Directed Evolution

for Levi

Observing the current progress of science in manipulating genes in plants and animals, I believe humans will be genetically manipulating their genes as well. I see great advantages in this endeavor. Disease could be eliminated. There would be no more birth defects. Humans could increase there productivity to amazing rates. Fishermen could be given gills so that they would never have to fear drowning. Construction workers could be given amazing strength to increase their productivity. Think of all the churches that could be built. People could be engineered so that they could digest cellulose—allowing them to digest plant fibers. Hunger as we know it would be eliminated.

The only problem with all these advances is that we have no idea of the actual consequences. With gills people could live in the ocean. What would this do to the ecosystem? Being able to digest cellulose would put us in direct competition with all of the world’s herbivores. Would we kill all of them so that we could feed ourselves?

Humans will be the first creatures to be able to direct there evolution. Our evolution will no longer be a response to the environment and progress rapidly. Humanity will be able unravel Earth’s ecological networks. I do not think it is wise for humans to take that path. Genetic manipulation should be limited to curing disease. Anything further may be too much of a gamble to take and the consequences often cannot be seen in advance.

-Levi Price

I've become obsessed with morals lately. I remember learning a little bit about existentialism my freshman year (in a theatre class, of all places). Not that I could summarize it for you right here, but one of the basic tenets of existentialism is that there is no good in the universe, except what you put there yourself. That is, good does not exist unless you make it. (Bit of a humanist view there; people=God.)

My point is, can there be some truth to this? I mean, obviously, "every good and perfect gift comes from God," etc. etc., but would this make a good reason to be moral?

The novel I read, the Handmaid's Tale, dealt with a dwindling birthrate and a practically enslaved female population whose purpose was to combat this crisis. I focused my paper on human rights. Here's an excerpt.

How do we determine human rights? Is there a difference between human and animal rights? Common sense says yes. Humans are capable of reason. Humans are capable of making a difference, either for better or worse. Thus, humans deserve more freedom and more opportunities to choose their own paths than animals. Humans are more useful, thus more valuable, than animals, and should be given more privileges accordingly.

This is a dangerous path to be following, assigning rights based on utility. What if there are different degrees of usefulness among humans? The easiest division among us is gender. Are men somehow more worthy of freedom than women? Where does the value of women come from? Is their only purpose to carry and care for children, or do they have other functions as well? For example, women tend to be great communicators. When they are forbidden to speak, what loss does the society sustain? And should our significance be based only in utilitarian terms? Or can we be valued simply as the treasured creation of God? Or even the desire of man?

It’s impossible to gauge our freedoms unless we know what scale we’re using. Something that sounds repressive to us may only seem so by comparison. Conversely, just because no infringement on human rights is perceived does not mean a system is just.

from the movie de ja view or how ever you spell it the person that went back in time dieds and my question is did he have to i mean therre would of had the same person in the same time but how would that effect things one could go off and live a different life but he dies dose this have to happen

The book that I read was “Help! I’m trapped in my teacher’s body” by Todd Strasser. This book has parts that make you think about different philosophical questions. You can ask about morality and dualism and materialism. This book can really get you thinking about theses questions. Just because the book is geared to a younger audience dose not mean that it has deep philosophical meaning.

This book has a lot about dualism. With this book it is about two people who switch minds but there body and brain stayed the same. This is Substance Dualism. Substance dualism is when you believe that the mind and the brain are two distinct substances. In other words, they are two different entities, two different things. In this book it would be this way because all that was switched was the mind and not the brain or the body. In this book it was not Hylomorphic Dualism because the mind and soul make up the brain in Hylomorphic Dualism but in this book they changed minds but not brains.

So this post is about the movie we watched at movie night, so if you haven't seen Deja Vu this won't make sense. Watch it. It was good. :) Anyway...
The thing I found most interesting about the movie was the way the time traveling worked out in the end. It seems like every time-traveling film or book or tv episode ends in two ways: despressing because they can't change anything or frustrating because it's a constant circle. This one, however, ended with a new future that was able to be changed without just repeating itself. They solved the problem and they can now move on. So my question is: do you think this is a possible outcome or is there some flaw here that the film writers avoided?

