|
| Thread: The Federal Reserve |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 26, 2008 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why yes?
Because it benefits us more. Simple as that.
Quote:
What about a planet used to serve only WHITE people? Or only a certain religious group? You may not be racist but you are certainly speciesist. Do not try to deny that.
I'm not speciesist. If some alien race came to Earth that were more or less like humans in behavior, then I would treat them just the same as humans. Same with an AI that would act like a human.
Quote:
In fact what's so bad if everyone died?
We'd be dead. And I don't care what you'd prefer, but I'd rather not be dead.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 10:24 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:25, 26 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
I'm not speciesist. If some alien race came to Earth that were more or less like humans in behavior, then I would treat them just the same as humans. Same with an AI that would act like a human.
By the way, that's only because otherwise you'll fear you'll get attacked by them right? Or maybe because you can benefit from them.
But think of this: Suppose nazis are a species. Nazis do not benefit from cooperating with Jews -- heck they are almost extinct now ( ) COMPARED to WW2 so it must be pretty bad for them. So yes technically they can't "cooperate" because they don't care about other species called 'the rest of humans' but they only care about theirs right? Just like we only care about ours?
Are you prepared to sacrifice yourself for 'humanity'?
Are you prepared to sacrifice yourself for 'alien society'?
Are you prepared to sacrifice yourself for 'animal society'?
Then you are just like Nazis. Why would nazis cooperate with the other 'species' (in this example, the other humans are different species) when it would bring death to theirs?
So you're similar.
Quote:
We'd be dead. And I don't care what you'd prefer, but I'd rather not be dead.
Oh let's avoid that small thing called death in our lifetime -- let's forward 100 years for a change and then so it doesn't impact us.
By the way: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement 
nothing painful about it -- nothing irrational either.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 10:31 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 22:46, 26 Nov 2008.
|
Just a few more points:
1. You call me a materialist and yet forbid people having more than 2 children because of material reasons (we won't all have anything we want - material abundance!), forgetting about happiness that comes from having other people around you, for instance a big family. Hilarious ( ).
2. I never said overpopulate. I said fill the limits. And we partially decide on those. For instance, if we decide to leave half of agrarily viable landmass intact, we slash our top limit by ~half. There is much room left for nature(now only like 1/4 of this is 'wild'). But I still see no reason as to not fill that reduced limit.
3. A proven fact that larger societies develop faster. Unnoticeable within a lifetime, but over course of centuries, the differences are drastic. By limiting progress you make future generations worse off, you take away countless possibilities from them. In the name of their well-being. How ironic  .
4. I do not understand why should one not claim something that is unclaimed, belongs to no one. Why should mankind not expand into unknown of outer space? Exploring and examining it from here has its limits. 'One can't forever live in a cradle'. If we are alone, it would be even our duty to take life with us to the rest of the Universe. And if we are not, then we should meet other sentient species out there, and together accomplish wonders unthinkable on a planetary scale. Why not  ?
Speaking of achievements, I hope you are aware that they make people very happy, be they individual or of whole society? And so does progress.
Quote:
Are you prepared to sacrifice yourself for 'humanity'?
The survival of: Yes.
Quote:
Are you prepared to sacrifice yourself for 'alien society'?
The survival of: Possibly, if they are friendly towards us. An individual alien friend of mine, why not?
Quote:
Are you prepared to sacrifice yourself for 'animal societyspecies'?
The survival of: Rather not. A very specific situation may lead me to other decisions, though.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 10:45 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
I cannot answer your Nazi-Jew analogy because it is so fantasy. How can it be that the Nazis do not gain from cooperating with the Jews?
And I'm not prepared to sacrifice myself for anything.
Quote:
Then you are just like Nazis. Why would nazis cooperate with the other 'species' (in this example, the other humans are different species) when it would bring death to theirs?
How would it bring death to theirs? 
Quote:
Oh let's avoid that small thing called death in our lifetime -- let's forward 100 years for a change and then so it doesn't impact us.
If I knew in my lifetime that it was going to happen, then that would be an "emotional harm" for me, and I would be advocating strongly against it. But, after I died, I could do nothing and couldn't care either way.
As for VHEM, while I am fine with people not having children, it's (fortunately) not sustainable, and it shouldn't be an end in itself anyway.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 10:55 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:59, 26 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
1. You call me a materialist and yet forbid people having more than 2 children because of material reasons (we won't all have anything we want - material abundance!), forgetting about happiness that comes from having other people around you, for instance a big family. Hilarious ().
Yeah a big family with everyone having average conditions compared to half the family with abundant conditions
I would choose the latter. Quality over quantity every day
Quote:
2. I never said overpopulate. I said fill the limits. And we partially decide on those. For instance, if we decide to leave half of agrarily viable landmass intact, we slash our top limit by ~half. There is much room left for nature(now only like 1/4 of this is 'wild'). But I still see no reason as to not fill that reduced limit.
??
The thing here is that NOT only do we disturb MORE by being MORE, but also the fact that QUALITY OF LIFE per INDIVIDUAL lessens due to scarcity.
Quote:
3. A proven fact that larger societies develop faster. Unnoticeable within a lifetime, but over course of centuries, the differences are drastic. By limiting progress you make future generations worse off, you take away countless possibilities from them. In the name of their well-being. How ironic .
Yeah also the possibility called "become a virus".
Quote:
4. I do not understand why should one not claim something that is unclaimed, belongs to no one. Why should mankind not expand into unknown of outer space? Exploring and examining it from here has its limits. 'One can't forever live in a cradle'. If we are alone, it would be even our duty to take life with us to the rest of the Universe. And if we are not, then we should meet other sentient species out there, and together accomplish wonders unthinkable on a planetary scale. Why not ?
Duty? What duty? Maybe it's our duty to not get in the business of others? You said so yourself that you wouldn't like people to get into your business, and they should mind their own businesses -- and you say that regardless of their power (government) they shouldn't be able to do so right?
Now it's you who uses the power to expand and get into the business of others (animals + maybe the universe). Maybe the universe wants to be left alone. I would understand if you wouldn't say "duty" but wtf?
It's our duty to fill the universe with humans? I say we should mind our own businesses and not get into theirs. Unless of course you think you are superior because of your sentient abilities, but in that context, the government is 'superior' to take away all your property if it so chooses -- fortunately it doesn't, but you still advocate that for other things. How ironic.
No it's our duty to be mammals, not viruses, because that's what we are. It's our duty to keep it under control. It's our duty to respect the other things around us (especially outside the ecosystem) if we want to have our property respected. Period.
