Tridimity

The concept of a ‘War on Terror’ arguably does not even make sense. Terror is a human reaction to a perceived threat; it makes no sense to declare war on this human reaction than it does to declare war on disgust or envy. In order to win a war on terror one would need to wipe out all perceived threats – which is impossible since people will react in this way to any number of stimuli. Of course, the sense in which ‘War on Terror’ is normally used is restricted to the war against militant organisations including Al Qaeda. However, I imagine that some thought went into the language used and ‘War on Terror’ was decided upon by a PR task force in order to sell the invasion to the masses – who would argue against a ‘War on Terror’? That would amount to an endorsement of terror. But words are words and actions are actions and oftentimes the two realities do not correlate. If you intervene early enough (e.g. starting at age 3-4 years) it may be possible to truly educate (not indoctrinate) people. Let’s face it, any intervention is going to be better than the current system, with its endorsement of passive absorption of information from authority figures. I do think that the Western education systems need to be changed in a substantial way if we are to generate the kinds of minds required in order to fix 21st century problems.

Perhaps all of the nations involved could come to a joint agreement as to what is fair for each of them to cut - and to impose sanctions on those who step out of line

That's not obvious at all. It is possible to have self-esteem issues but to simultaneously respect other people. I have known of people with self-esteem issues and clinical depression who had thoughts of suicide and yet who respected others.

Absolutely, this is the main problem, financial wellbeing is prioritised over patient wellbeing. In the UK this has also resulted in target-setting activity which, although done with the best of intentions (e.g. to reduce waiting times for appointments and treatments) has had negative consequences such as forcibly limiting the duration of consultation appointments and, regrettably, fudging of the data by healthcare workers under pressure. Of course we need our healthcare programmes to be affordable - but this may well be achieved more efficiently by incentivising reduction in morbidity/mortality - if you tally Doctors' pay to resolution of disease and to mortality figures (and do not allow them to pick and choose which patients they treat!) then I think a lot of people would be quite surprised at how cost-effective their practise becomes. Putting people's daily bread on the line quickly makes them re-assess their own priorities! It is also much more difficult to fudge morbidity/mortality outcome data - just enforce random spot checks on patients to ask about their condition and to check if they are still alive. Doctors who fail to perform to high standards ought to be given extra support and those performing adequately or better ought to be rewarded.

It probably would not take much to implement: a tweak of the curriculum and training of teachers in this area. It is a sad fact but teachers (like most professionals) will generally do whatever is required of them so long as their daily bread depends on it. Perhaps it would be necessary to overhaul the entire education system, but I think I am now going further to the bottom right of your business quadrant, TAR That's me: the one with the bifurcated tongue on the bottom right

Yes, let's define love. My ideas of love centre very much on the biological processes, conferred upon us by Evolution, that facilitate procreation and the pair-bonding necessary to successfully raise a child to reproductive age. A number of hormones and neurotransmitters have been implicated in the initial attraction and subsequent long-term attachment including nerve growth factor ("honeymoon" molecule), testosterone, oestrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin (infatuation), oxytocin (attachment) and vasopressin. Clearly, the physiological basis of raw sexual desire (what one might call lust) is necessary for the initiation of a long-term loving relationship but is not sufficient - attachment must occur. However the above description is a best attempt at explaining what happens during the process of falling in love and maintaining a loving relationship from an objective standpoint - I would not propose that it be used as a standalone definition and am much more interested in the subjective experiences of love. E.g. if love is mostly about acceptance of the attributes and limitations of our partner, as has been alluded to earlier in the thread - then why do we not fall in love with our friends in the same way - after all, many of us accept these characteristics of our friends? And does this mean to say that the love between partners in two different couples - one formed between two very honourable people who have little to forgive or accept versus one formed between two people with many vices - is equal in worth? The 'acceptance' definition needs some adjustment imo.

