First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply A theoretical future scenario... Good or bad?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/16/12 , edited 10/16/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:
I don't think religion is wholly negative. It gives a lot of people hope for the future.

I do however not believe that that little amount of good weighs up for all the bad stuff that it brings with it, and so, I'd rather see it erased from existence.


Again, debatable, and not fit for a discussion on your proposal.


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Is it not obvious why I think it would be a good thing? Removing all the violent, despicable and vulgar people from existence, leaving only good and intelligent people left alive? How would that NOT be a good thing?
Obviously, it does not benefit the ones that are deemed "undesireables", but is it not the undesireables that keep pushing humanity backwards? Or at least slowing down our progress? I don't see how getting rid of that factor would be anything but good.


First, your argument seems that by eliminating the 'undesired' elements of humanity, humanity may progress forward with greater speed, those vulgar people being impediments. Now, I agree on the point of their being 'impediments' to the progress of humanity, but, I disagree with you on the value of progress. That is not to say that I do not want progress, but that if this progress comes at the price of destroying our humanity by getting rid of all the 'scums', by withholding their happiness for the happiness of this closed clique of 'intelligent and kind' people, it is no longer a greater good, but an act of unmitigated evil and selfishness made in the name of cold, lifeless rationalism, when, given their Eternal life and youth, they have nothing to lose in waiting a bit longer.


Syndicaidramon wrote:As for the comparison to the Nazi empire... well I can certainly see why you would compare it to that.
But remember that the nazis tried to purify the world via torture and murder. Not with just letting people live on their lives until they die naturally, which would be the case here.
It is indeed a programme designed to purify the human race of negative elements, but unlike those other cases, it would not be based on ethnicity, sexual orientation or the likes. But rather on intelligence, kindness and whatever other positive aspecs that one would want in society.


This offends one's innate sense of morality, because it eliminates people on the grounds that they do not have so or so characteristics, and, in truth, as I have argued before, those characteristics are not founded on any basis- how can one be kind and eliminate whole sections of humanity for the sake of 'progress', how does one judge who and who is intelligent, why should an unintelligent but kind person, or a intelligent and incompassionate person be left to perish, as though they have nothing to contribute to this future society of eternal spring? In short, you allow the rest of humanity to perish, while there is a small clique of 'Superior' people, who are forced to watch as those that they knew, and loved, and who loved them, die, turn to dust, and for no reason but some vague conception of 'a greater good' based upon 'progress'.

It seems to me that you have decided to murder and to flay a large group of humanity, so that you have enough skin to bind your books.


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Indeed the evils of the Nazi Empire and the Japanese Empire stemmed from other evils that if taken care of, could've prevented the later evils.
But that didn't happen. And since one cannot reverse time, one has to deal with the situation as it is and try to find solutions to the current situation, rather than dwelling in hindsight.


One cannot reverse history, however one can learn from it so as to not make their mistakes.



Syndicaidramon wrote:
The alternatives you speak of would of course be preferred, but seeing the way things are today, and with the gready nature of the world leaders, I actually find that alternative to be implausible. Especially since that would require a stable, equal worldwide economy, to get the desired results everywhere to accomplish the same goal.
In addition to this, unless we also start embracing the concept of designer-babies (which I do believe we should), new evils would be bred from the already repulsive evils that exist in our world today.


I think that your proposal would constitute a greater evil than the vast majority of evils today, and your proposal, should it ever become possible, would only lead to more and more evil, because it depends on the close mindedness and clique-mentality that has fuelled nationalism, fuelled racism, fuelled the various evils of the world. You say that you find my proposal 'implausible', it is only implausible because people, including you, would not want to contribute to it. It isn't just the world leaders who are hindering this from being a reality, there are those who, having enough wealth for self-sufficiency and, nay, even luxury, they do not care to invest in schools and medicine, and, in short, invest in the rest of humanity. They are simply content to generate as much wealth as possible to the detriment of the rest of the world- but let's not go there. It is plausible only when we make an effort towards this goal, rather than inaction and the deluge.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/16/12 , edited 10/16/12

crazyfirefly wrote:

I find the idea that your British shocking considering most Brits I've met are perfectly decent people who make wonderful drinking partners. May God have mercy on the soul that dares to drink with you, they'd get sick of your ego long before they grew sick of the spirits. Also side note, language changes all the time and whether it's for better or for worse so as far as which is the "correct" spelling that's entirely up to debate.
As far as what's in red I have no idea what "contradiction" you've found and I thought we already went over that government not individuals dictate the direction of a socialist economy?


