are destined to commit terrible acts unwittingly in much the same vein as any other life form.

[owleye]

I said I think we agree basing our moral decisions on religion is not a good idea. Is it not obvious I am not suggesting we have a theocracy, instead of democracy? The question is, without religion, what can be the bases of our moral judgments? There is an answer to the question.

My apologies. I'd thought the question was rhetorical? Obviously Kant's whole thesis was the reverse -- namely that moral judgements are the basis of religion. God judges something good because it is good, not because he declares it to be.

On the other hand, perhaps you are asking a broader question, namely, in the face of science, what role should religion play in our lives? Traditionally, religion has played the pivotal role of unifying society where it is involved in every function, from marriage to justice, from defense to education, from who we are to where we are headed.

The Enlightenment, as Nietzsche has explained, puts an end to God's role in all this. Can religion be saved? Well, it seems the Enlightenment may be rather short-lived. As populations rise, respecting the ability of a nation to govern them in the manner in which the Enlightenment envisioned it, disparities among those in power and their underlings grow and it is no longer possible to allow freedom in the way it is envisioned. To stave off insurrection from the many disenfranchised, greater coercion is needed, furthering the need to disintegrate the "Rights of Man." Forces of alienation will overcome forces of family and friends, despite the internet and Facebook, as populations rise. Can we save ourselves or can we count on a savior? Can we count on science?

James

[Athena]

My point is that if you want to stamp out injustice entirely you would be asking for every human to work tirelessly toward an ethical theory and then uphold it. Which isn't a bad idea mind you, only that humans are far too pathetic for it to work. xP

We simply are not wired that way. We are destined to commit terrible acts unwittingly in much the same vein as any other life form.

What do you think democracy is suppose to be? Thomas Jefferson devoted his fortune and much of his life to advancing free mass education. He believed this is the only way to have a strong republic and we were doing a pretty good job of that education, until we replaced it with Germany's model of education for technology, and now I am scrambling to raise awareness of the importance of liberal education, these forums convince me daily that we need to fix education. Not for technology, but for humanity.

[Athena]

I said I think we agree basing our moral decisions on religion is not a good idea. Is it not obvious I am not suggesting we have a theocracy, instead of democracy? The question is, without religion, what can be the bases of our moral judgments? There is an answer to the question.

My apologies. I'd thought the question was rhetorical? Obviously Kant's whole thesis was the reverse -- namely that moral judgements are the basis of religion. God judges something good because it is good, not because he declares it to be.

On the other hand, perhaps you are asking a broader question, namely, in the face of science, what role should religion play in our lives? Traditionally, religion has played the pivotal role of unifying society where it is involved in every function, from marriage to justice, from defense to education, from who we are to where we are headed.

The Enlightenment, as Nietzsche has explained, puts an end to God's role in all this. Can religion be saved? Well, it seems the Enlightenment may be rather short-lived. As populations rise, respecting the ability of a nation to govern them in the manner in which the Enlightenment envisioned it, disparities among those in power and their underlings grow and it is no longer possible to allow freedom in the way it is envisioned. To stave off insurrection from the many disenfranchised, greater coercion is needed, furthering the need to disintegrate the "Rights of Man." Forces of alienation will overcome forces of family and friends, despite the internet and Facebook, as populations rise. Can we save ourselves or can we count on a savior? Can we count on science?

James

I believe Nietzsche and others get too much credit, because their works are built upon classical Greek and Roman philosophy. In our forefathers' day, education might literacy in the Greek and Roman classics, and this seems quite important to understanding democracy. So is science important to democracy. Therefore, we should literate in both the classical philosophy and science. And by we I mean everyone. Our Statue of Liberty holds book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment, and this is essential to humanity! Especially today with the very dangerous things we are playing around with. But also because of our masses. Like the cells in our bodies need good programming and self correcting systems, so do civilizations.

Anyway, the Greeks concluded even the gods are subject to the force that organizes the universe. Moral is to know "the law" and good manners. We need pay more attention to how we know "the law". Democracy is not people ruling over people, but rule by reason, and for this reason the people must know the reasoning. Science and philosophy bring us to this.

[mtbturtle]

Hi Athena,

Your last post didn't include a comment - left it off?

I agree with your general sentiment regarding the importance of education in the other post but dunno about the history of Thomas Jefferson's views on education or when it started to change etc.

[Athena]

I agree that a near-perfect ethical framework must be established immediately, and be practically feasible and able to be appropriated successfully so as to minimise injustice of all kinds... We are pouring an unknown amount of value in the world down the drain in the meantime, perhaps particularly in parenting methods, mass doctrines, and the direction of our own actions... There is not as much passion for this as would be ideal, with a purely objective view, because each being seeks happiness, which is only personal. That is to say, we work for our own respective universe. Hence why we don't contribute more for others generally, devote our lives to humanitarian efforts, or even bother to go out of our way due to global warming.
The application of ethics is also going to be extremely rough in the meantime. Where do we direct our reforms? Perhaps it is found that the entire cosmetic sect of industries must disappear, or that we have a moral duty to make as many children as possible? Just some profound yet very possible examples. Succeeding in, or even bothering to, implement leading ethical theories is at least half of the battle in itself, we see this in addictions chiefly.