Quote:
The survival of: Rather not. A very specific situation may lead me to other decisions, though.
So you're being selective. Similar to Nazis -- selective to white people, short hair, etc etc...
why do you expect the nazis in that situation to 'sacrifice' themselves for the others? that's why they didn't! Because as you can see they are almost extinct now.
it's really interesting to request from someone else what you wouldn't do in return (like the property thing). You want to be left alone, you leave all the things outside your home alone -- on a large scale of course (that means outside the ecosystem).
@mvass:Quote:
How would it bring death to theirs?
Was this sarcastic?
Ok, in case it wasn't, if nazis cooperate with others (let's say germans) then you have a society like you have today right? Which is against nazi ideology -- and you can safely say they are extinct (well there are few individuals though). Therefore, this is what cooperation does to them -- they become extinct.
In fact, especially if for example you take white/black society, cooperating with blacks would make the white one extinct (assuming inter-breeding).
Ever thought that not everyone thinks for "humans" and some have other 'selections' than you? Why would your selection including whole of humanity, but not animals, be any better than a more selective one only for white people?
So Nazis were perfectly right. That was their species and it got destroyed -- they tried to protect it by not caring about the other species -- exactly what we do to animals LOL I can't believe you can't notice this.
They found 'justifications' for that too -- who are YOU to say what justification (i.e humanity, instead of white people) is better? After all, both of them as I have explained, lead to the 'death' of such species. So both are bad or good justifications, depending on your point of view.
Quote:
If I knew in my lifetime that it was going to happen, then that would be an "emotional harm" for me, and I would be advocating strongly against it.
You aren't as rational as I thought
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 11:35 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 23:39, 26 Nov 2008.
|
Stop being paranoiac about humanity being a virus. Viruses destroy cells they infect. Cells are dead in the process. We can bring life to other planets. Reshape =/= destroy.
AndQuote:
No it's our duty to be mammals
Name one (other than humans) mammal that does not fill the natural limits of its growth.
Besides, I do not believe inanimate matter (universe) has 'a business'. If so, then all inanimate matter has a business. How dare you mine metal ores, harvest stone? If you don't want to go into business of non-sentient species, then I suggest you leave animals, plants, mushrooms and unicellulars to themselves, and die out of hunger as a consequence. If there is no other sentience out there, then all the Universe belongs to us. If there are others, we should share it with them. You call that 'sentience-chauvinism'? Sorry but that's laughable for me.
I came up an interesting idea. What if there is something like Gaea, a pan-earthly sentience of all life, and it invented us to produce civilization and take life to other, barren planets? It would also serve the needs of survival of earthly life.
Besides, I find the way of thinking 'I wanna live good, whether world falls when I die, I don't care' utterly egoist. And abhorrent. I try to live not only for myself, but also for other people. Including future generations. And an idea that they may be entrenched in stagnation rather than progress further due to some weirdos fearing scarcity, is horrible for me.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 11:47 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:55, 26 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Name one (other than humans) mammal that does not fill the natural limits of its growth.
But when it happens they DIE. You don't want people to die, you want to reshape the resources to fit more -- which in TURN means you will reshape further to fit more. It will never end. On the other hand, all the mammals on Earth seem to be kinda balanced -- they don't need to constantly reshape everything to survive. Yes they could reshape it so they could live better but that has its limits. They don't just overpopulate to the point where they will need more! Even if they do, nature balances it out by them dying of starvation.
Obviously we don't want to starve but thankfully we are also intelligent enough to realize that and PREVENT it instead of 'avoiding' the problem for a short amount of time by using more resources -- which means more and more in turn, never ends (thus this 'problem' is never solved but just avoided!).
Would you rather treat a disease instead of curing it?
Quote:
Besides, I do not believe inanimate matter (universe) has 'a business'.
Aliens do. Who is to say the Moon isn't some alien's property? But forget about that, and let's think of this for a change (more on topic):
You don't want others to take away your rightfully owned property (capitalism vs socialism), is that correct? But we as humans go and CLAIM property -- without expecting to give it back.
For example, IF we happen to do something about the Moon and some aliens come and tell us it is their property, would you give it back to them? What if we populated too much and we can't or a lot of us will die? What would you do if you were to found that in your home? Your property?
Or do you have the right to claim property, but don't let others take it from you? How exactly does that work? That's such unidirectional thinking and it's hardly possible to even debate about it -- one-directionals tend to be very stubborn
Quote:
Besides, I find the way of thinking 'I wanna live good, whether world falls when I die, I don't care' utterly egoist. And abhorrent. I try to live not only for myself, but also for other people. Including future generations. And an idea that they may be entrenched in stagnation rather than progress further due to some weirdos fearing scarcity, is horrible for me.
Yeah only for "people". Or only for a certain selective group. But that's better than nothing (me) right?
Not so, you see, if you grow, you have more humans -- more humans = more chance at suffering. That which does not exist cannot suffer. And of course, WORSE CONDITIONS (scarcity).
What is egoistic about the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? No one suffers at all, no pain. Nothing wrong with it. It's not like the would-be humans can suffer since they don't even exist. On the other hand giving birth to more and more and more increases the chance to suffer (happiness is always a lot less).
I'm not really talking about extinction, but about population control and balance, keeping it constant. Growth is against natural means because it is obvious we need to reshape the ecosystem to survive, and even that has a limit.
Then again, look how much suffering we brought in the last 100 years. Don't tell me we don't cause suffering even to ourselves. Rationally, I see no 'egoism' in the VHEMT at all -- on the contrary, we seem to have this ability to let suffering greatly outnumber happiness. Of course, the more humans there are, the GREATER this difference is and the GREATER chances (10 humans on this whole planet would cause a lot less suffering than 10 billion).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 12:12 AM |
|
Edited by executor at 00:20, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
thus this 'problem' is never solved but just avoided!
What problem ? Why do you think that population of a species should stay at some arbitrary fixed amount? And all those animals and plants, were they capable of consciously reshaping their environment to further their needs as we are, I am pretty sure they would have done it. Besides, population growth will eventually meet a natural barrier, be it Solar System's resources if we don't develop FTL travel, or Galaxy's/Universe's if we do.
About aliens on Moon, I know nothing of a sign or message 'alien property keep out'. Should there be one, I would have kept out. I'd try to make contact and cooperate for benefit of both sides. If they turn out to be isolationist, no problem. If they are planning to destroy us, then I care nothing about them or their property rights.
