Interesting position. You believe in an inherent universal morality and, I assume (given that you are of one of the Abrahamic faiths), something like original sin, but you also believe that all conformity is culturally based. I'd be interested in seeing how you reconcile those positions. To me this is precisely the kind of paradoxical mystical claim that many religious antis make about kids' spiritual state: they think kids are both innocent (blank slates, which akin to your cultural conformity model because all behaviors would have to originate through cultural immersion) and full of sin (original sin, divestible only through following the correct spiritual path.)

In fact, it's not too difficult to demonstrate your fallacious thinking here, and to do so we need only refer to Donald Brown's List of Human Universals ⚠️ ↗, as provided in a book written by the previously mentioned Stephen Pinker. Given that these universals are . . . well, universal, this pretty much demolishes the notion that the types of things we conform to are entirely cultural (unless these universals arose in every culture by pure accident). This does not, of course, mean that there is an inherent morality to the universe. Just because these conditions arise in every culture doesn't mean that there is inherent value in them. Please note that 'rape' is on Brown's list; that doesn't then lead one to the conclusion that rape has universal merit. Values, then, are still relative, even if the concept of values (or, as Brown calls them, 'moral sentiments') is a universal.

It would be if we saw size differentials only on relatively intelligent species; but we don't, so something that does not depend on intelligence must be at play.

Yes, something--or rather many somethings--are at play, and those somethings vary between species, but it's still irrelevant to my point. The reason mammals have size variance between sexes almost universally (as opposed to most other species) is for the reasons I provided, even if it may not be politically correct even among biologists to admit it: it is so males can physically dominate their opponent whether they're fighting or copulating. Brass tacks: male mammals often have to commit rape to pass their seed on. More importantly, they need a size and strength advantage, as well as aggression, in order to best another male in order to win the right to copulate with the female. While humans are evolved enough not to have force sex on each other, the traits have not entirely disappeared from our species. As we can see from Brown's list, these traits are, in fact, among the universals: 'males more aggressive', 'males more prone to lethal violence', 'males engage in more coalitional violence', and 'males dominate public/political realm'.

My choice of word is intended to reflect the "owner" of a harem. Which in some species is a male and in others is a female.

Can you provide some significant examples of what you're talking about? There are only a handful of mammalian species in existence which live in polyandric groups, primarily the Callitrichidae subfamily of monkeys (marmosets and tamarins), and there is no significant size difference in any of those species as far as I'm aware. And as I said, below the class of mammalia the size variance is pretty much irrelevant, since copulation is almost entirely instinctive.

But again, polyandric species reverse that. Your quotation seems actually to agree with me.

How so?

I know I sound like Dissident, but really, don't measure the far future by the limits of the present.

Clarke: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Ordinarily I don't but in this case the resources required and the distances that must be traveled are so great that it verges on fantasy to imagine viable interstellar travel. I am a hardcore fan of sci-fi, so I know a bit about the science involved and the word that jumps out at me with regard to space travel is 'unlikely'. Is it therefore ironic that you're able to suspend your disbelief enough to buy into the possibility of interstellar travel and yet you still cannot imagine a future where machines are capable of fulfilling the roles of men? Which is more likely? The latter . . . by far.

They are autonomous flying, but not autonomous mission-plan and targetting. A flesh officer in the Pentagon designs the mission. A flesh pilot in Nevada controls their flight through a Wii.

But I am aiming higher than that. I am postulating that no matter what capacities, in theory, war machines achieve, there will be a human order needed to activate them. That human order needs to come from a warrior. And remember that war machines that are completely autonomous from humans do not have the incentives humans have; and therefore might very reasonably attack allies or their own "owners" because of this incentive disalignment. The human order is not superfluous.

You know what? Women can fly remote controlled planes too. I've seen it with my own eyes. [sarcasm]It's amazing what incredible feats women are capable of, isn't it?[/sarcasm] :) More importantly, war in the traditional sense would likely become obsolete without men. It is always men who wage wars, not women. Again, see my point above: in your book, interstellar travel = possible but wars run by women and/or machines = impossible. Duuuuuude, are you always this condescending to females?

The benefit is surviving when the Sun eats the Earth. Why would we not do that if we arrived to that point? It seems stupid to survive natural or artificial destruction for billions of years only to surrender to the Sun unconditionally when the day comes. That's a civilization-scale suicide pact by another name.

