To me, the movie "Elisium" with Matt Damon is a likely outcome... in the short term.

Love the Gil Scott Heron inclusion. It’s made no less relevant by the fact that 15 African-Americans have gone into space; more than 350 whites have gone to space.

This discussion has been ongoing ever since space travel became reality. The costs are enormous, and for all the talk about “humans will have to leave earth one day to survive” there is not even a glimmer of ability to terraform another world. And there is not a world that can be terraformed anywhere within reach. Furthermore, the odds on natural causes chasing us off this planet pale compared to the odds of us destroying our ability to reside here.

If we cannot manage a perfectly good livable planet, are we even worthy of attempting to try to live on another planet? My reply is NO.

I've got a decent handful of international clients and I speak German and understand Spanish. I swear I've got more than one German client who is genuinely significantly friendlier and more agreeable when speaking in English than when speaking in German. Then I've got one Spanish client who seems to be a lot more direct when speaking in Spanish than in English... Add in cultural differences and it's a miracle the global economy functions as smoothly as it does.

At my old company our territories used to be really broad, but we finally had to tighten them up because of how different sales executives pitches had to be even between neighboring countries, where if you aren't used to dealing with them specifically you can be next to useless. Like, I had eastern Asia as one of my territories when I first started at my old company. Had always prided myself on being able to overcome any objection, and was in a meeting where one of the guys was trying to take 1 more week to talk more to our competitor even though his team wanted to move forward. That's a problem I've dealt with 100 times, no big deal, so I ask why he needs to work with them more first when we are beating them on every box. His response is "because I said I would give them a strong chance, so to stop now would dishonor the spirit of my ancestors." At which point my only option is to go get sushi because I got nothing for objections regarding the honor of one's ancestral spirits.

Umm.. I may be wrong, but isn't less about language and more about culture?

> If you'd rather walk out from a room (or worse), than be able to settle your difference with some other presumably educated people, than this "pragmatic" value sounds like very arguable.

You're talking about ideals. I mean pragmatic in a sense that regardless of opinion, wants, idealization, "reality" has certain characteristic that are apathetic but work and all that matters is that they work. You're a few steps ahead of me if you're already filtering out human beings based on education level or mental capacity.

I'm not sympathizing with world leaders but world leaders walk out the room and room walks out with them. Example, the scientists screaming about climate change and people ignoring them.

>People aren't killing themselves over the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Or the best music, or the best tastes of ice cream.

>But over us vs them straw men dressed up as "values" by wicked individuals.

It's complicated and it's all tied together. There are principles at play that we must reflect on but must be careful to act on. It's like looking at a mirror. As soon as you try to get closer or move away, whatever you're looking at also changes. This ties to the correlation/correspondence found in theories of truth.

There's truth to saying that life is nasty, brutish, short. An inescapable quality of living.

>Criminalizing "being" (let alone somehow having to discard objective reality in name of any moral consideration) sounds a lot like dogma you know.

In the sense I'm saying it, being has consequences to others. It's not criminalizing being. It's criminalizing taking meaning for granted and instead encouraging sympathizing with others and what meaning means to them. As long as this sympathizing makes for a better community (defined as less suffering, etc).

>They aren't talking about the concept of "not knowing". Like, I don't have an opinion on rocket science, so whatever NASA should do in the next decade is undefined from my pov. And I thus shut up.

>They are talking about handwaving. You build your argument through a crescendo of negative rhetoric.. and then you just move on when instead you should explain the way it actually would not be possible for the original idea to make sense.

Knowing and not knowing are intimately tied. We must have ideals and expectation of what righteous ignorance is (eg, you deciding to stay silent during certain interchanges) and what kind of other ignorance is there. The handwaving is relevant to making the greater concept of "knowing" more impactful. Again the example of climate scientists. Climate scientists are handwaving because the audience is not receptive to their legitimate claim to the kingdom of climate epistemology. The audience is not righteously ignorant. The question is how do we make/encourage better audiences that know when to stay silent.

I wrote my linguistics thesis on a topic that overlapped with this, though I specifically looked at swearing/taboo. Research suggests that there's a bit of an emotional disconnect with L2 - when everyone present understands all languages in use, speakers tend to swear in their 2nd language. There's similar patterns in conversation around trauma - L2 allows people to talk about their experiences/exposure to sensitive stimuli while maintaining their composure. I think that trying to bring morality into would compromise how much the multilingual factor can be considered. We have a lot of ways to pick at language and language in use in linguistics but we can never get deeper than what we can actually see and hear. Internal factors like morality are beyond that. We can see that people tend to do this or that, and we can narrow down to key contextual features that predict when it'll happen, but reading morality into it is a step too far into subjectivity (and not the one we like in linguistics).

[removed]

[removed]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

Interesting, but wouldn’t it be better to do this with native bilingual speakers only? Isn’t this a bit like testing if step siblings have similar traits despite growing up apart from each other?

This is really interesting. Thank you for sharing!

Because I quoted physical text that contains content that does not require non-common interpretation to illustrate that your claim is incorrect:

> > This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic? > > > > The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.

From earlier in the thread:

> >>I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.

> Luckily, evolution found a solution: belief.

It would seem to me the difference is picked up from the exposure to a different culture while learning the language and how it differs from your native one. Not really much to do with thinking in that actual language.

[removed]

Well, it seems like a language effect on ethical decisionmaking definitely exists, even if the reason for it isn’t understood yet.

I haven’t read the original journal articles that this one referenced yet, but I wonder if they need to repeat the study with fluently multilingual people. That would remove the effect that the work of comprehension might have.

Then I don't know why you think I denied the existence of the words themselves.

I do, yes.

This was an uneventful read. The findings are inconclusive and the assumptions are not surprising. Having less emotional connection to a second language is pretty easy to assume.

Interesting topic to research though. I wish there was more experiments to really get to the core of morality in multilingual people instead of emotional / comprehension struggles. It seems like they are linking morality to these instead of seeing these things as hindering actual morality considerations from happening.

[removed]

We have not lived only to fulfill some ambiguous ”need” for millions of years now.

Also ethical naturalism and nonmoralism have been dead for a long time if they ever even were alive.

[removed]