So...since people are talking about their books and I need more posts, I'll ask some questions mine brought up. In my novel, A Shortcut in Time, the main character Josh discovers, go figure, a shortcut in time. There's a lot that goes on, but for your sake I'll cut this really short. In the end, Josh and his daughter Penny go back to 1918 and when they're both back, their lives have completely changed. Josh is married to someone different than before and they have no children, so Penny doesn't exist. Penny says that the sheriff wanted to marry her, so that's why she decided to return to her own time. And that's how the story ends. So the biggest question of course is what happens? Do they go back and change it again until they get their old lives back? But my philosophical question for you all is this: if it was destiny that they go back to 1918 so that Penny could marry the sheriff, why wasn't it also destiny that she not marry him that time? Or if it was, was it destiny that their lives be altered that way, too? These questions may be too jumbled to make sense, but if you can, let me know what you think.

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov

Central Questions: At what point do we start trusting technology to make decisions for us or do we even dare trust technology? If we do invent robots that have Artificial Intelligence and self-awareness, can we believe that they will not abuse their power for their own benefit?

This fear of robot’s power over humans drastically diminished in the last story, “Evitable Conflict.” In that futuristic decade, machines, robots built specifically for economic control, seemingly malfunctioned and depressed the economy, but they were surreptitiously removing all those who threatened their control. Susan Calvin realized what the machines were doing and told Byerley to let them continue, because they were still incapable of harming humans – the machines were simply ensuring that humans would not harm other humans. Byerley questioned the morality of relinquishing complete control of the future to the Machines, but Susan Calvin said:

It (Humanity) was always at the mercy of economic and sociological forces it did not understand—at the whims of climate, and the fortunes of war. Now the machines understand them; and no one can stop them, since the Machines will deal with them as they are dealing with the Society,--having, as they do, the greatest of weapons at their disposal, the absolute control of our economy. (272)

She pointed out that humanity never had control over its future, but now humanity did—humanity’s future would be the optimal future because of the machines.

A snippet from my review for A Canticle for Leibowitz:

[some background info: an A-bomb has detonated in Asia and the radiation has traveled to North America. law allows people who received extreme doses of radiation to be euthanized, if they so choose. Zerchi is a Catholic monk, aggainst euthanism (it's a sin). Cors is a doctor who euthanizes willing radiation victims (he's sees it as merciful).]

Who chose the right way to be moral, Zerchi or Cors? Or, are there numerous ways to be moral? Perhaps both Zerchi’s and Cors’ morals are “good” morals? This seems plausible, for each man’s belief [about euthenasia], broken down into it’s essence, seems “right.” Zerchi’s belief, minus it’s religious label of “sin,” is simply that the purposeful ending of a life, whether through murder, suicide, or euthenaisa, is not right. As to why it’s not right, Mark Rowlands suggests that death harms humans because it takes away a human’s future. Thus, a purposeful death (murder/suicide/euthanasia) is a purposeful canceling of a future. And this, as suggested by Rowlands, is what makes death bad. Thus, euthanasia is bad. However, Cors’ reasons for purposely ending a life also seem “right.” Do we not shoot horses who are injured beyond repair? We give animals release from pain, why not humans? Cors’ intent is to be merciful; he sees the immense suffering of the radiation victims and only has one way to end their pain: euthanasia, a legal and painless treatment. Thus, does Cors not have “right” morals, too? Kant would agree, for Cors’ intention is good; Cors intends to be merciful, he does not intend to cause harm. What’s more, Cors’ use of euthanasia fulfills his duty, another Kantian mark of a “good” moral, for Cors duty as a doctor is to care for his patients and not cause them harm. But, what it comes down to is, which option (letting the victims live in pain or ending their lives) would cause the greater harm? Would Cors cause more harm by releasing a radiation victim from the pain of this life (and thereby ending her future), or would Cors do more harm by letting the victim live (and thereby let her continue in immense, unstoppable pain)? Perhaps there is no “right” answer. Perhaps it depends on the situation. Perhaps it depends on the person. Perhaps some moral questions do not have maxims.

This is a parapgraph from my paper: What is this “destiny?” According to the novel destiny is what keeps each person’s life going in a certain course that is planned out for them. When something interferes, as what Stefan does, destiny tries to correct the original course. It seems to me that this destiny can be described as “God’s plan” or “will” for us. Could that be right either? Stefan’s interference would be going against and actually changing God’s original plan. This would mean God has to work through the rules and laws of our Earthly world to make things go the way he wants them, and have less power and control from what we normally would think. Perhaps this “destiny” is the first or original plan for a person’s life and how it should be. When something goes in a different direction, “destiny” (perhaps can be describe as God’s angels or forces) tries to keep as much of the original plan as before or until “destiny” is satisfied with how things are. Destiny could just be another name for a “guide line” that maps out our lives but something could happen to redirect us from the “plan.”