And as well as more people => more chances of suffering, also more people => more chances of happiness. It can turn out that there will be far more happy people. It is good to offer one a chance of happiness, is it not? Especially if they are not materialists as you are and do not make a big fuss about scarcity  . It is of no consequence if there are 10 people on an island or 10 quadrillion in the galaxy. Your life can be made one great hell in both situations. You want to avoid man-made suffering? Live alone. How fun.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 12:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What problem ? Why do you think that population of a species should stay at some arbitrary fixed amount? And all those animals and plants, were they capable of consciously reshaping their environment to further their needs as we are, I am pretty sure they would have done it.
Possibly but when someone refers to 'nature' they refer to the species there are now, not to "what they could do" -- like chickens enslaving us if they could for example. But then even AIs are also reshaping that and doing 'that' but I couldn't call them natural.
As for "problem" I meant all the current problems of the world, including scarcity of resources and starvation. You "avoid" the problem by just having better methods to use the resources when you will also increase the growth -- if you keep the growth but use better methods, the problem is just as solved. But if not, then you're just "treating" it for the time being (i.e it WILL pop up later). You don't "cure" the problem.
And that also opens the gate to more suffering, usually larger population means larger chances -- and with human mentality (look at the last 100 years, the most suffering/destruction this planet has ever know since Christ! and all from 'inside' not from meteors/comets/outside) suffering will increase exponentially!
I say it's better to keep it under control and value what we have and just accept that we CAN live a quality life instead of being greedy and begging for more resources because we want to overpopulate! We can live quality lives but we don't want because we're greedy. Like biting the whole hand when someone offers help.
Quote:
About aliens on Moon, I know nothing of a sign or message 'alien property keep out'. Should there be one, I would have kept out.
You expect it to be in english?
But now even if you go there and LATER they come and say it's theirs -- would you just leave? What if you can't turn back (i.e you need those resources because of the increased population that shouldn't have taken place)?
Quote:
And as well as more people => more chances of suffering, also more people => more chances of happiness. It can turn out that there will be far more happy people. It is good to offer one a chance of happiness, is it not? Especially if they are not materialists as you are and do not make a big fuss about scarcity .
Nukes are more dangerous in a city than in rural areas because population is much more dense there...
There is no weapon of "mass construction" though.
I'm not really a materialist. I can have the choice of living quality lives, we all can. I try to respect that I can do that INSTEAD of WANTING more -- overambition is a 'sin' (metaphorically) just as greed and pride. I have been given the chance to live a quality life, we all have, with proper methods -- why would we want to be ambitious and greedy and not be satisfied with that, and instead want MORE and MORE. It's like we create 'problems' ourselves because of this. We are never satisfied with anything. If all our lives we want something and say "I want that and I can die happy" and then someone gives it to you, what happens is that our GREED will take over and we will want MORE. So to solve the human's greed it seems that GIVING HIM what he wants is NOT the solution. Humans are waaay too greedy in my opinion.
Religiously metaphorically speaking: They were once in paradise. They rejected it, wanted more (knowledge). They were cast down. Now they can have happy and QUALITY lives with few growth and ABUNDANCE of resources -- but they don't want. Don't tell me it's not their fault for suffering. Humans like to pass blame on others but it is they who are greedy and have ambitious desires. Desire is the thing that causes suffering -- get rid of desire and you get rid of suffering. You can't suffer (not physically) if you have no desire. And we don't have just any noble desire -- we have an ambitious GREEDY desire. We COULD live noble, we the 6 billion we are now. We COULD, but we want MORE. We could live with abundance but people like you want more to get scarce again. Why can't you appreciate what you have now? The only blame is on yourself otherwise. I have no pity towards people who have greedy ambitions and then want sympathy because of that (suppose for example that some miners are greedy and want gold, even though they could live happy, they go into a mine, and it crashes -- I have absolutely no sympathy for them, it was their own greed that made them suffer).
It's like you try to use less energy, and thus make a more energy-saving solution, but what happens is not that people will use less energy per se, they ARE GREEDY and will use MORE. You can't give a human a better solution to a problem because he will not be satisfied with that, he'll want more. Instead of APPRECIATING energy more because now he uses less, he WANTS MORE. So the energy consumption will not decrease as it should but possibly increase! That's human greed.
The more you give, the MORE a human wants. That's the simplest form of greed. Ambition and pride.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 12:46 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Ok, in case it wasn't, if nazis cooperate with others (let's say germans) then you have a society like you have today right? Which is against nazi ideology -- and you can safely say they are extinct (well there are few individuals though). Therefore, this is what cooperation does to them -- they become extinct.
If I saw that my ideology was preventing me from having a better life, I'd give it up. If I could cooperate with another species, but that would mean that I would no longer be human, then so be it. And there's another difference between me and the Nazis: the Nazis hated the Jews. I don't hate non-humans.
Quote:
You aren't as rational as I thought
Rationality is a means, not an end.
Quote:
But now even if you go there and LATER they come and say it's theirs -- would you just leave? What if you can't turn back (i.e you need those resources because of the increased population that shouldn't have taken place)?
By that logic, we should never climb out of our mothers' wombs.
And ambition and pride are very, very good things. I sometimes am disappointed with humanity, but then I remember that they are the most ambitious and proud species we know, and I am reassured.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 12:58 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:01, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
If I saw that my ideology was preventing me from having a better life, I'd give it up.
"better" life? That was the 'better' life for Nazis. Who are you to judge what is 'better' life? Better varies from person to person (or species to species). Do you think just because you are 'normal' that everyone has the same view of what is 'better' and what is not? Or that your 'better' is justified compared to theirs?
You can say that they "don't think straight" that they can have better life (maybe they SUFFER every second because of the thought that Jews are alive). But who says you are normal? Maybe some new 'species' of people in the future will SUFFER when any animal suffers. Who is to say that we are 'normal' and define what is 'better' life?
Then again, we look at Nazis how they did and call them stupid. Funny as we are too, in a different sense (an outside observer might call us stupid and nazis). So since we don't agree with giving Nazis the right to do it just because they wanted it -- why should we give us the right to do whatever we please (to animals) because we want it? Because we consider ourselves 'normal' and the 'rational' bunch? Nazis considered themselves 'normal' and 'rational' too. What makes us more special?
(rational as in "hey, how can I suffer if I kill an animal? it's irrational" which could be completely false depending on viewpoint -- rationality is subjective, so we think we are rational, nazis think they are rational, heck everyone thinks that, so that is NOT a justification).
