[ComradePhil]

I doubt I'll read it because I think it will bore me to death... knowing the fact what George Soros' "Open Society" comes from his work and judging from their actions, the whole doctrine seems to be against exploring potential truths in different ways and having a new form of monotheism which is strictly imposed on the entire world. I believe that is not only extremely dumb but also extremely dangerous. If it succeeds, I believe it will set back humanity by thousands of years, if not more. In the past, monotheistic religions have had limited control over the masses. They were limited to certain geo-political boundries, so the people outside of those could rescue the people tied too much into them (or they could rescue themselves by learning from what happens outside). If the entire world is held hostage to one central ideology, even if it is the "best" of our time, we may never recover from the "local maxima" that it will create.

[_0ffh]

We need a healthy plurality of world views and the freedom to live them. That is the correct point of view, both from a moral and a consequentialist perspective. If we have a global monoculture then any flaw in that might doom the whole of humanity, instead of just a part of it.

[powerslacker]

Why is it morally superior to protect human life?

[_0ffh]

If we don't make it off this planet, it's more than likely that nothing else will.

"Why is it morally superior to protect life?"

Because I like it. Because it's life's prime directive to perpetuate life and I am a lifeform. Mumblemumblegod. Pick whatever you like. :)

[powerslacker]

You either have a coherent answer or you don't. Objective morality either exists or it doesn't.

[defaultprimate]

The entirety of the scientific method's pursuit of truth is built on Popper's philosophy of science and inquiry and has been highly effective at establishing objective truth.

It's kinda funny because you're making conjectures that are explicitly addressed in the book.