There's no shame in a species dying out when there's nothing to be done about it. We have no Manifest Destiny to conquer the universe. Anyway, it doesn't matter how advanced they get, every species in the universe is fated to perish because the universe itself will eventually fall to heat death. We had a good run. Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about the immediate future of our species, and I see long-term advantages to breeding out the males and leaving females to run things. It's their turn and they'll be significantly better off without us around to keep waging wars and mucking shit up.

No, it's really not. It's just that we do not have an in-built alarm that tells us when we are crossing from one to the other. It is similar to our taste for fat and sugar. It makes sense when you consider evolution, and only doesn't anymore because we have a much greater access to fat and sugar now than we ever did before (or conversely, to wealth). I seriously doubt the best financial mind ever (whoever it is) would have accumulated more than one generation worth of wealth in pre-agricultural times. It was just impossible.

Yes, it really is. There may not be much difference from the standpoint of our genes, but as I just said in my previous post, we are not slaves to our genes. Anyway, there is absolutely a difference between us hoarding shit for the benefit of ourselves and hoarding goods and foodstuffs for the the community. If you can't understand the difference, you need a theological refresher course because I'm pretty sure Mohammad didn't say you should be selfish with your valuables.

"He is not a perfect Muslim who eats his fill and lets his neighbor go hungry." - Mohammad

A poor man was once starving. He entered a Land in which there were many trees and fruits. He picked up some fruits.

The owner of the land caught him, defeated him and stripped off his clothes.

The poor man appealed to the Prophet Muhammad.

Muhammad said to the owner:

"This man was ignorant; so you should have dispelled his ignorance; He was hungry, so you should have fed him."

The owner of the land felt sorry, he gave the poor man new clothes and, in addition, he gave him some fruits and grain.

While he was himself wealthy by the standards of the time, Mohammad revered the poor. I should think that if Mohammad were alive today and aware of all the poor, sick and dying in the world, he would be giving away everything he owned. Yes, there is a difference between selfish hoarding and hoarding in order to help others. Does it really need to be spelled out more clearly than that for you? I know you are not that ignorant by design; thus, you're being willfully ignorant in this case. I love how you refer to science when it suits you (even if you use it wrongly sometimes), but you replace it with faith when it doesn't. Well that's not that unusual really. Most people do that. But it's disappointing coming from you. this is why I think you've surrendered your honor when it comes to debate. You have a bag of tricks when it comes to arguing for your position, not a solid debating technique. There was a time when you were a more honorable opponent. Now you're no longer a master debater, just a masturbator. :-p

I don't claim that male aggression can be overcome. I claim that it is not as negative or unneeded as the current feminist consensus puts it, to your agreement. No, we are not better off erasing natural male aggression from our gene pool.

Well, given that it's on Brown's list of universals, I'd say it's pretty damn serious. I don't know what world you live in, but the one I live in it's definitely negative. All the wars, atrocities, violence, rape . . . it all comes from men. Not to mention, the elimination of one gender will fix the gender wars and sexual discrimination. Yeah, I'd say it's a pretty substantial issue.

The fallacy is statist, not libertarian: how is a monopoly the best way to end monopolies? For that matter, how are brutal warlords prevented from exercising power by non-anarchies? On the contrary, they are legitimised by being in charge of the institutions of the state.

But - I will remark this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

It is a libertarian fallacy. How is a "monopoly" the best way to end monopolies? It's called checks & balances, look into it. Nope, warlords are not legitimized by the state, at least not per se--it all depends on the state. However, in anarchies the most brutal and violent almost always triumph. Anarchies never last for precisely that reason: because power vacuums always get filled. I cannot think of a single sustained anarchic state in the whole history of humanity. They are doomed to fail because they lack the power to withhold those who do possess power.

And the availability of guns.

Yeah, I don't think so. In fact, historically, as long as guns have existed, they were possessed by anyone who could afford them. Just about every family in the US had one. Was the Wild West, where guns were the most prevalent and men carried them on their person at all times, the least violent part of the country at that time? Hardly. Likewise, is the modern American the least violent part of the country? There's where your position breaks down.

And the invasive and totalitarian capacities of the state.

Alright.

And if I wanted to be even more obnoxious, with material wealth.