(for Levi)

I believe many of the technological advances in the medical field are amazing and wondrous. But in the future we may become too advanced. I mean that maybe we should not worry so much about keeping people alive so long. Maybe sometimes it might actually be a person’s time to die and medical technology is just prolonging a person’s life. I do not believe that technology should be used to allow people to live forever.

-Levi Price

I was thinking about how science and religion don't agree on certain issues, like were humans came from and how old the earth is. The thought occurred to me that maybe science will never completely agree with religion because if it did, then wouldn't that be proof that God exists? And that's not supposed to happen -- we believe in God through faith and not through scientific theories. If I am right and God won't let us prove His existence, then shouldn't time travel be impossible (or at least into the past)? Time travel would allow us to go back and see Adam and Eve and the beginning of the world. Faith would be taken out of the picture. Any comments? Disagree or agree with me?

In writing for another one of my classes I came upon the coiner of the term "Artificial Intelligence", one John McCarthy. He is a computer programmer and is very interested in AI. He thinks that Intelligence can be described using logic; and more specifically thinks that it is possible to describe Common Sense using logic. He believes that common sense in a requirement for AI, I agree, but I wonder if Logic is the best way to describe common sense; it would appear to me that, at times, common sense goes against logic. Comments?

If anyone was in chapel today (ignoring the fact that it was more of a classroom lecture than a chapel speech) the speaker did mention faith and science and even had a diagram with the two circles for each area with an overlap in the middle. (Vendiagram?) Anyway, he used scripture and his ecology background together to make some points about how we should treat the earth. There's not really a question here, just an observation I thought was interesting. So...take it, enjoy it.

As we were discussing the issue of science and faith today I thought that it might be interesting to look at this issue from the other side of the coin, what I mean is in a future in which we have aliens and what not, as depicted in various films, does a Christian's beliefs become questionable? Since Jesus died on the cross all we have had to worry about is humans. Jesus came to earth as a man, he died for the sins of man, etc. Perhaps the reason that "God is dead" in so many science fiction stories is because in a world with sentient beings of all different shapes and colors it might become difficult to explain to them that Christ died for all our sins. What if he didn't die for the Martians or the Kryptonians? How would a future theologian explain this to an alien being who doesn't even share the same blood color as we do? How do we hold to our beliefs when faced with this question?

Following Emily's post with the discussion of faith and science...I think that the unexplainable parts of faith are part of its appeal. There are a lot of mysteries still in the world and miracles (even if people don't call them that with the biblical references in mind) and I think people need some way to explain them. Faith in some higher power gives them that. Not that I think this is necessarily a good reason to believe in God, only because He gives you answers, but I do think that this is one thing religion has that science never can. The more we learn about our world, the more we discover that we know nothing about. This leads me to believe, that there will always be things that humans can't explain. So if there's always things we can't explain, no matter how advanced our science gets, there will always be that one reason for religion, even if it's only a shallow scrape at the surface of real faith.

Today in class (4.23.07) we talked a bit about science being/becoming the only belief system (as found in some sci-fi stories). I wonder if science (as a sole belief system) would allow enough creativity? If something can answer (almost) everything (or, at least, can answer a whole lot about approachable, concrete things) does that mean science will always have a mass appeal? Doesn't uncertainty = excitement? Aren't questions that have no answers more exciting than questions that do? I'm not sure. My mind goes to art, and I think of how art can never be tied down. When art does become tied down and answerable (at least in my experience) it becomes lackluster. I'm not saying science is lackluster because it answers ("almost") everything. Hang with me for a bit. While science and art can (and do) overlap, and art has been around for a long time, I wonder if the faith belief "system" would have just as good of a chance at lasting through time as art would? I suppose, how I see it, if faith dies, art also dies. If art dies, faith dies. I'm not sure I'm explaining this right. I guess I just see faith and art as very similar in how neither really ever have concrete answers. So what I mean is, when society ceases to accept one "system" that cannot provide concrete answers (such as religion/faith), I see soceity also rejecting art, for it, too, is a "system" that cannot answer every question.

Is the colonization of space within God's plan for humanity?