I save you for last to relish your words of wisdom. Do you know of the Stoics? The philosophy flourished around 300 B.C..

The Stoic philosophers believed that each man has within himself reason, which relates hum to all other men and to the Reason (God) that governs the universe. World Book Encyclopedia

Okay, the people of the Iroquois federation on a completely different continent concluded the same thing.
Basically, we are as good as our reasoning. Therefore, the goal is to teach people how to think. Please notice I am saying how to think, not what to think. Liberal education is concern with teaching how to think, not what to think. It is sort of like learning math. People who know math will get the same answer to the problem.

Or there is Cicero, and how obvious it is that if we do wrong, bad will happen. It doesn't matter how good our intentions are, or how much we sacrifice to a god, burn candles , pray, because the result of the doing will be what it is. Only if we do not learn how to think, will we not reason this out.

All together, it is our best interest to do the right thing.

[Athena]

Hi Athena,

Your last post didn't include a comment - left it off?

I agree with your general sentiment in the other post but dunno about the history of Thomas Jefferson's views on education or when it started to change.

It would be so much easier if we had one book for democracy, like the God of Abraham religions each have their book. I used to think I would write that book, but have decided I just do not have the mental capacity that is required.

The painful fact is we need literacy in Greek and Roman classics, and science. Science, because democracy depends on knowing the law, and it is through science we learn the law. Get it? In a democracy the people must be very well educated, and that is not education for technology. Education for technology is education for Hitler's New World Order. Hitler's New World Order is order by Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens, not independent thinkers as we once prepared people to be. And the New World Order organizes the whole nation for military might. Can you imagine we demobilize our military after ever war, until the Korean war. Eisenhower called this national organization, the Military Industrial Complex, and he said this would change us and it has. We have gone from a nation intent on morality to arguing it is futile to be bothered with morals. In 1958 Eisenhower asked congress for the National Defense Education Act, and got it. We adopted both the German model for bureaucracy and education. We are living under the same institutions that resulted in NAZI German. Yipes, I have taken this thread way too far off topic. Anyway, now you see the problem with me writing a book. I am not a disciplined writer.

[mtbturtle]

Athena, technology probably isn't the word I was really thinking of ...more corporatism.

[Athena]

Athena, technology probably isn't the word I was really thinking of ...more corporatism.

I think the problem is our focus on technology and adopting the Germany model of amoral education for technology. It was with good intentions that religion and science were split, but this is possibly a philosophical error? Athens went through a period of religion, than turned against religion, and then used philosophy to bring religion back, but without the superstition of the gods. I think that is what we have to do, and it is done as they did it, through philosophy, which is the foundation of science.


Only highly moral people can have liberty. Giving liberty to amoral people is suicidal! Look at what happened to our banking system and economy. Capitalism without morality is self destructive. How much worse, the science that could destroy life on our planet, without morals? Isn't that about like wanting to discover the north pole, and not have the knowledge essential to surviving the trip? Morals are important. because when we don't know them things go really wrong. And our liberty depends on everyone knowing them.

Our problem is, we had education for good moral judgment, without religion, and then we dropped this education and replaced it with Germany's amoral education for technology, and left moral training to the church as Germany had done. My God what a terrible mistake! No we are divided between the extreme of those who are superstitious and those who are atheist and these two are bashing each other, neither side knowing enough about philosophy to know it's path to truth welcomes both of them.

[owleye]

I believe Nietzsche and others get too much credit, because their works are built upon classical Greek and Roman philosophy. In our forefathers' day, education might literacy in the Greek and Roman classics, and this seems quite important to understanding democracy. So is science important to democracy. Therefore, we should literate in both the classical philosophy and science. And by we I mean everyone. Our Statue of Liberty holds book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment, and this is essential to humanity! Especially today with the very dangerous things we are playing around with. But also because of our masses. Like the cells in our bodies need good programming and self correcting systems, so do civilizations.

So, among the roles of government, then, is to provide a good education for all its citizens. It does seem to be a first principle of most nations to advocate for an educational system that promotes its values on to the next generation. Historically, and also within certain regions of the current world, this has been, and is, the provenance of religions. Religions seem to be able to summon up a social cohesiveness unmatched by alienating, secular governments. My contention is that a liberating and tolerant democracy works only when the citizenry is small enough to tolerate the freedoms and rights granted to them by government. As populations rise, either there is insurrection and fragmentation, possibly revolution, or the government moves to greater control and less freedom, with less rights granted.