Dear, I find the idea that you are even human shocking, consider that there are mindless, single celled organism in the bottom of the sea that has a greater capacity of human genius than yourself.

As far as contradictions goes, if you don't see it, it simply means that you cannot read, and should drop out of your useless liberal arts college, and enroll yourself in the nearest grade school- reading is such a wonderful thing, I commend you to try it sometimes.
*


More intelligent? Well one does grow more intelligent when presented with knowledge but when confronted with half hazard circular reasoning I'm not so sure. Though you are giving me quite a headache if that makes you feel better.


Maybe we should work on intelligibility before intelligence, as the latter is clearly beyond your capacity, your impenetrable dullness is truly too thick to admit any light of either wisdom or knowledge, but you can't blame a man for trying.




Yes that is one definition of social but when discussing a Socialist economy (at least in the traditional sense.) the word social refers to the economy being catered to the "needs" of said society. If a handful of individuals equals society in your book I should smack you upside the head with the closest dictionary for good measure. (If it doesn't knock any sense into you at least it will make me feel better.)

Oh and your a socialist? This explains a lot actually. Nothing wrong with being a socialist if you believe the world is butterflies, fairies, and unicorns shitting rainbows. Socialism in the real world simply doesn't work. Yes you can argue that is because none of the countries who failed miserably practiced "pure" socialism but "pure" socialism would mean that all parties involved could have no personal agenda an that is a pipe dream.


Dear, smaking me with a dictionary will not make you any wiser- given your limited literacy, I would advise you to read it, instead of trying to violently assult me with it, who knows, maybe you might even master the English language. Maybe you should start with the word 'Social'.

First, you say that 'A Socialist Economy (in the traditional sense) is one that that caters to the needs of society', an imagined definition of Socialism that, really, has no basis in the beliefs or practice of any Socialists, not even Marx. I know that it is easier to fight off shades and ghosts and phantoms, but, really, your intellectual dishonesty is just too much. Socialists have always been about the workers owning the means of production- it has been the understanding of every Socialists, including the Anarchists Proudhon, Bakunin, to Chomsky. In fact, during the Russian Revolution, the Communist has split over the validity of Lenin's idea of the Vangaurd Party, the idea that the State is the representative of the worker, etc., the representative of this position being centred around the Council Communists and the Libertarian Communist like Paul Mattick and Rosa Luxembourg. Their argument was thus, and has been vindicated by history: by concentrating the power of production, instead of at the hands of the worker, in the hand of the party, you essentially created a new form of Capitalism, State Capitalism- there is the board of director and the CEO, in the form of the Politiburo and the General Secretary, who dictates the labour of the working man.

But, not understanding anything, you seek to dive into it and, in the end, make a fool of yourself- Socialism has never worked, why I already provided examples of Socialism working, which you decided to ignore. Socialism has worked, in fact, during the Spanish Civil War, before it was crushed by the Fascist, Anarcho-Socialism was working, just as a version of Socialism was doing well under the Paris Commune, just because you can't concieve of it working doesn't mean that it doesn't work- you can barely even read or write.




Somehow you've managed to repeat what I said previously and disagree with it at the same time. Competition, supply and demand, and consumer choice are key characteristics in any free market economy. Again your circular reasoning shines through. I still don't get how your getting "the workers" decide spin on this. I'm pretty sure in a socialist economy or any economy for that matter that factory workers sit down and say "Hey guys we're going to produce this many of these parts and sell them for this much and get this much profit."


Just shows how little you understand, first, the worker decides their pay, the amount of time they work, how they work, how the profit earn should be allocated, etc. That is Socialism. In a capitalist economy, the bosses make that decision, it is not hard to understand, it is just that you lack the mental capacity to understand anything at all.