Perhaps it would be possible to incentivise reductions in mortality rate; medical researchers compete for funding from charities and research councils just as they do at present except the parameter that is used as a basis for determining who wins grants is reduction in morbidity/mortality rather than the number of research publications/h index. This would necessitate research projects that operate on a far larger scale than at present and with timescales of 5-10 years or so. I think that this would work best in the context of an open research institute for which the recruitment policy is strictly meritocratic with a strong emphasis on creativity and problem-solving skills. As I envisage it, all researchers would be free to work anywhere within the institute and to collaborate freely or work independently as they choose. Subject specialisations and titles would be ignored in order to create an effective and co-operative (not competitive) environment. The only two rules would be: i. To strive to achieve the set objective (e.g. reducing mortality rates associated with a particular type of cancer within a certain time period, in animal models and in clinical trials) ii. To acknowledge the contributions of any and all people who have contributed to the project

Then shall we leave your argument as it was, I wouldn't mind knocking it down in one blow. I notice that you didn't respond to any of the other points I made... what's up with that? Too busy learning about electoral systems to reply?

I was not suggesting that personality traits could or ought to be taught - only critical thinking skills. Your entire thinking smacks of the patriarchal society. Most people may not have the mental capacity or talent to become Chancellor of the Exchequer or CEO of a company or brain surgeon but they know well enough how to live their own life and their feelings and views ought to be respected and considered on par with those of the more able. Anything else is frankly condescension.

Haha, I will agree with © - he could have EtBr on there or anything!

Well, yes, it's just something people try as a means of attempting to secure the love of another. Even if they are successful, the other person will be loving an ignis fatuus.

My point is that some people lose their authentic identity while trying to secure the love and approval of their partner.

Some people turn into Whomever others want them to be

Just a quick post on the subject of child geniuses as presented on BBC Channel 4 On Demand in 'Child Genius' and available on YouTube: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/child-genius/videos/all/child-genius-2013-spelling-bee Episode 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiPM25_Odqs Episode 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhGCG9cm8b0 Episode 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJ6H6QJgkI Episode 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qx5ShZkyAI It's so uplifting to see such intelligent children, gives some hope for the future!

That's just the point - it is up to the elected representatives to present us (the electorate) with options for changing the electoral system - in reality we live in an indirect democracy in which such options are not presented. In order for your assertion that "the people have the option if they wish. If they don't, it is because they don't want it" to hold true you would first need to qualify it with the phrase 'majority of people' (since there will always be a minority of individuals who disagree). You would then need to prove that the views of the majority are represented adequately under our electoral systems - which they are not. As for the 2011 AV referendum: i. AV is not PR and PR was not presented by the elected representatives as an option to the electorate ii. There was no opportunity for a white vote; the figures fail to represent those who wish for neither FPTP nor AV and those who perhaps want AV but do not trust in politicians to deliver the goods; or those who do not understand the choice or are not sufficiently engaged in Politics as to realise that to vote AV would be in their interests. iii. Turnout was just 42.2% - 68% of those voted against AV/to keep FPTP. The upshot is that 28.7% of the electorate voted to keep FPTP rather than to change to AV. It takes a fairly big leap of the imagination to say that this equates to "the people don't want PR".

Not a joke, not funny one bit. Just the truth - I couldn't find a suitable alternative thread.

Quite right. Evolution seems to have instilled children with a natural credulity - presumably the initial gullibility of children and their readiness to absorb information provided by authority figures will in most cases confer a survival advantage - children quickly learn from their parents and other caregivers what is safe and what not, what provides a survival advantage and what does not. For the sake of all children, but especially the minority who are stuck with parents not worthy of the title, if I were Education Secretary I would make it mandatory that a major part of nursery school/kindergarten and reception classes set children thinking about good and bad reasons for believing in anything - with perhaps a benign betrayal of their trust in an authority figure to prove to them the fallibility of blind trust in authority figures/tradition/faith - and recognition that even adults are aware of only an exceedingly small fraction of all that there is to know about the Universe. Of course the Philosophy lessons would continue throughout school but what is novel here is that the lessons really must begin at a very early age (3-4 years). Children should be given the chance to recognise the truth independently of instruction from the teacher; the teacher's role would be to facilitate their learning on this path and to ask the right kinds of questions about the nature of truth then to step back and allow the children to have their own discussions about the nature of truth.

