"And of course you should be able to reuse the seeds. There are plenty of ways to recover their investments. "Please, name some. We're eager to see how completely ignoring your obligations to your stockholders and throwing your money away makes good business sense. How do they recover that massive amount of capital they spent on developing pesticide-resistant, high-yield crops? We're literally falling over ourselves to hear your solution to Monsanto's evil business practices. Please enlighten us, mystical guru of economics & agriculture.
Yes! I'm absolutely with you Tarhish, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Essentially, this is the age-old philosophical conundrum of Nature versus Nurture versus Nietzsche. Nature - we are a product of our physical and biological makeup. Our synapses and unique chemical and mineral properties define everything that we are as humans.Nurture - we are a product of our environment. The particular economic, social background that we are brought up in and the unique sequence of events that we experience form who we are over time from a blank sheet into an individual who's parameters of personality are defined by our external influences in the real world.Nietzsche - we are something else. What defines 'us' is the thing that looks out at the world from a place that is separate from those physical attributes and is unique to ourselves. What we call our 'self' is something that can transcend those physical limitations through a conscious act of will, but is something that needs to be recognised, nurtured and developed in order to to manifest and grow beyond the dictates of what our physical bodies offer. The answer and truth is, of course, all three at once! All are true both independently and together. The difference with the last one, is that without a conscious effort to develop one's consciousness (or, in different language, soul) then it fades and becomes powerless, a person becoming nothing more than the first two and living at the behest of whatever life threw at them, a slave to arbitrary circumstance and animal instinct. This is one of the most fundamental philosophical puzzles that exists in human endeavor and is in no way negated by scientific progress and in no way contradicts the philosophy of science. This is not about 'God' or the nature of the universe. It's about Man and how the human mind works. The problem is we are trying to define and understand the very thing we use to define and understand things. In order to do that, it is mandatory to adopt a philosophical standpoint - science is inadequate on it's own, yet absolutely necessary to get to the result. A sober, rigorous scientific mindset is essential in order to ensure that superstition does not get in the way of truth and to define those parts of the mind that can be defined by science in as detailed and empirical way as possible. My worry is that when people revolt against the anachronisms and illogical fundamentalist mindset of the old religious order - as they rightly should - they go one step too far and deny themselves the true mystery and awesome truth behind what it is to be human and are left with nothing but a sack of skin with neurosis.
oldhickOct 15, 2009
@guttersniper, who said wheat falls apart? And of course you should be able to reuse the seeds. There are plenty of ways to recover their investments.
baphclassOct 15, 2009
"And of course you should be able to reuse the seeds. There are plenty of ways to recover their investments. "Please, name some. We're eager to see how completely ignoring your obligations to your stockholders and throwing your money away makes good business sense. How do they recover that massive amount of capital they spent on developing pesticide-resistant, high-yield crops? We're literally falling over ourselves to hear your solution to Monsanto's evil business practices. Please enlighten us, mystical guru of economics & agriculture.
kitsuaOct 15, 2009
Yes! I'm absolutely with you Tarhish, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Essentially, this is the age-old philosophical conundrum of Nature versus Nurture versus Nietzsche. Nature - we are a product of our physical and biological makeup. Our synapses and unique chemical and mineral properties define everything that we are as humans.Nurture - we are a product of our environment. The particular economic, social background that we are brought up in and the unique sequence of events that we experience form who we are over time from a blank sheet into an individual who's parameters of personality are defined by our external influences in the real world.Nietzsche - we are something else. What defines 'us' is the thing that looks out at the world from a place that is separate from those physical attributes and is unique to ourselves. What we call our 'self' is something that can transcend those physical limitations through a conscious act of will, but is something that needs to be recognised, nurtured and developed in order to to manifest and grow beyond the dictates of what our physical bodies offer. The answer and truth is, of course, all three at once! All are true both independently and together. The difference with the last one, is that without a conscious effort to develop one's consciousness (or, in different language, soul) then it fades and becomes powerless, a person becoming nothing more than the first two and living at the behest of whatever life threw at them, a slave to arbitrary circumstance and animal instinct. This is one of the most fundamental philosophical puzzles that exists in human endeavor and is in no way negated by scientific progress and in no way contradicts the philosophy of science. This is not about 'God' or the nature of the universe. It's about Man and how the human mind works. The problem is we are trying to define and understand the very thing we use to define and understand things. In order to do that, it is mandatory to adopt a philosophical standpoint - science is inadequate on it's own, yet absolutely necessary to get to the result. A sober, rigorous scientific mindset is essential in order to ensure that superstition does not get in the way of truth and to define those parts of the mind that can be defined by science in as detailed and empirical way as possible. My worry is that when people revolt against the anachronisms and illogical fundamentalist mindset of the old religious order - as they rightly should - they go one step too far and deny themselves the true mystery and awesome truth behind what it is to be human and are left with nothing but a sack of skin with neurosis.
kitsuaOct 15, 2009
Someone's burying me but not participating. Coward.
kitsuaOct 15, 2009
Just by way of backup; Richard Dawkins considers the origin of human consciousness the "biggest puzzle" facing biology.<a class="user" href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/14/2097873.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/14/ ...</a>And a confirmation of everything I've been describing;<a class="user" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8873364/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8873364/</a>&quot;No longer the sole purview of philosophers and mystics, consciousness is now attracting the attention of scientists from across a variety of different fields, each, it seems, with their own theories about what consciousness is and how it arises from the brain."
moralogicOct 18, 2009
It depends on the business.