From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:35:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
Message-ID: <199801150703.BAA04343@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Note that any errors in transcription are mine, I had to re-edit this to
get it to fit on a 80 column screen.

Forwarded message:

> From: Wayne Radinsky <waynerad@oz.net>
> Subject: RE: rant on the morality of confidentiality 
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:32:15 -0800

> The reason morality is impossible to nail down is because it does not exist
> al all in any absolute sense,

Morality is an individuals or societal groups beliefs of right and wrong.
Of course there is no more absolute right morality than there is a right
flavor of ice cream, this entire line of reasoning is a non sequitar. Ethics
is the issues of what is correct or permissible in relation to a particular
human activity such as scientific research or law.

When you use 'science' and 'morality' in a comparison you are in actuality
comparing apples and oranges. Science is related to *how* one does a
particular activity, it is not concerned in the least with *why* that
activity should (not) be done in the first place.

Science and its philosophy are *not* applicable to all areas of human
discourse anymore than the Bible is applicable as a methodology to study
quantum physics or aerodynamics.

> at least as far as science is concerned.

Science isn't concerned with right, wrong, morality, etc. It *is*
concerned with a systematic way to ask questions in a *specific* area of
discourse. To apply science to religion is as much a disservice to science
and religion as it would be to try to apply it to art.

> According to the principle of natural selection, all people, including
> scientists, exist purely to maximize their own inclusive genetic fitness.

Exactly whose theory or principle of natural selection? At the current time
I am aware of several different theories that fit the data but which in many
aspects are mutualy exclusive. This is entirely too broad a statement to
have reasonable merit. We simply don't know enough about what is going on
with the processes of life to justify this sort of leap.

> Keep in mind that all natural selection really does is decide which genes
> are allowed to propagate,

Natural selection isn't doing anything. It is a term we apply to a process
we observe occurring. That process seems to occur at several levels besides
just the genes.

> and since genes are just digital information stored on DNA molecules

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. We start with the base
pairs, which really are informationaly isolated from the codons which are
triplets of base pairs which form a 'word' in the genetic code. It is of
some import to realize that the genetic code itself is *not* dependant on
the actual mechanism of expression, in other words you can talk about
the genetic langauge without any reference to the base pairs themselves.
It is the codons that are important. There is a fundamental symmetry break
at that level. Each of the codons is mapped to one of 20 amino acids. Since
there are 4 bases arranged in 3's there are 64 combinations. This means
that for any particular amino acid there is more than one way to code
it. There are also several 'stop' codes which break the transcription
process as well.

>, what we call "life" is really just a complex
> interaction of matter/energy which determines which bits of information
> continue to exist over time.

That works equaly well as a definition of the cosmos. Keep this up and
you'll become a pantheist...;)

> The underlying reason people benefit by promoting themselves as moral
> people, in general, is because of the benefit of what evolutionary
> psychologists call reciprocal altruism.  With reciprocal altruism, both
> parties benefit if they are in a non-zero-sum situation.  Because most
> situations are non-zero-sum and the benefits are so great, everyone has
> a stake in promoting themselves as a good reciprocal altruist, in other
> words, a good, trustworthy, moral person.  This is how natural selection
> explains the existence of the concept of "morality".

Oh boy...

Not all moralities or religions accept the premise of altruistic behaviour.
Further, if you look at the prisoners game, you actualy accrue more from
intermittent moral behaviour than from consistent moral behaviour. Human
morality has no place in any consistent theory of natural selection that
I have ever seen. Please explain how a moral theory as you propose will
increase the participants likelyhood for reproduction? Further, if you look
at primate research (both non-human and human) what you find is a tendency
for promiscuity in both sexes. Males tend to be 'in heat' at all times while
females (at least when they are just entering the mating group) tend to
follow a estrus or lunar based cycle. Recent studies of primates in Africa
have found that the previous theory that band members don't intermingle is
actualy incorrect. Upon extended monitoring they find that when the females
go into heat each month they sneak off and mate with outlying members of
other bands (who are usualy un-paired males). They intentionaly hide this
activity from their band mates because if caught they will face a physical
assault and potentialy death. This raises the question of whether chimps
have morality under your view because it is clearly a measure of right and
wrong. Are you willing to give chimps some sort of equal status to humans
as a result? Studies of human females find this same sort of behaviour in
the young just entering the mating pool. Studies find that young women tend
to wear more provocative clothing and explore non-familiar peer groups in
relation to their menstrual cycle.

> So it is a myth that scientists live to find deep truths or to benefit
> humanity.

Absolutely, unfortunately the fallicy with such an assertion have nothing
to do with the reasons you expound.

> They may do those things, but their real goal is maximizing their own
> inclusive fitness.

So being a scientist increases ones probability for mating? Please be so
kind as to offer some proof. Do scientist tend to have more offspring than
non-scientist? I think you will find that the actual studies show that the
more intelligent and well educated tend to have *fewer* children. This would
seem to run contrary to your hypothesis.



    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |       The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate,       |
   |       but the desire to edit somebody elses words.                 |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                  Sign in Ed Barsis' office         |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|