There sure hasn't been much to sink your teeth into on Moneybox these last few days. I guess that's why there are so many strangers posting there.

Phil,

What, beer and french fries don't get you worked up?

I don't even like french fries. Actually, for the most part, I don't like potatoes. Now beer is different so I entered into that briefly, but only to suggest a brand.

The "why do we need movie critics" thing just wasn't worth bothering with.

I really think that, in general, the economy/ecology topics we expose here are more in line with what Moneybox should be taking on. They used to do precisely that. I'm sorry they decided we needed a change of focus. If we don't cover these topics, where are the Presidential candidates going to go for material? They probably don't even know about hard-to-find Bottom Line.

==============================­==============

By the way, I had the thought that, if it were possible to arrive at universal agreement that some version of the Golden Rule is axiomatic, then we could converge on a belief system which would not depend on either the acceptance or the rejection of the supernatural. Has there been any formal work done on this concept, that you know of?

I did get into the beer issue to offer my opinion that the meaning of an "American company" was decidedly hazy and probably meaningless. But that is a good generic issue, not associated with beer.

And yet, did you notice the movie critic one elicited a flurry of checks? Not surprising if all we have are lit-crit eds.

You're right about BL being the hidden gem of the Fray.

No, I'm not aware of such a discussion about the Golden Rule.

Give some thought to the Golden Rule as axiomatic. It struck me that all surviving species (including humans) must be driven by some such concept as evidenced merely by the fact that they have survived. Tigers, for instance, eat all sorts of other animals, but they apparently don't eat tigers, or there would not be succeeding generations of tigers. It does make one stop and think. The symbol of two snakes in the process of swallowing each other, with the implication that they would eventually vanish, may refer to that idea. The various people credited with originating variations of the Golden Rule might have actually observed it in action rather than conceiving it ad hoc.

Another thought: It seems likely that men, in past millenia, must have stumbled on dinosaur bones protruding from shifting desert sands or eroded river banks. How would they have explained them to themselves? "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown." Depending on how one interprets "and also after that", the two parts of the sentence may not be tightly related. Each, after all, could be a separate statement, with the latter one sounding very much like Greek mythology. I think communication between Hebrew and Greek cultures was probably well established by the time the Genesis was written. Anyhow, it's just a thought I figured I would throw in.

Revrick, I am a bit surprised that you are not familiar with The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis, which surveys the values that seem to be found in nearly every (civilized) human society (and even in some that we might consider un-civilized). This set of more-or-less universal values, C.S. Lewis calls 'the Tao'. The Golden Rule is certainly a prominent feature of this universal value system, but so are many others. I have argued about this before with Phil, pointing out that the 'preservation of human society' is another well-nigh universal value. [I have cited this in arguing in favor of attempts to prevent an asteroid impact from wiping out human civilization; such an impact would also cause extensive damage to the Earth's biosphere, which seems to be of more interest to Phil...]

Phil: Tigers, for instance, eat all sorts of other animals, but they apparently don't eat tigers, or there would not be succeeding generations of tigers.

LeRoy: Although I know of no cases of tigers eating tigers, the example does not support your argument, because we are very familiar with lions eating lions. Adult male lions will often kill (and eat) young lion cubs, when those cubs are not their own progeny. This actually can be reproductively fit behavior, as the female lioness may then be prepared to mate with the aggressor; so by doing this, the adult male may actually be increasing the chances of passing on his own genes. Does this apply in any way to human behavior? Well, Genghis Khan was noted for killing all the males of any city that resisted him, and carrying off the females, and personally impregnating as many of them as was humanly possible (and in his case, at least, that was evidently quite a few, as his genetic signature is still very abundant across quite a large stretch of Eurasia even today). A few years ago, there was a very controversial theory advanced by someone (whose name I am forgetting at the moment), which suggested that human rapists were essentially pursuing a genetic strategy of trying to 'sow their seeds' as widely as possible--nothing like the direct approach, in this view.

You should not be surprised to hear that feminists were outraged by that hypothesis.

I guess I am interested in the adoption of the Golden Rule at a somewhat earthier level, modulating the nature of the relationship between men. That would neither incorporate nor exclude a concept of preservation of the human race in some global sense. A colony on Mars would not give me any additional sense of immortality. On the other hand, my conviction is that such a project would be so consumptive of what might be limited resources that it would materially reduce the chances of survival of the human race here on Earth.

I do worry about a major meteor or comet impact but don't know what I would do to prevent or ameliorate it. There was a recent TV offering which discussed the probable outcome of shattering such an object. It was concluded there that, based on evidence of past impacts, the entering objects following an intercept would be large enough to cause enormous damage, and the fact that the number of them would lead to more destruction than if the intercept were not made. Of course, the possibility of diverting a single object and avoiding impact should be studied, but I suspect it will be revealed that we are, in practical terms, unable to do that for an object of any size. Given this distressing result, I have decided that the best course is to wrap one's head with two layers of aluminum foil before retiring in the evening.

Phil: I do worry about a major meteor or comet impact but don't know what I would do to prevent or ameliorate it. There was a recent TV offering which discussed the probable outcome of shattering such an object. It was concluded there that, based on evidence of past impacts, the entering objects following an intercept would be large enough to cause enormous damage, and the fact that the number of them would lead to more destruction than if the intercept were not made. Of course, the possibility of diverting a single object and avoiding impact should be studied, but I suspect it will be revealed that we are, in practical terms, unable to do that for an object of any size.

LeRoy: Shattering the object is definitely NOT the right idea, and for precisely the reasons you state. Early detection is the key, just as it is with cancer---and this is where the majority of the effort today, such as it is, is directed. If an object on a collision path is detected at least a few years in advance, it should in fact be possible to nudge it off the collision course, as it would take only a small nudge. In fact, some studies indicate that just placing a spacecraft of moderate mass nearby the asteroid for a period of time would be enough to pull your typical one- or two-mile wide asteroid off course by enough to cause it to miss the Earth. An alternative would be to emplace actual rockets on one side of the asteroid, and knock it off course more deliberately. Since the 100-year anniversary of the Tunguska event was just a few days ago, the topic seems quite relevant. Scientific American has had at least a couple of articles on the topic of deflecting asteroids in the past decade or so--though I would have to do some actual digging to find them. A few months ago, Atlantic Monthly had a cover article on the topic---which I admit I have not yet read. I do know where that is, and will dig it out and read it at some time this week...

Phil:

At the suggestion of "bacon," I thought we could retire here and post as we felt we should with out articles to post against. Articles would be nice; but, I always find the level of discourse to be interesting. It was a suitable arrangement given that we were being erased and banished from Moneybox. I also find much of Moneybox to be tepid in content. They appear to appealing more to the masses than intellect although we even screwed up on Gross's "Davos" article.

I do know there will be a Money box spinoff called "The Big Money" with "James Ledbetter" as the editor. In a recent post of mine answering an article topic obesity and savings, he showed some interest in my contributing to that new blog. Whether that takes place or not, we will have to see. Maybe it will be a step up from what we have experienced to date? One could only hope.