A state controlled by enterprise? When did I say that? Nope I didn't say that. The economy in america is controlled by enterprise and the last time I checked State and Economy aren't the same thing. Now to address the green. How is this unequal? It's called profit. You can't pay and individual worker the full price of every part he makes because his labor isn't worth that much. He didn't collect the raw materials, he did construct the basic parts to make the part, and he didn't design the part. The one worker does not account for the entire cost of production. I mean have you even taken economics before? At least a class in grade school? I don't even understand how you can have an opinion on socialism if you can't even grasp basic concepts like production cost. I mean I could give you a lesson but honestly it'd be a lot easier to explain it verbally. A prospect I don't expect someone as big headed as yourself to ever take anyone up on.


Yes you did, you silly ol' Moo, you said that in reference to Socialism- various sectors of the economy have been bailed out by the government, who bought a large amount of shares in those companies, and, in effect, owns it, which is why they were able to do the things they did. The state still controls a great portion of those companies, in fact, they are still the largest shareholder in the various insititution they decided to bail out a few years ago. In effect, we are, by your own definition, a Socialist economy.

Now, to address your other points, it is unequal because the labour that goes into an object, is worth as much as the object is worth, so the Capitalist must pay the workers less than what his labour is worth to earn a profit for himself. Other workers are paid less for the raw materials that they collect, otherwise, the capitalist who owns the company will not make a profit, and, in all, the capitalist who owns each company has to pay less than what their labour is worth. You agree with this basic point, but only characterise it as 'fair', because you don't understand that the workers labour is that which construct the product, and the only thing that the capitalist contribute is the means to do so, 'The Capital' or 'The Means of Production'. Socialists understand this basic inequality in the entire system, which is why socialists advocate for the workers to 'own the means of production', and for them to get the full worth of their labour. Unfortunately, someone as empty headed as yourself would not be able to grasp any of this.




Well I'm sorry I felt you were at least somewhat familiar with history but apparently in your intellectual wisdom you've deemed thousands of years of the ancestry of the human race beneath you. Sorry oh great one, leave the study of the past to us mere mortals while your drown in your own hubris.


Well, as the above examples show, you have no grasp of history at all. How does history prove your point, you do not say, only to say that it does, and that, somewhere, in that impenetrable dullness of your mind, you can cite a few examples to prove me wrong.

As for hubris, dear, you are projecting your own image on to me again, I am, by my own estimation, the very image of modesty and humility.



I love how you completely disregard the idea that two is stronger than one and that alliances could be formed. Society isn't a balance with various inanimate weights. It's made of people, whose motives and actions vary as much as the spectrum of color.


I love how you have no grasp of reality at all, would a group of intelligent and kind people set up an organisation that is untenable?

Do you not have any sense of reality what so ever?

Have you ever been to an organisation based upon equals, where each member can propose an idea, debate that idea, and then, have a vote on that idea? I am not too keen on his proposal either, but your arguments against it are, as all your arguments, effete.




Actually right now I'm in my African American Lit class typing this response and earlier I was up responding at an ungodly hour because I had a bad dream and couldn't get back to sleep.


Dear, as much as it flatters me to think that you would take time out of a wholly useless class for me, and that you are unable to sleep because of me, I am, as you Americans would say, 'Out of your league', being wholly superior to you in intellect, personal beauty, vigour, wit, compassion, humility, and geniality.


Which reminds me, are you perhaps an aspiring sadist? With all these flaying and whip lashing your throwing about one does begin to suspect. If you are I'm sorry to disappoint but I'm not much of a masochist but I do enjoy finding the internet's most...unique individuals and enjoying a hearty laugh at their own foolishness.


Ah, could have fooled me, dear, as you continually seek an intellectual flaying from me. Or is it only from my hands that you enjoy such constant humiliation, that you perversely delight in my intellectual dominance over yourself. Flattering, but, as I have said above, I am 'out of your league'.