Actually, there is a grain of truth in this, or maybe a seed pod. People who who have very little--who are then driven by hunger, shame and need--are closer to the base on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, if not right on it. Reduced to that state, we tend to behave on a more primal level, which means we're closer to reacting violently. I've seen it time and again in the very poorest families I've known: anger, aggression and mental illness runs deep, and there are many such families in the South. Combine that with the availability of guns and you have your answer as to why gun violence runs high here. You also see that sort of aggression rise throughout the country during times of financial recession and periods of uncertainty, as when the politicians were being threatened during the whole health care debate last year.

That's what I meant "power for the sake of power". It is a very prominent critique in left-anarchism, and only a little less prominent in right-anarchism because the right wing believes that any organization that accepts the practice will in turn be outcompeted by leaner ones (if not propped up by others, that is. [cough] bailouts [cough]).

I'm talking about hierarchies that are out of step with what would naturally occur minus the artificial power structure. This isn't about gov't (though it certainly does exist there too.) It occurs just as much in the corporate/business world as the state, maybe more because people frequently get powerful positions not because of their skills but who they know (or who their families know)--crony capitalism. And you add plutocracy, which often exists within the corporate world without any dependence on corrupt state officials. It all comes down to the fact that human beings are just naturally selfish. In a hierarchical situation that selfishness can (and frequently is) disastrous, because the people at the top hoard everything, and they buy themselves insurance against having to surrender any part of their wealth for the good of the whole community. It's much harder to exploit your selfish tendencies when everyone has pretty much equal standing.

So you would approve of a suicide attack being ordered if you approved of the cause?

Well, the term "suicide attack" is loaded language. In one sense any soldier going into war could be considered as going on a suicide attack, especially if they're on the front line. But here's the important thing: I do not believe in a fixed morality. There are exceptions to all rules. So, yes, if an individual was ordered (and agreed) to go into a mission knowing their chances of survival were extremely slim, but yet the greater good was served if they completed the mission, I would likely support it. Since, however, I believe that such things are conditional, I would make the call based on the evidence available to me. As Gandalf said, not the even the wisest of men can foresee all ends, so there's no way to know exactly what serves the greater good in the long run, but I could base a judgment on what I do know ans be satisfied with it based on that conclusion, even if it doesn't go as I expected. I would still have to weigh it against my other ethical beliefs though and do a cost-benefit analysis, but as the question stands, sure.

Yes there is: streamlined decision making.
Granted, that is a weakness in some contexts (notably, where there is no merit and no consultation). But most often it's a strength.

Streamlined decision making is not an inherent value; it is a conditional one, as you demonstrate in the second sentence, which contradicts your claim. I can say definitively that I believe there is no such thing as inherent value, a position I've maintained all along. If, for example, the decision to execute all MAPs was given at the top of a well-ordered hierarchy, such that it was carried out swiftly and effectively, would you say that was a valuable thing for us? Or what about the decision to launch a nuclear assault? Any claim of inherent value would mean, by definition, it was valuable to everyone all the time, no exceptions. That is clearly not the case. There is no inherent value to anything; it's only valuable within a context and to certain people, and theoretically it could be valuable to no one.

Now I don't buy it. Uncontacted and many weakly contacted peoples don't seem to need White Man stuff. For that matter, the Amish don't seem to need White Man stuff. Through choice, disaster or history and geography, many people have proven that you really don't need all that much.

Right, so the fact that some people somewhere don't need something proves that no one needed it? My, how you do like to make sweeping claims about humanity. You are equivocating on the meaning of "need" here. You are using it to mean one thing (a desire for something required for survival) and I'm using it to mean something much broader (a desire for something which achieves a particular end.) Thus, there was a need by Eli Whitney for a much faster and more economical means of removing seeds from cotton fibers. Ergo, the cotton gin was born.

Same as with war - incentives are not similar.

I will put you a very simple example: machines have no reason to want to stop global warming (assumption here that it is both anthropogenic and reversible, of course); but humans do. Therefore, you cannot expect an intelligent machine to give you some "clean energy" solutions which a human would specifically seek.

See reply above concerning space travel.

No it's not. The elimination of biological gender is similar; but there would be at least some grandfathering of live humans, instead of breeding of wholly new generations.

I didn't say they were the same thing; I said they amounted to the same thing for me, meaning the elimination, or at least downplaying, of biologically-based male motivations. Particularly after a few generations of living in mechanical bodies which do not possess the same needs as biological ones, and the fact that females and males would conceivably be uploaded to standardized mechanical forms (thus evening out the physical power differential).