Quote:
And there's another difference between me and the Nazis: the Nazis hated the Jews. I don't hate non-humans.
No but you enslave them. Not much difference, and not ALL of them hated them -- most simply didn't care when they saw them as slaves.
Quote:
By that logic, we should never climb out of our mothers' wombs.
And ambition and pride are very, very good things. I sometimes am disappointed with humanity, but then I remember that they are the most ambitious and proud species we know, and I am reassured.
You must be joking. They are causes of all the bad things that even YOU consider. You might say that they also made good things happen but seriously, without them we wouldn't have any suffering at all. And those good things only exist to counter the suffering they have given -- if they can even do that (nuke vs hospital, which is easiest to cause their respective things?). It's so much more easy to destroy than to create. (metaphorically speaking)
And why should we never climb out of our mothers' womb? Thankfully the Earth is a socialist 'nation', and it doesn't say "hey, you can't get out, because it's private property". But that's it. That's where we can be in public. Further than that we need to take responsibility. I'm not sure you're prepared to take it -- like I said, if someone comes and says that it's their property, you MUST give it all up -- are you prepared to do that?
It sounds so easy to do, but trust me if you were in that situation you would try to find a compromise. It means you do not take responsibility.
And like I said, I have no sympathy for greedy people. They are greedy, their fault. If they suffer because of it, it's their problem. Not my problem. Period.
If someone is greedy for mining more even though he lives decently then HE DOES NOT APPRECIATE what he has already and why the hell would I have sympathy for him if he gets stuck there? It's not like he couldn't choose -- he choosed, he takes responsibility. Just like a criminal is supposed to take responsibility if he kills -- otherwise he is 'innocent' and treated differently (i.e a killer 3 year old kid).
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 01:02 AM |
|
Edited by executor at 01:05, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Before I'll go to sleep:
1. Quality of life is made up of other people and possibilities rather than things. But you keep telling me that we need to have abundance of things in first place. Everyone can live a happy life due to other people, even when scarcity is present. It is other people who contribute to most of our happiness as well as suffering. Not things. It seems a petty problem for me, really. And you scarcity does not mean mass destruction of environment, mind you.
2. Aliens again. If they are intelligent they can make themselves visible and communicate the fact that something is theirs, even if their communication is waaay more alien than what we can expect.
If they however come to, say, a human colony 100 years after it has been established, and call it their, then I'd laugh right into their faces/(whatever else they have). If you abandon something for a long time, without any message/sign that it is yours, then you desert it, and anyone is entitled to take it.
3.Religiously speaking, even before first people sinned, God told them to breed, populate the land and command it. So much for keeping population low.
Also, in new testament, there is a parable with lord and three servants. They are all given talents, two of them put them in motion and multiply them, one buries his and remains with what he was given. Two first are commended as good and loyal, the third is condemned as bad and lazy. An obvious guideline that progress is desirable and justified, not for our own pride, but Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
Besides, why don't you appreciate the scarcity you have now and struggle for abundance ?
@Mvass
Quote:
Rationality is a means, not an end.
Amen bro  .
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 01:12 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 01:44, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Just a few more points:
1. You call me a materialist and yet forbid people having more than 2 children because of material reasons (we won't all have anything we want - material abundance!), forgetting about happiness that comes from having other people around you, for instance a big family. Hilarious ().
I never said FORBID. Rather I'd hope through good education people can ALL be made intelligent enough to REALIZE too large a population is a BAD thing.
That aside, we can clearly see in wealthy countries, people generally don't have a lot of children, roughly the average of 2. An average of 2 kids would be just fine.
Quote:
2. I never said overpopulate. I said fill the limits. And we partially decide on those. For instance, if we decide to leave half of agrarily viable landmass intact, we slash our top limit by ~half. There is much room left for nature(now only like 1/4 of this is 'wild'). But I still see no reason as to not fill that reduced limit.
And I see even less a reason why we SHOULD fill that... Efficiency plays NO ROLE whatsoever if your population is so small even by wasting material nature would easily replenish itself.
Quote:
3. A proven fact that larger societies develop faster. Unnoticeable within a lifetime, but over course of centuries, the differences are drastic. By limiting progress you make future generations worse off, you take away countless possibilities from them. In the name of their well-being. How ironic .
I believe this discussion (WAY off topic btw, sowwy ) was ALREADY about a progressed society where machines can take over most (if not all) labour. So do tell me, because I don't see how future generations can be "worse off" when having their basic needs met without a price tag.
Quote:
4. I do not understand why should one not claim something that is unclaimed, belongs to no one.
I'm not sure what lameass definition of "property" they give you in economcis but here's the philosophic stance: NOTHING "belongs" to ANYBODY. Maybe your physical body, but even that is disputable. Your soul (assuming there IS a soul) would be about the only thing you CAN actually claim as being yours since that is "you".
Main question is: WHO determines WHAT belongs to somebody? Who or what gives you the RIGHT to "own" something? Answer is simple: The only reason you can OWN things, is because your environment ACKNOWLEDGES that it is yours. And that's still limited to only human beings. You think Animals would give their concent to being owned and bred for slaughter factories? I wouldn't think so.
So you don't understand why one should not "claim" something that is "unclaimed", huh ? Hey I have reasons... but they wouldn't apply to one who sees human beings as the ubermensch (like MVass)
Quote:
Why should mankind not expand into unknown of outer space? Exploring and examining it from here has its limits. 'One can't forever live in a cradle'.
I don't think that's being halted? You seem to be fixated on optimizing the SPEED at which it is all being researched and discovered.
Quote:
If we are alone, it would be even our duty to take life with us to the rest of the Universe.
Who says it would be a "duty?" You say that as if "Life" is a "good" thing, which is an assumption, not a fact, regardless if everyone agrees, and even then it's purely subjective, so it can never be a "Duty", only to mankind itself.
And I simply disagree too, I don't think spreading a virus is a "good" thing. At least untill we're mentally and intellectually enlightened, I opt for quarantine.
Quote:
And if we are not, then we should meet other sentient species out there, and together accomplish wonders unthinkable on a planetary scale. Why not ?
I'm not forbidding you? I just worry about the way we present ourselves.
Quote:
Speaking of achievements, I hope you are aware that they make people very happy, be they individual or of whole society? And so does progress.
Depends on the achievements. Many have nasty side effects as well. I know where the wealth of the western world is coming from... And I wouldn't call it an achievement to be proud of. Then again, there IS happyness in ignorance, yes. CURSE ENLIGHTMENT!