You know if you were a civilized person perhaps we could have a civilized conversation, I actually like people who disagree with me because it makes for a more interesting conversation. However you insist on being quick to insult and slow to reason so I'm just going to ignore you and if you do reply to one of my post I'm simply going to say...








Of course, if you were an intelligent person, we might be able to have an intelligent conversation- you still would recieve a round beating from me, as there are few men in the world that are able to match my vast intelligence, but, at least, you would not be as humiliated as you are now. Go ahead and feign disinterest in this whole affair, dear, but, really, such a cheap attempt to save face would, in the eyes of anyone who has the misfortune to follow our conversation- I say misfortune, because they will have to slough through a sea of your stupidity to understand the context of my wisdom- seem silly and laughable, as the story of the mouse floating across the Thames, who, as he approached London Bridge, cried 'Raise the bridge, I have an erection.'


But, still, there is something odd in your post, beside its terrible formatting, and that is, you envoke the name of reason? What have you to do with Reason, when you seem the perfect embodiment of her opposite- Dullness!

**


Some Beams of Wit on other souls may fall,
Strike through and make a lucid interval;
But Cr——'s genuine night admits no ray,
Her rising Fogs prevail upon the Day:
-John Dryden**

____________________________________Notes________________________________________________________________
*All of my responses will, following the convention of the Bible, be in red letters

**And I apologise if the references are too erudite for the uncultured and unrefined , or if they are perfectly past the comprehension of the child-like Liberal Arts mind
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/16/12

longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:





You really aren't busy, are you?


I am starting to thing that your Liberal Arts Education (I hesistate to use the word 'Education' with Liberal Arts) and your Jobs are entirely ficitious.


Actually believe it or not I have a free night. Mrs. Lynn called me and told me not to come in because the entire restaurant is covered in fire retardant goo. The idea that you think my life is "fictitious" is laughable considering that you know oh so very much about me. Not to mention you have a fox as your avatar and your about me section consist of "Whaddaya wanna know 'bout me?" a refreshingly stark contrast to the over whelming, long winded, egotistical banter I usually get from you. So one can only suspect that your profile isn't even your own and in fact is probably your sweet younger brothers whom I will never get the chance to meet because your hogging his account so you can throw your "intellectual weight" over the internet.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/16/12 , edited 10/16/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


Actually believe it or not I have a free night. Mrs. Lynn called me and told me not to come in because the entire restaurant is covered in fire retardant goo. The idea that you think my life is "fictitious" is laughable considering that you know oh so very much about me. Not to mention you have a fox as your avatar and your about me section consist of "Whaddaya wanna know 'bout me?" a refreshingly stark contrast to the over whelming, long winded, egotistical banter I usually get from you. So one can only suspect that your profile isn't even your own and in fact is probably your sweet younger brothers whom I will never get the chance to meet because your hogging his account so you can throw your "intellectual weight" over the internet.





As I can't answer to your claims that you manage to get so much free time throughout the day, from midnight to midday, as ridiculous as the excuses are, I shall assume they are true.

However, as to the virtuperative and opprobrious libel, and especially the charge that I am an egoist and that I am hogging my brother's account, I can assure you, and as my various comments have shown, my character is absolutely above reproach- making me fit to be the wife of Ceasar! Indeed, there is no man, by my reckoning, who can match me in humility, modesty, compassion, geniality, warm humour, honesty, intelligence, or saintliness- that was one of the reasons why I had all my wise saying coloured in red!

It is only in my kindness that I have decided to associate with such low and base creature as yourself, and, in fact, you should be thanking me for the honour of having condescended to demonstrate, with the unerring powers of my logic, that you are wrong! But, as a leopard cannot change its spot, so too is it futile to make you wise, and it is even more futile to make you grateful for the honour I have bestowed upon you!




18990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 10/17/12
Ignoring the troll war and focusing solely on the original post, I will make the following observations.

First of all, while the secrets to perpetual youth have long been sought after by more than one culture at more than one point in the span of human history, the problem remains that all who seek eternal life and unending youth do so with motives that are less than honorable to begin with. Rulers seek it to rule forever, scholars seek it simply so they can live to spread their own ideas forever, and even those who might protest they have ulterior motives in fact do have them. It is not an unselfish thing to seek out and not necessarily a boon to humanity.