(For Levi)

Many of the science fiction stories we reed involve space exploration. The idea of colonizing the galaxy is a appeaing to me but what if it is not in God's plan for humanity. There is not any discussioin of space exploration in the Bible. I have a hard time seeing how it would fit into the current interpretations of the reincarnation. I specifically wounder if space exploration could be a present day Tower of Babel. What are your thoughts?

-Levi Price

Do you take the creation story (as found in Genesis) literally or metaphorically? Or, perhaps you take some of it literally and some of it metaphorically? Do you think God really made creation in seven, literal, measured-as-currently-measured days? Or, was a "day" to God then really a number (however huge) of years? I remember hearing conversation once that went along the lines of Adam and Eve and Eden not even being "real" but something more like "fables", stories to learn from. I don't know what I think about the Adam and Eve "fable" idea except, where do you separate "fable" from "real"? Were Cain and Able "real" or "fable"? Was Noah "real"? As for the made-in-seven-days thing, I do not doubt God could have made creation in 7 sun-up to sundown days, but I also could see a "day" equalling a huge number of years. What do you think about all this?

I recently watched The DaVinci Code for the first time. (I have never read the book.) Yes, I am behind the times. What do you all think about Jesus being (possibly) married? Would it be wrong? Perhaps because the metaphor of Christ being united to his bride, the church, isn't supposed to happen until Christ returns? I can understand that. But, that metaphor aside, Christ had an earthly mother and family. He was born (aside of conception) the "earthly" way. He lived as man (but without sinning). So . . . why would it be bad for Christ to have an earthly wife? I'm not so sure I like the idea of it, or would have wanted him to, but I wonder at why I feel that way? Why does it seem wrong? If you think it seems wrong, why? If you think it would be fine, why? While I do not hold to anything the movie presented (for I know no other information/background on this whole "supposed conspiracy") it is easy for me to see (as a possibility) how the early church coud've might've downplayed/eradiacted Mary M's importance to the followers of Christ simply b/c she was a woman. But then I think of how Jesus was supposed to be the only son of God and if Mary M. had had Christ's child, wouldn't that child have been another son of God? I suppose that might have a good arguing position. Any thoughts on this? I haven't scoured (what I am sure amount to many) any of the websites on this hot topic. And I know I've seen Christian authors' books that debunk the whole thing, but I haven't touched those either. I wanted to see what everyone on here thought.

Do you ever wonder if Jesus appeared to other galaxies/planets? That he lived with them on their planet and died for them there, too? And inspired "books" (or whatever the culture's permanent records were at the time) that tell of that planet's creation and the salvation story? I'm assuming that if God made other lifeforms on some other planet or in some other galaxy, that they would be such lifeforms that God made to be saved. Maybe God did make other lifeforms on some "galaxy far, far away" but they were not made in his image and were not created to be saved? What if those "creatures" were very like us, but weren't "totally God's image"? What do you think?

Creativity

(posted on behalf of Levi Price, who's having technical difficulties, as they say...)

In The Foundation and Earth by Isaac Asimov, there is the insinuation that increased unity and decreased individualism causes creativity to be stifled. The main character has chosen to set the universe on the path to total unity in which everything will be telepathically connected. Actually it is more than just a connection, in a way they become part of a large organisms. The people become like cells of the body – all separate individual cells but at the same time working as parts of the body for the common good.

Oh, and as side note, it is not only the people that are connected but also other animals, plants, bacteria and even the rocks. In the end all the matter of the galaxy will become one giant organism.

The main character is torn by his decision because he believes that people will lose there creativity when they are absorbed into this mega organism. He believes that creativity is dependent on independence. If there is no independent thinking, there is no original thought, right? But then I got to thinking, are humans not most creative when they are communicating with each other through books and discussion. We build upon each other when we unite our minds. On the other hand he might be right. Are there not times when the individual is right and the majority right? What would happen to dissenting opinions?

-Levi Price

Which brings me to point #2.

The scanning technology of Permutation City is such that any environment, situation, and NPC's can be loaded into the simulation. Also, the controller's emotions can be toyed with, as in one scenario where a man named Thomas builds himself a nearly indefinite rock wall to ascend and descend at will; ad infinitum, Sisyphus style. He likes the freeing aspect of climbing, and he tailors his emotions to really enjoy it, so much that it can consume him and be his only pursuit while he is in VR.

Would you want to be able to do this? Create an activity you enjoy, then be able to really make yourself immersed in it by toying with your emotions.

Ahh.. the blog. Look for apocalypse soon.