Quote:
Stop being paranoiac about humanity being a virus. Viruses destroy cells they infect. Cells are dead in the process. We can bring life to other planets. Reshape =/= destroy.
Does the likelyness frighten you or something?
Keyword here is CAN; We don't. We don't reshape, we only destroy and exploit. That's how capitalism works, since reshaping does not yield direct profits.
Quote:
Besides, I do not believe inanimate matter (universe) has 'a business'. If so, then all inanimate matter has a business. How dare you mine metal ores, harvest stone? If you don't want to go into business of non-sentient species, then I suggest you leave animals, plants, mushrooms and unicellulars to themselves, and die out of hunger as a consequence. If there is no other sentience out there, then all the Universe belongs to us. If there are others, we should share it with them.
Since there ARE living beings who do NOT acknowledge that property (such as Death and me), obviously it is NOT "ours". Again, we are not some uberspecies. We got lucky in evolution? Maybe. Does that mean we can ravish the world how we see fit, calling ourselves its masters? I don't think so. This is not about humans, this is about A) handling the environment that GRANTS you your life with respect, and B) Acknowledging other animals and life forms have THE SAME AMOUNT OF "Right" to own this planet as we do.
EVERYTHING is made out of atoms. What gives one atom more right or power than another atom? Because it manifests itself in a different physical shape?
We are not some individual "free" species that is outside of nature's balance and can do whatever the hell we desire. Take oxygen away, we DIE. Take away plants that provide oxygen, we all DIE. Take away the sun that provides the plants with heat, we'd all DIE. EVERY single element is DEPENDANT on one another.
You call that laughable, Mr. Elite race who can take care of himself?
Quote:
I came up an interesting idea. What if there is something like Gaea, a pan-earthly sentience of all life, and it invented us to produce civilization and take life to other, barren planets? It would also serve the needs of survival of earthly life.
What's your point? It's a random hypothesis idea based on nothing whatsoever but fantasy, like the bible.
I once considered the possibility Earth is the "hell", and our bodies are the "prisons" for souls that behaved bad and had to sit out 5-90 year sentences, dependable on how lucky you are how fast you "die". I thought it funny.
Quote:
Besides, I find the way of thinking 'I wanna live good, whether world falls when I die, I don't care' utterly egoist. And abhorrent.
Like your statement if there is no other sentient species everything "is ours" ?
Quote:
I try to live not only for myself, but also for other people. Including future generations. And an idea that they may be entrenched in stagnation rather than progress further due to some weirdos fearing scarcity, is horrible for me.
I never said ANYTHING about stagnation... Difference is you claim it would be "better" to sustain as MUCH people as possible since more brains think more and come up with ideas faster....
I never claimed progress is a bad thing. But I do think it's more important to FIRST sustain a very basic HIGH quality of life for everyone. You cannot have that. If not by recources, it's by a limit of SPACE available.
Quote:
1. Quality of life is made up of other people and possibilities rather than things. But you keep telling me that we need to have abundance of things in first place. Everyone can live a happy life due to other people, even when scarcity is present. It is other people who contribute to most of our happiness as well as suffering. Not things. It seems a petty problem for me, really. And you scarcity does not mean mass destruction of environment, mind you.
Abundance in food so you don't need to pay for it. Abundance of free time, have the work done by machines so humans dont have to work : Wouldnt need money either since all their needs are available for free, abundant. Would relieve a LOT of stress, mkay? A lot, lot, LOT of stress. Work in the field that interests you because you enjoy it; NOT because you HAVE to work in order to survive. THAT'S what I consider important.
Death:
Quote:
By the way: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
nothing painful about it -- nothing irrational either.
Quote:
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.
Hm, I disagree. "Good health" is subjective human thinking. Fact is, before the dinosaurs when Earth was a vulcanic wasteland, the planet was FINE. 2 million years ago it was fine, and it still IS fine. The only thing that gets snowed up is the environment for US to live in, since we are dependable on that.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 01:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you think just because you are 'normal' that everyone has the same view of what is 'better' and what is not?
Through the application of reason, we can cast away our unnecessary hatred and live a better life. "Hey, Nazi! Want to get rid of everyone you hate? Then think about how your hatred of them is unreasonable, and then you won't hate them any more!" But I'm serious.
Quote:
What makes us more special?
Our concern with our own benefits rather than irrational hatred.
Quote:
You might say that they also made good things happen but seriously, without them we wouldn't have any suffering at all.
Without them, we would have never gotten out of the caves. But you'd like that, wouldn't you.
As for climbing out of the womb, how do we know that the whole Earth isn't alien property? How can we have children, then, if we're running the risk that we're violating somebody's property?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 01:34 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:38, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
And you scarcity does not mean mass destruction of environment, mind you.
Oh I suppose we can create matter then? 
The Earth has delicate balance you know.
Quote:
If they however come to, say, a human colony 100 years after it has been established, and call it their, then I'd laugh right into their faces/(whatever else they have). If you abandon something for a long time, without any message/sign that it is yours, then you desert it, and anyone is entitled to take it.
If you are entitled to take it, then you don't expect to be yours forever. That's unidirectional.
You have the right to claim property but at the same time you also don't let others take it ever. Also again, thankfully the Earth is socialistic and has a supply of "public" property we CLAIM like the greedy bastards we are. (I don't think you would like to not be able to roam freely or CLAIM what you want... if the Earth was "private"). So all I can say is: capitalists are abusers. They need some form of "socialism" to which they can abuse in their own views (see this analogy).
Also, if you think Aliens give us clear signs, go and watch (or read) "War of the Worlds" (the movie is directed Steven Spielberg). See how "easy" it is to "discover" alien messages/abandoned 'vehicles'/whatever. (alien vehicles i mean)
Quote:
Religiously speaking, even before first people sinned, God told them to breed, populate the land and command it. So much for keeping population low.
Yeah but He also wanted to kill them all (Noah's Arch).
The idea is, God wants people to APPRECIATE what they have. If you give someone something he wanted, he WILL WANT MORE. Religiously speaking, pride and greed are sins. That's what happens here. We have 6 billion now. We want what? A better life? A better quality of life? (starving children in Africa).
Ok sounds like a noble goal right? But we're talking about the human race here! Giving them something because it is "noble" will only make them WANT MORE. They are NOT satisfied with it, they want MORE. That is the PROBLEM. We are too greedy for our own good. We are too sinful.