Education in the U.S. has become increasingly expensive as populations rise. Like healthcare, it might be made less expensive if the institutions accommodated smaller and more numerous facilities or venues, but this might have the effect of diversifying the curriculum or diversifying the practice as folks would gravitate to those they favor, rather than those whose standards are presumably higher. Moreover, with the need to control the product, governments become driven by increasing attention to what can only be considered the Procrustean bed of standardized testing, further eroding the liberating effect that education and health care are supposed to promulgate. There's many a reason why the U.S. lags in almost every important category, and I'm beginning to think that one of the main reasons is population growth itself, which, from a statistical perspective at the very least implies a greater one sigma diversity in every jurisdiction, not to mention higher sigma deviances. The U.S. may no longer be able to handle its own diversity in a democratically controlled way.

Civil war would be on the horizon if this trend continues, though it now appears that the powers that are in control have grown greater with greater capabilities to control it, most of which are due to the corrupting influences of power itself, which is increasingly understood as being needed and not just because of the advocacy and practice of carrying loaded weapons by one of the strongest and most influential lobbies, the National Rifle Association, that makes the U.S. not only the most armed citizenry, but also the most imprisoned citizenry in all of history.

So, what hope is there for the U.S in being able to educate its citizens to an enlightened future, when there is an assault on reason itself? Plato's vision was to assume that only philosophers (the scientists of his day) could rule the masses, they being unable to rule themselves, likening society to the individual, who's better self resided in reason, one that would temporize the evil spirits within us. Would only a benevolent dictator, one whose sole task was to seek the truth, beauty and goodness on behalf of society, work?

James

[Athena]

I will repeat our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment. Public education in the US and Britain were based in literature for the purpose of making good citizens. Vocational training was not added until we mobilized for the first world war, and the old education was not completely replaced until 1958. Every generation we get further away from the old education, things get worse, making what said about the inability to maintain social control appear true and unavoidable, but how knowledgeable are you of the education that brought us up to 1958 and the reason people thought liberty was possible? Do you really want to argue that liberty is not possible? That we have no choice but to accept a police state? Then how do we justify any of our wars?

[mtbturtle]

I thought she held a Law book.

[owleye]

I will repeat our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment. Public education in the US and Britain were based in literature for the purpose of making good citizens. Vocational training was not added until we mobilized for the first world war, and the old education was not completely replaced until 1958. Every generation we get further away from the old education, things get worse, making what said about the inability to maintain social control appear true and unavoidable, but how knowledgeable are you of the education that brought us up to 1958 and the reason people thought liberty was possible? Do you really want to argue that liberty is not possible? That we have no choice but to accept a police state? Then how do we justify any of our wars?

I'm not making an argument about the future because I want that future. It's a future I fear might occur merely on a speculative idea of population growth of nations under the rules by which enlightenment thinkers envisioned. So far, you haven't addressed that argument. You might ask yourself why large countries tend toward authoritarian rule. In any case, I hope I'm wrong about the conclusions that I'm drawing. I'm hoping that your better understanding of humanity can find ways to stave it off, if you think the argument has merit, or if not, that you can locate significant flaws with it.

If my argument has merit, there's one possible way I can think of that would help keep democracy alive. Keep nations small. Form breakaway jurisdictions. Put a lid on globalization of financial interests, possibly by adopting international rules that require nations to exchange goods only along lines of jurisdiction. Fight corruption by restricting cash flow across jurisdictions through approved channels that don't pass through individuals. Keep banks and insurance companies small. Basically, the idea is create smaller institutions that are manageable. It is the corruption of power that I believe is the issue I'm attacking and if the extent of power is limited, perhaps it can limit the corruption. Don't know whether any of this will work, though, but it does allow countries like Norway to have a net surplus, unlike just about every other major economy in the world.

Within the U.S., the same strategy could take place, wherein the states, or groups of states, themselves could be given more power to regulate themselves, restricting the size of the federal government, limiting the jurisdiction of banks and so-forth.

I'm just throwing darts here, but my fears persist. Washington D.C. and much of the conclaves of the east coast is not unlike the nobility that surround the throne. They think of themselves as the center of the world around which everything of importance goes on. It, and the power it holds, is the very globalization of the ego. That it has very little understanding of the world outside of itself will probably not serve it well in the long run, but it's not likely to make the world better or more enlightened in the near future anyway. Democracy, in my view, is hanging by a thread.

Just read the comments by Grover Norquist about Romney. Paraphrasing. It doesn't matter much who Romney is, as long as he's willing to go along with Congress, the Ryan budget, and the Norquist pledge not to raise taxes ever and to push for more tax cuts. It's really difficult to imagine an educational system that works toward the enlightenment of the people without funds. Perhaps they think we should go back to days when school teachers weren't paid at all.

James

[mtbturtle]

I thought the Statue of Liberty was holding a book of Law.