John Hammonds
Recent Activity
It seems that more and more people are favoring advantageousness and vicarious over realism and self-discovery. Society seems to foster elitism over individualism these days. All to often I see debates on forums on the internet, and someone will start a thread with a valid point or unique outlook, and he will spell a word wrong, or make a small mistake, and the rest of the thread will only be pointing out semantic mistakes and shunning the person. Does anyone else see this happening? Are we moving more and more into a system were social skills are less important and our values are more in the possiblity that eugenics might have some slight change in humans to serve some idealist concept of the human condition? … Read More
January 17, 2008 | In
John Hammonds commented on Is a two party system the best system? on January 17, 2008, 12:03 AM
Personally I believe a better system would allow more people to share ideas and voice opinions, and in that sense party systems with a single leader wouldn't work well. I believe a system similar to the ancient Greek Aeropagus would work more efficiently, and with the leaps in communication we're undergoing managing the (possibly) large stream of incoming ideas to share might not be as hard as it seems.
John Hammonds commented on Personal Politics on January 16, 2008, 11:50 PM
Well, the thing is those are important, in my opinion. I know I wouldn't want a mormon in government for example because they would probably not be comfortable with sweeping changing in science such as genetic engineering, and I believe that these changes should be looked into, rather than loss support like Bush's veto did. I'm sure some things that are listed are semantic, but I think there are major indicators I would select my candadate on, but that's just me.
It seems to me that money was designed as an exchange system where the value of someone's goods or labor could be exchanged for other goods or labor, but that value isn't as important as the modern value. I think when we hear the word economy, most of us think money rather than industry, food, and labor. My question is, wouldn't there be a certain point at which a profit would draw value directly from the economy, over the possible value of the item being sold, and even be harmful to the economy? I suppose the most obvious exampe would be when a shoe company can make a shoe for less than $10 and sell it for over $100, but I'm thinking in terms of all goods and services. Could and should profit caps be set in some economies? It seems to me like this could be a major cause of inflation. … Read More
January 16, 2008 | In
John Hammonds commented on Can human beings learn to stop hurting each other? on January 17, 2008, 12:12 AM
Personally, I believe they can. We no longer need our primative drives for food and mating as we did before the agricultural revolution. Like in domesticated animals, in humans nearly all genetic variations are allowed to survive. I've seen many arguments that there is a sort of "eugenics" in people, but I don't believe it. The only absolute of human nature is choice. This is evident because people aren't mating for strength or intelligence, we choose our parterns, and it's often for personality and other factors. It's all a matter of choice, and because of the faint genetic and chemical predispositions, it's simply and easier choice for people to be agressive or follow instincts.