Our goal is to improve everyone's lives right? The 6 billion we have now (surely you don't say starving children have good lives). Ok, let's set for this noble goal -- when we finish it and we all are happy, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO APPRECIATE IT. Otherwise, we are greedy. We fall in sins. (religiously of course).
No matter how much you give to a human he will want more. If you can't see a problem in that I guess you don't know what 'greed' means.
Quote:
Rationality is a means, not an end.
Heck so how do you call those super geeks (not me) who are after rationality as an end? Geniuses?
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Apparently in most 'modern' societies people have less than 2 children (excluding immigrants), that's a recipe for a dying society. Only French have like 2,2. And they don't have it like, everyone has two children, but many have none or one, and those who have 3,4 or more make the difference. And you think they would have less children if others had more? I doubt it.
I am not a promoter of a too big population. I just have a different definition of where's the line between too big and not too big.
Destruction of environment is idiocy. All who do that deserve extinction they cause. Using environment in optimal way is not. Blame destruction of earth not on free market but on short-sightedness of people. Keeping your environment healthy is far more beneficial in the long term.
Your virus comparisons make me laugh, really. If you do not see difference between expansion into empty space and infestation, then call all life a virus. Grass will expand onto empty land, foxes will expand to nearby forest if there are rabbits there and no foxes. Calling mankind a virus? Call all other lifeforms too.
Property is what I claim to be mine and others recognize it as mine. I see little reason to not claim nonsentient beings, and inanimate matter is out of question. I am superior to cosmic dust or a rock simply because I am more than just particles, components of my body. Rocks have no 'rights'. Other lifeforms may have some, but we clearly stand out, be it only by self-awareness. And yes I think it is the right of all sentients to claim the Universe together.
Quote:
I just worry about the way we present ourselves.
"Hey pal, they just said they found a totally backwater civilisation in system 1595878. They call themselves humans. They were more advanced than us some time ago, but they bunkered themselves in artificial abundance and made only miserable progress so far. Ha, I saw our meekest citizens laughing at their civilization's standards. Imagine that? They also said that with a population of 7 billion, and living on just one planet, they will be considered an endangered species."
Definitely a good way of presenting ourselves.
Quote:
I don't see how future generations can be "worse off" when having their basic needs met without a price tag.
Basic needs are not everything, you know. Progress can always bring in improvement and new possibilities, and as such, in my opinion, it's rate should not be artificially entrenched. Why? Because by doing so, you limit the options your descendants have. What would you think of your ancestors if they had limited your possibilities in order to comfort themselves? I am concerned about the future because that's where everyone will live.
You want to be relieved of labour? Ethically obtain capital and live of profit, rent and interest. As simple as that . Besides, if you want an abundance of free time, I am sorry to disappoint you, but the time is a terribly scarce resource, and any individual will eventually run out of it. Societies too, unless they manage to move to another dimension of some sort.
And why would I care whether I pay for my food etc., as long as I get them ? I see no logic in that. If I don't have something I want and nobody is kind enough to give it to me, I should strive to afford it on my own, not whine that 'they are sooo bad, they didn't give it to me'.
Quote:
No matter how much you give to a human he will want more.
Yeah right don't strive for more, don't perform the best of yourselves, be satiated with what you have and stagnate. Do you think it is a sin to strive for more knowledge, better achievements? It is not in my opinion. I think we should aim at our best as society and individuals, to give the best we can, not at having everyone take what he wants without effort.
Quote:
Heck so how do you call those super geeks (not me) who are after rationality as an end? Geniuses?
I am barely aware of any genius who sees rationality as an end. Knowledge =/= rationality.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 04:36 PM |
|
|
Executor:
Except for this:Quote:
Apparently in most 'modern' societies people have less than 2 children (excluding immigrants), that's a recipe for a dying society.
A dying society? Hardly. All other things being equal, a smaller population uses less resources, which is a good thing. There are significant problems with a shrinking population, but they're not quite as dangerous as running out of resources is. We can afford to temporarily take care of more elderly people. We can't afford to use up all of our resources.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 04:43 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:12, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Destruction of environment is idiocy. All who do that deserve extinction they cause. Using environment in optimal way is not. Blame destruction of earth not on free market but on short-sightedness of people. Keeping your environment healthy is far more beneficial in the long term.
Quote:
Your virus comparisons make me laugh, really. If you do not see difference between expansion into empty space and infestation, then call all life a virus. Grass will expand onto empty land, foxes will expand to nearby forest if there are rabbits there and no foxes. Calling mankind a virus? Call all other lifeforms too.
Grass grows and DIES. Foxes expand to nearby forests but that's it, they never go further. It's balanced in the end -- we are not (heck just a nuke could do more imbalance than an entire century of fox overpopulation).
You watched the Matrix right? What about this? I quote:Quote:
And he is correct, at least in terms of the logic that he sited to Morpheus. In his thoughts on the question he sited the fact that all species on Earth, save humans, breed only to the limits of the resources at hand. Viruses continue to multiply until there is nothing left to use for survival. Humans have, most certainly, behaved more like a virus than a mammal in that regard.
[...]
it is the behavior of a virus to overpopulate a system, take it over and in the long run kill it. There is most certainly a case to be made that this behavior is vastly different from most other mammals on the Earth and very much more like a virus.
Looked at another way, humans have brought about the most alarming negative effects on the Earth's ecosystem. When other mammals are left to their own devices they tend not to destroy the places that they call home. We tend to destroy everything we touch in the name of progress and growth. We leave nothing untouched or untampered with lest there is some law our government makes to protect a thing we might otherwise harm for sake of our own immediate needs. We have a global warming problem that threatens our survival and yet we have American car makers bickering and whining about the new miles per gallon averages that the government wants to force on them. One wonders at the thinking the automotive industry practices when they see gas prices at their current high levels and see that the reserves of oil dwindling.
Humans are a virus. A virus that has plagued the Earth and made it very sick.
When foxes will get out and NEED resources from the Moon/other planets you'll let me know m'kay?
By the way, you know Starcraft right? You know the Terran Dominion right? And how greedy and evil it is right? Or Zerg... they think they're superior and want to 'convert' all other races to them -- or let's say 'resources'. That's where we're going.
Or Starship Troopers -- there is a nice review about it and it explains why we are Nazis in our own right. We want domination of resources, and the problem is, we NEVER STOP. THAT is a virus' behaviour. Mammals STOP eventually because they will DIE. Nature balances itself out -- except for big viruses like us.
