Be careful when trying to untangle correlation and causation: it may well be that poor people and criminals are more likely to turn to religion. After all, atheism is mainly found in more educated populations.
It's too easy to claim that citizens are not involved in what the government is doing. One reason these agencies are so bold is because Americans themselves are completely dismissive of the rights of foreigners, thanks to the old manifest destiny attitude.
Diversity isn't a magic pill that automatically improves everything. Students should be selected based on their merits. If this results in non-diverse samples, then so be it.
Seems he put his mental health on the line... As someone else here so nicely pointed out, being a drone op isn't an "it's him or me" situation, you're clearly aware that it's just the other guy that's at risk. So if you do have a conscience, this could be a lot harder to deal with than popping a guy who's shooting at you with an AK, at least in a sense in that case you were defending yourself. This guy seems painfully aware of the fact that he bore no risk and he feels guilty for that. It's not shell-shock, but it's the moral equivalent.
> they did not have the same chance to develop an ethic framework as adults had, because they had less years to learn.
Many people die without ever having found an ethical framework. In fact, it's possible to make ill-designed ethical frameworks of your own that can have disastrous effects on society. Believing that time is the equivalent of wisdom is unwise.
> Believing that time is the equivalent of wisdom is unwise.
I absolutely agree with this statement, but that is not what I wanted to express.
I would more say that time plays an important role.
Learning anything takes time. Not everyone uses the time for learning the right things.
Some people are fast, while some people are slow.
I would say it is not fair to judge people who had little time to learn (children) by the same measures as people who had more time to learn (adults).
The reason "nihilists" aren't taken seriously is because they like to rely on an overly simplistic understanding of the world and ill-conceived metaphors.
I am interested in which parts of that metaphor you think were overly simplistic or ill-conceived. I thought it was pretty right-on as far as how people treat the system.
Not necessarily. If like at least half of users you spend your time watching videos, memes and your facebook feed, you aren't going to become more literate or understand anything.
I would posit that those people are unlikely to be sufficiently motivated to spend time learning or doing something more constructive anyway regardless of the Internet and nothing is likely to change that. While the Internet has certainly lowered the bar of entry with regards to "entertain me," it has done the same to information access at large.
There are a number of alarming studies (as some other poster said, take a look at N. Carr's book) that show that screen time, especially in our formative years can have dramatically negative effects on brain development. So it's possible that some people who ended up zombified by the internet could actually have had significant lives. There are plenty of people whose otherwise adjusted lives have spiralled into failure due to drugs, so why couldn't the same thing happen with other dopamine releasing activities? I think the fact that people have literally died from screen overuse lends credence to the idea that there is some danger to integrating computers in every part of our lives and it's not necessarily our fault if we fall into the depths of online time-wasting.
In any case, I don't really like the idea that those people would been useless anyway as if it were in their nature to be unmotivated. Maybe I'm a bit naive but I believe good nurture can offset much of the problems of nature.
> ...especially in our formative years can have dramatically negative effects on brain development.
I personally believe it is a parent's responsibility to monitor their children and ensure that they have the best chance they can get at adequate cognitive development, even if that means monitoring their use of "screen time."
When I was young (and no doubt many of you), it was cartoons. Now it's Internet or game-related stuff.
> In any case, I don't really like the idea that those people would been useless anyway as if it were in their nature to be unmotivated.
I didn't suggest they're useless. I stated they were unmotivated and that such lack of motivation is unlikely to change no matter what the distraction. 20 years ago, it might have been soap operas. Today it's the Internet. Removing any distraction in particular for someone with a great deal if idle time who is unlikely to be motivated to "learn" something isn't going to change their motivation. That was essentially the crux of my point.
> I think the fact that people have literally died from screen overuse lends credence to the idea that there is some danger to integrating computers...
And what about those of us who use them daily with (seemingly) no ill effects, because it's what we do for a living and for much of our hobbyist use? Of the circumstances I'm aware of where people have died from sitting in front of a computer too long, it's been due in part to video game abuse. Playing StarCraft for 48+ hours in a single stretch without eating or drinking is the sign of an addiction, not necessarily the fault of StarCraft itself.
I think this effectively boils down to the fact that the problem is not with technology. The problem is with people.
People can choose things but that doesn't mean you should sometimes try to steer them in an other direction. That's the whole point of morality and other coercive measures which all have a different place on the scale of subtleness.