This only holds true under proportional representation (PR) systems which does not operate in either the UK or US

Arbitrary blind trust is the surest way to get oneself killed. As for trusting the systems that human judgment creates rather than trusting human judgment - I can see parallels with trust in scientific knowledge. It is wise to place trust in peer-reviewed knowledge resulting from the scientific 'method', because (as you may well agree) Science is the most reliable means of obtaining information about objective reality. The peer review process and subsequent attempts to replicate published data mean that any bias or error on the part of individual scientists is gradually sifted out of the collective body of scientific knowledge. It is foolish to place trust in the claims of any one individual scientist whose work has not been subjected to effective peer review nor to scrutiny by oneself. In this sense, I trust Science (in the sense of trusting the scientific approach, when followed correctly, to yield reliable and accurate information about reality); I do not necessarily trust individual scientists.

The double Nobel Prize winner, Frederick Sanger, best known for the technique of Sanger sequencing, has died aged 95. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25020112 The scientific community will be forever indebted to you, Sanger, for the knowledge and technologies resulting from your "messing about in the Lab" and will remember you fondly.

So, essentially, the truism ought to read, 'You must first accept yourself before you can accept another' or something to that effect. Thanks for your comments, that part seems to be fairly clear now. But what of the fact that people who love others also typically seek the approval of those whom they love? E.g. a wife seeks the approval of her husband and a husband seeks the approval of his wife. According to the truism, each person has already accepted their self - has accepted both their attributes and limitations - so why do they seek the approval/acceptance of their partner? I guess it may be because they love their partner and wish to procreate and/or share their life with their partner - their partner's acceptance is a prerequisite for the fulfillment of these objectives - so can be considered not so much as fixing one person's insecurity with the acceptance bestowed by another, as learning to live together happily? What of the people whose limitations and flaws are not so benign that they ought to passively accept them? And what of their potential partner(s) - ought they to accept the limitations and flaws? How do you know what ought to be acceptable and what not? How far ought a person to change their own characteristics so as to minimise their flaws as perceived by their partner? At some point, the person may become so changed by living as a reflection of their partner's expectations that they have all but eroded the last part of their authentic self.

Oh, I see. Perhaps it could work. Since the economic prospects of wealthy individuals have become inextricably linked to the pillage of foreign nations' resources, there would need to be a regulatory mechanism in place to ensure that all nations re-allocate the correct proportion of their defence budget to medical research, so that no one nation is left with a military vulnerability in comparison with the others.

It would be great if it were possible to persuade individuals of the correctness of peace but I honestly think that some people just do not care about fellow men, women and children - they only care about their immediate family members (selfish gene) and their safety. For example, I know people whose relatives were involved in the Iraq invasion - they were very concerned about the safe return of their family members but showed zero concern about the innocent Iraqi men, women and children who were being murdered on a daily basis. Perhaps it comes down to an 'us' versus 'them' mentality which is reinforced the more that nations are seen to harbour their own individual identities at the expense of our ultimate shared identity as human beings. Reminds me of something that TAR said recently - if you can manage to convince people of their shared identity, and to absorb others into their own conception of 'self', then they will not think about hurting one another, as to hurt another would be to hurt oneself. Global unification.

= "Cars definitely evolve in that sense, but not with genes/natural selection" The sense in which you are using the word 'religious' is all-important and proves that, as other members have pointed out, you have tortured the definition of the term 'religious' until it becomes meaningless and applies to all.

s1eep, 'Religion' as used here with reference to consumerism is akin to 'evolution' with respect to motor cars. Neither term is being used in its literal sense. So this is not a valid definition on which to base your assertions.