Good-willed aliens respect more a primitive and enlightened race rather than a race that is after MORE AND MORE material profit (resources). Yes I think Moonlith was right no spot, you ARE a materialist because you WANT more and MORE resources.
As a neutral viewpoint, who would you find more peaceful: someone who stays in his own 'home' and has no reason of conquest, or someone who fiercely wants MORE and MORE resources as they please?
Remember the conquest of America? You should, they were after resources, or let's say Gold, after all. It makes me sick. No wise alien will want to get in touch with such race, in fact they will probably want to stay away from us. Why not after all? It becomes a FREAKING race of "who claims first, gets it" right? Especially if they do not want to cooperate with us. That's not advanced civilization, that's barbarism and "tribe expansion/domination".
"The surest sign there is intelligence in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us yet"
Quote:
Rocks have no 'rights'. Other lifeforms may have some, but we clearly stand out, be it only by self-awareness. And yes I think it is the right of all sentients to claim the Universe together.
Let me put this differently (a bit more on topic). You say you have the right to claim property because you are, SUPERIOR right? (nevermind that Nazis thought that too).
Then why do you get annoyed when the government takes your property (in socialism)? It is superior thus it has the 'right' to take it right?
Quote:
"Hey pal, they just said they found a totally backwater civilisation in system 1595878. They call themselves humans. They were more advanced than us some time ago, but they bunkered themselves in artificial abundance and made only miserable progress so far. Ha, I saw our meekest citizens laughing at their civilization's standards. Imagine that? They also said that with a population of 7 billion, and living on just one planet, they will be considered an endangered species."
Definitely a good way of presenting ourselves.
"Hey pal, they just said they found a totally corrupt, greedy civilisation in system 1595878. They call themselves humans. They are like the conquerors of Zamerica in our history remember? The damn Zpanish who exterminated natives because they thought they are SUPERIOR? Yeah that's right, they think that they have the right to expand and take whatever they want and that greedy Bold and go into others' business as much as they want -- but when you do that to one of them they become squeamish and fierce and don't let you! They are so selfish and greedy I'm afraid if they will drop a few nukes on us because they might need our resources! So let's prepare for war amigo, they aren't peaceful at all and don't respect what they have been given -- they will eventually want our planet's resources because we don't cooperate! Instead of focusing on improving their lives they DEMAND more resources because they can only think in resources, instead of achieving their quality and self-peace!"
This is more like reality.
Quote:
You want to be relieved of labour? Ethically obtain capital and live of profit, rent and interest. As simple as that . Besides, if you want an abundance of free time, I am sorry to disappoint you, but the time is a terribly scarce resource, and any individual will eventually run out of it. Societies too, unless they manage to move to another dimension of some sort.
Yeah great, move to another dimension so you corrupt even more
Quote:
Yeah right don't strive for more, don't perform the best of yourselves, be satiated with what you have and stagnate. Do you think it is a sin to strive for more knowledge, better achievements? It is not in my opinion. I think we should aim at our best as society and individuals, to give the best we can, not at having everyone take what he wants without effort.
Knowledge =/= resources.
Strive for knowledge. Strive to feel good yourself -- NOT to think about GETTING MORE resources. In fact, it's like I said with that: someone gives you food, and you bite the whole hand. That's what we do. We are never satisfied with anything. We have this desire that we can't control. It's not like we don't know about minding others' business. Since we live to have private property right, so we must know that pretty well.
Do you know about "War of the Worlds"? I think it says pretty damn well why we aren't so special. If it were like it, maybe aliens wouldn't want to cooperate with us because we are greedy and arrogant and ambitious and not peaceful, or maybe because they don't consider our 'goal' noble, instead of seeking peace and self-happiness.
What about this: some aliens are very peaceful and their planet is full of love. They can 'feel' the Universe with special senses. They want to be left alone, just like you want to be left alone (by the government). They like to see the Universe as it IS, or let's say their solar system. They look at it as some form of art (who is to say pure knowledge is more noble ).
One day their lives get shattered because some greedy race comes and 'claims' some other planet in their Solar System. Yes that race is called humans. They want to be left alone, they are peaceful, they are loving -- it's not even difficult for me to know to pick which one if I had the power to press a button "exterminate aliens/humans" I would choose humans without any deep thinking in this situation. They don't deserve to live -- they had enough but they want more.
They don't even deserve that. Why do they deserve it, because they CAN? Because they are humans? Because they have the MIGHT to do it? Well, the government has the might to take your property too, you wouldn't like that would you?
I don't know about you but I would choose the peaceful aliens over humans any day -- they deserve a lot more to live because they, technically speaking, wouldn't 'harm' each other if they had a clone on another planet. Not so with humans since they will get in conflict about the resources Or in conflict with others. Because they have ambitious desires.
What gives us the right to take it all? They didn't want to be disturbed but we did because we are greedy and want to overpopulate more and more. If we have that right because we CAN or because we are MIGHTY, then there should be no problem for the government to take away someone's property -- in effect it's very similar: the more MIGHTY one takes it because, well, he CAN.
Maybe the galaxy is their nice work of art (the aliens') and we break it up in all its balance with our selfish attitudes -- don't tell me you wouldn't, for example, try to kill a lot of "bugs" if they got onto your works of art right? Then why shouldn't the aliens? And by THAT logic, we SHOULD let them wipe us out -- not resistance. After all, we DO THE SAME.
Either that or we don't like our own mirror. What happened to justice? Or does the mightier one take all? I think we need to be treated exactly as we treat everything in our greed.
This is what makes me wish aliens use EXACTLY our mentality with 'superiority' and will wipe us out. Yes wipe us out. We deserve to be treated exactly with out selfish arrogant and greedy mentality so we "know how it feels like".
Oh and religiously speaking, knowledge is the thing that made Adam & Eve banned from Eden
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:43 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 17:53, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
When foxes will get out and NEED resources from the Moon/other planets you'll let me know
As soon as they are able to do so  . If there were unintelligent lifeforms capable of travelling through vacuum, they would heave spread across this system to all suitable places, possibly beyond the system.
Quote:
Viruses continue to multiply until there is nothing left to use for survival.
And they die. Expansion does not lead to lack of resources. Why not expand? Why not take something that belongs to no one? Even if I don't need it now, I could have use for it in future. And tell me how can I give something to another if I don't have it?
Quote:
who would you find more peaceful: someone who stays in his own 'home' and has no reason of conquest, or someone who fiercely wants MORE and MORE resources as they please?