In my book, Permutation City, by Greg Egan, there are so many different philosophical issues I had a hard time containing them in my paper. Here is one:

Similarly to Nozick's Experience Machine, in this book people can 'scan' their existence and make digital (in ultra-realistic scenarios and environments) copies of themselves. These copies can be 'run' like a computer program in a user defined environment complete with a decent (but limited) amount of interaction with the surroundings. The technology and computing power is limited, and so copies cannot be run indefinitely. Maria is a main character, and her mother, Francesca, is dying of cancer. Maria very much wants to get her mother scanned, and therefore save her. She may die in reality, but a VR simulation of her would live. Francesca doesn't want to be scanned; she is content to die and be finished. (typical elderly response to new technology)

Does Maria have the right to create a copy of her mother to be run when the software is available to perpetuate a digital existence, to save her?

More on the topic of morals. My question is: Do morals change and if so why?

Take for example the topic of phsyically punishing a child. In earlier times or even in some of our parents' childhoods, physical punishment was not considered immoral. In fact, especially in early history, a man who ruled his household with a heavy hand was considered stronger than a man who was gentle with his family. (I'm referring to literature I have read here such as All Things Fall Apart or Candide.) Now, we would consider beating children as rather immoral -- at least, the word beating or spanking has a very negative context. Thus, have humanity's morals changed? Or is this topic even a moral topic? Obviously, our thoughts on the big moral issues (murder, adultery, read the ten commandments...) haven't changed all that much. So are morals confined to our biblical commandments? If so, why do other peoples of other religions and non-religion still exhibit the same basic morals? Any other examples of "changing morals?"

All these question are kind of pointing towards the idea of social contracts, but I don't quite think that that idea explains morals fully -- at least, it doesn't satisfy me. Do the other theories account for this? Well, that's a ton of questions...I think I'll stop there.

Call me cynical but does it seem that any particular system when taken to it's full literal extreme is never a good thing. I said in class that Kantinism taken too literally seems scary because one could sacrifice good for morality and Utilitarianism taken too literally would allow terrible things to happen because it causes a "greater" good. The answer to this problem seems the find a happy medium between the two of them, but if balance is taken too literally can it become a scary thing too?

This post is about something that I randomly thought about in class on Monday, and that thought had to do with the much loved Lord of the Rings films, more specifically: Fellowship of the Ring. We were talking about morality and about Plato's ring of invisability. Now I know that the connection between the two stories is obvious, but that wasnt what popped into my head and distracted me from my usual unwavering attention in class...I was reminded of a certain scene between Frodo and Gandalf in Bilbo's home. Frodo offers the ring to Gandalf and Gandalf responds: " Don't tempt me Frodo. Understand that I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me... it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

I dont have any huge revelation about this scene, only that it seemed to be a good example of trying to be moral, but instead actually doing evil. Does anyone have any other interesting, cool, fun, tragic, or what ever examples of someone or thing desiring to be moral but in the process performing evil?

my question is to animals have souls and if you belive they do do you belive inswcts have souls and if so do worms have souls and if so if a worm is cut in half which half get the soul or is there a new soul that gets made or what

my question is to animals have souls and if you belive they do do you belive inswcts have souls and if so do worms have souls and if so if a worm is cut in half which half get the soul or is there a new soul that gets made or what

So I have a similar post to Rachel's. I know it is kind of morbid, but I really like movies and books in which a main character, or one of the "good" characters dies, or is the subject of some other tragic event. Its not that I terribly enjoy death and tragedy, but it makes the stories all that much more believable. I think it is kind of like the old adage "misery loves company". I think I am drawn to storielines that feature an ending that are not so happily ever after because it makes them more like real life. For example the movie 300. It was an incredible movie, because all of the 300 Trojans died. Myabe that is a bad example, because the Trojans did eventually win, but all the same, I liked the fact that Leonidis and his men died in the story. Is it wrong to wish for somthing bad to happen just so the character does not live happily ever after, even if they are fictional? I certainly wouldn't wish tragdy on a real person, but is there a difference when the person is fictional and part of a mere story?

I feel I am on a roll right now because I have another moral quesiton for you. We didn't mention this one in class and it always gets me thinking about what is right and wrong. I don't know if how many of you have heard of the Hitler scenario. Which is if we did have a time machine and we can go back to the point of time before Hitler had came into power, would you kill him? That is you would have to kill Hitler in cold blood before he did anything wrong, but in this way you save millions of lives. Would you go through with it?