If the second guys do not attack or provoke violence, even if someone has something valuable for them, then both are peaceful for me. I get an feeling that you want to convince me that I am a warmonger, although I implied non-aggression quite a few times.
Quote:
Good-willed aliens respect more a primitive and enlightened race
And if they respect a non-aggressive, progress-bound race willing to cooperate with others they are no longer good-willed ?
Quote:
they don't consider our 'goal' noble
And what if they do share our goals?
Quote:
Then why do you get annoyed when the government takes your property (in socialism)?
Governments are people, not some transcendent, obviously superior beings.
Quote:
Knowledge =/= resources.
Scientific pursuits require a lot of resources. Mind that.
Quote:
Maybe the galaxy is their nice work of art (the aliens') and we break it up in all its balance with our selfish attitudes -- don't tell me you wouldn't, for example, try to kill a lot of "bugs" if they got onto your works of art right? Then why shouldn't the aliens?
Apparently we do not have an option of communicating the bugs not to come, bugs cannot understand any message, are not intelligent. Yet I believe aliens capable of constructing galaxies should be able to transmit a signal "behave this and that way or we step on you", and make it impossible to omit. If they step on us without doing it, they are evil. if we ignore the signal, on our heads be it.
Quote:
I think we need to be treated exactly as we treat everything in our greed.
I think we should be treated as we treat other people. Why our treatment of inanimate matter should be in any way relevant in regard to justice? What's evil in destroying a rock if it's mine? It would be wrong for me to whine that I don't have it any more, since I voluntarily destroyed it.
Quote:
Oh and religiously speaking, knowledge is the thing that made Adam & Eve banned from Eden
If knowledge is wrong I suggest un-learning everything and returning to savannah. And it was not scientific knowledge, but knowledge of good & evil. That's hell of a difference.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:59 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:08, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
And they die. Expansion does not lead to lack of resources. Why not expand? Why not take something that belongs to no one? Even if I don't need it now, I could have use for it in future.
Why you? You see this is the problem here. Suppose there are some socialistic aliens somewhere, and we the capitalistic humans. they do not want to cooperate but they do not attack either (and let's say we don't, though humans would abuse it, it's called reality). Now suppose they are on Mars and we are on Earth. Right?
Who's property is, let's say, Venus? The one who reaches it first? That's not civilized approach, that's "might makes right" barbaric approach.
And then they will suffer because we "take" it, since they don't cooperate -- maybe they WANT to see Venus untouched. What do you say? Tough luck? The fact that they didn't go there first?
What if they DID go there but didn't USE it at all? Maybe they find it a piece of art. How would you classify it as "their property" then, since they leave it undisturbed? How would you know if it is their property? Heck, how would an alien look at a picture and say "that's just natural effect" and STEAL all your painted pictures because they couldn't comprehend it was yours? (i.e they have different artistic senses).
I'm not saying we have to take all 'maybe' into consideration, but since you DESPISE others (who are mightier) taking away property from yourself then why do you advocate it as long as it is "for the whole human race"?
That's where we degrade to? To a competition of mightiness? Is that civilization or barbarism?
Quote:
If the second guys do not attack or provoke violence, even if someone has something valuable for them, then both are peaceful for me. I get an feeling that you want to convince me that I am a warmonger, although I implied non-aggression quite a few times.
No, you are not warmonger. We are all aggressors for property though. I don't consider a socialistic government who takes property from people "warmongers", but since you OPPOSE that, I am quite shocked at the fact that it is EXACTLY what we do with 'inanimate' matter.
Property is inanimate matter as far as I know. We take it as we wish. Why, because we reached it first? Because we're mightier? Is that where we degraded on, to have a "race" or "competition"?
What if I take some resources and claim as mine, but I do not use them. Does that give you the right to take it from me? Does it?
What about the Moon, maybe some aliens claimed it but they didn't use it (they are not greedy), or maybe they especially made it as a form of art. Why would you take it when in the former scenario you wouldn't? It is like you hate what you do, if you encountered your mirror -- so why do it? Then the government, since it's mightier, should take away your property. You have no more right to it than aliens if you advocate CLAIMING. You know, "owning" property by "claiming" it is unidirectional thinking.
A few astronauts don't do big problems so it's fine but reaping and consuming all it's resources
Quote:
And if they respect a progress-bound race willing to cooperate with others they are no longer good-willed ?
Quote:
And what if they do share our goals?
then they are like us
who said I'm being discriminatory only towards humans?
but in such a case, watch "War of the Worlds". Heck, watch even some Cyborgs like in Terminators what "we are like" since they are our mirror. Or Matrix. That's us. only that different species.
What happened with racism in the past happens now with speciesism, and will happen later with selfishness on property "rights".
Quote:
Governments are people, not some transcendent, obviously superior beings.
Beside the point. I was talking about it as an 'entity'. It is similar, since "people" too, CLAIM property in the first place.
And you didn't get my analogy. here it is how it goes (analogy only!):
The government = human race.
You = alien
The gov. claims property from you. You feel annoyed. Aliens feel annoyed when you claim their planets too -- mind you, they don't colonize them like us because they want to look at them as works of art
or are you saying you have no right to your objects even if you do not use them (e.g: you own 2 houses, which one you didn't use since 10 years, or you have some other things)? Heck, maybe the whole planets ARE the aliens' creation!
Quote:
Apparently we do not have an option of communicating the bugs not to come, bugs cannot understand any message, are not intelligent. Yet I believe aliens capable of constructing galaxies should be able to transmit a signal "behave this and that way or we step on you". If they step on us without doing it, they are evil.
Oh? So you try to communicate with bugs? We are bugs to them. Maybe they can't talk to us because we can't understand their complex languages? Similar scenario.
yes they would probably be evil, and I agree -- but they are also our MIRROR
Quote:
I think we should be treated as we treat other people. Why our treatment of inanimate matter should be in any way relevant in regard to justice? What's evil in destroying a rock if it's mine? It would be wrong for me to whine that I don't have it any more, since I voluntarily destroyed it.
I didn't say we should TREAT inanimate matter. Heck we can just ignore it completely! No need to "protect" it (whatever). The Earth might be a good example. Not all out there has a purpose to serve us and only us.
I said we shouldn't claim it as we wish, especially outside our home, since that's usually like going on the public street claiming property
Mind you, if one can claim property, then he should be prepared to lose it at will -- otherwise it's just a barbaric question of "might" since he who claims it first has it. Is that civilized?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