I honestly can say I don't know. On one hand I see the good that would come out of it but it also changes the whole course of history, and what if it is worse than it is now? Than there is the fact I would become a murder myself and in away playing God. To erase all that evil would be good but I also think in the long run be bad for us. Hitler's war helps us see what people are truly capable of and we can learn something from this. I know I have a bunch of random thoughts but what to you guys have to say on this idea?

In one of my recent posts i talked about bad guys having morals. What kind of morals or "honor code" would they have to make us cheer them on in a film? If this honor code we can agree with then why doesn't everyone live according to that code and rob a bank? Especially if the money taken was going to help others beside just yourself. I guess what I am really getting at is what is different between these "Good" bad guys and us that keeps us from following their example?

I mentioned in one of my recent comments that I love movies that make you root for the "bad" guys. Ocean's Eleven is probably the best example. I love how I can watch a whole movie rooting for these thieves and be happy when they win in the end and then realize exactly what I was hoping would happen. I wanted them to pull off a giant heist. So my questions for you all are these...first of all, can any of you even agree with what I'm saying? and for those of you that can, why do you think we do that? Does this say something about human nature, or is it not that deep? Maybe it simply means those are bound to be entertaining. Or do you think there's something else that drives up to want the bad guys to win sometimes?

I hope this link works. Let me now if it doesn't.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010905S0004

My brother came across this article for one of his classes and forwarded it to me since he knew I was reading I, Robot. Stephen Hawking basically said that the movies like Terminator are possibilities for our future and even more so are likely possibilities for our future. I thought that was rather interesting, especially since Stephen Hawking probably the greatest scientific mind of our time. It definitely got me started on thinking about my book review...which you will get to read later. So I guess you can call this a "teaser." :)

Best Super villain

This post has little to do with the course material and such, but in the hopes of getting some discussion going "Who would you say is the best super villain and why?"


Now obviously there are dozens of interesting super villains, from crazy people to brilliant evil scientists to aliens and magicians. The super villain I like the most has to be the Joker from the Batman Genre. He combines a lot of great evil qualities, he's insane, intelligent, witty, and is an all around twisted individual. The relationship between him and Batman is great because they each helped to create the other and in a lot of ways the Joker is the toughest opponent for the Dark Knight.

so thinking back to Minority Report, the question that bugged me big time about the movie is how can they justify prosecuting someone for a crime of passion? If someone commits premeditated murder then they truly meant to kill someone, but a crime of passion is spur of the moment and done by a person who isn't in the correct frame of mind. Should that person really be treated like a true criminal simply because they lost his/her head and would've killed someone?

This post is about Ch 7 that we were supposed to read this week... It was about morals and what is the cause of morals. Rowlands talked about the movie, The Hollow Man, where Kevin Bacon decided that he could do anything he wanted after he became invisible. Rowlands' theory was that we act "morally" because we care about what others perceive us to be. In other words, I don't say nasty things to someone who annoys me because I don't want to be interpreted as mean or impatient. Also, Rowlands thought that we have an unsaid pack between people that can be interpreted as morals. It is the thought "If I don't hit you, you won't hit me."

The first theory, more than the second, interests me because my professor in my gen psych class keeps telling us about his research that deals with the same concept. Basically, from what he has told us, his research is testing the theory that we act according to what other people think we should act. For example, I study and try to get good grades because my family emphasizes academic success. Take someone else from a different family who values athletic success more, that someone will be more prone to skipping studying to lift weights.

I don't agree with the theory that morals are a result of environment, though the environment undoubtedly influences them. I do agree that we are more prone to "acting out" when we are by ourselves (take for example, yelling at a slow driver in front of you when you are by yourself) but we still have a sense of morals (I feel some sense of guilt for saying such mean things to the slow driver later)... Any thoughts? Do you have inborn morals?

Since we are speaking about time machines how about this. In the book I am reading for our novel project it is about time travel. The person who goes through the gate can not go back into their own past to change something becasue that would cause a paradox so they can only go into the future. Well Stefan decides to change the life of woman. Now if you could go into the future to see how things were what would you see, or what would want to know about the future and would want to try and change it (I say try b.c according to the book "destiny" tries to corrects the changes made) and what would you change.

For me personally I would want to know the power ball numbers so I don't have to check out my own life just find out what the numbers were. Plus this way I can win the lottery and pay off all my loans! lol. Also i'll be able traval like I have always wanted.