Case in point, given enough free time (that is time not occupied in the pursuit of survival) people begin to engage in activities that are contrary their own survival simply to fill the gaps between meaningful pursuits. They do so in a finite time, sometimes made far less extensive through their own misadventures, but the fact remains they understand their own mortality and the limitations that such a thing creates.

Take mortality away from a creature that is supposed to die. You now give him infinity to do stupid things. There is no regulator of "there may be no tomorrow" because there will be. Anyone, no matter how 'wise' or 'kind' will someday degrade into a self-satisfying organism because they will have eventually reached a point where they can no longer experience new things naturally, and have nothing to look forward to in the infinite string of tomorrows that are to come. You would turn the sages of that era into sociopaths simply by prolonging their lives far beyond what humanity was ever designed for.

Add to that the inability to evolve. Evolution takes place over many generations. What good is a new generation if the last one never dies. Who needs children to carry a legacy, a genetic code, if you're not going anywhere? Populations would stagnate, and humanity would simply continue on without any improvements, any chance of rising above their limited ability to perceive the universe by evolving into a higher form of life, and would simply... exist.

Existence simply for its own sake is pointless. To live forever is to deny the possibility that there is something better just beyond the horizon of death. It robs us of our ability to yearn to become better because we will have no reason to. If anything living forever will plunge humanity into another dark age because no one will see the point in trying. You'll live anyway.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/17/12

jonileth wrote:

Ignoring the troll war and focusing solely on the original post, I will make the following observations.

First of all, while the secrets to perpetual youth have long been sought after by more than one culture at more than one point in the span of human history, the problem remains that all who seek eternal life and unending youth do so with motives that are less than honorable to begin with. Rulers seek it to rule forever, scholars seek it simply so they can live to spread their own ideas forever, and even those who might protest they have ulterior motives in fact do have them. It is not an unselfish thing to seek out and not necessarily a boon to humanity.


Your argument, it seems to me, is that because, in the past, those that do seek immortality do so for less than altruistic reasons, it necessarily follows that, once we gain immortality, only those with less than altruistic reasons would obtain them. I do not see how the former follows the latter, as the former does not necessarily entail the latter. Indeed, I would argue that those scholars do not do so for dishonourable reasons, for I can think of no reason that can be considered more honourable than to live on for the sake of the betterment of others- which is what I assume they believe their teaching to entail. Thus, given an immortal person who does sincerely want to live on to 'spread their ideas', would that not be, in fact, a boon to humanity, to be able to continually recieve this person's knowledge?


Case in point, given enough free time (that is time not occupied in the pursuit of survival) people begin to engage in activities that are contrary their own survival simply to fill the gaps between meaningful pursuits. They do so in a finite time, sometimes made far less extensive through their own misadventures, but the fact remains they understand their own mortality and the limitations that such a thing creates.

Take mortality away from a creature that is supposed to die. You now give him infinity to do stupid things. There is no regulator of "there may be no tomorrow" because there will be. Anyone, no matter how 'wise' or 'kind' will someday degrade into a self-satisfying organism because they will have eventually reached a point where they can no longer experience new things naturally, and have nothing to look forward to in the infinite string of tomorrows that are to come. You would turn the sages of that era into sociopaths simply by prolonging their lives far beyond what humanity was ever designed for.


There are two arguments here, the first is that, because survival is no longer the sole concern of humanity, they are free to idle around and attend to less meaningful pursuits, with the connotation that these activities are inferior to brutish survival, and that second, we should thank our stars that the avaliable time for men to misadventure is limited, and that, because of it, they are more restrained, whereas when they are given perpetual youth and immortality, they would have time abounding to commit the greatest of folly and stupidity.

The first argument, it seems to me, would like to reduce man to mere beast, a thing dedicated merely to brute survival, whereas our brains have evolved so that we need not be as such, and that we have made not only considerable advances in our own comfort, but, more importantly, in the study of the world and the universe around us- this intelligence and awareness is one of the factors that seperates us from beast.

The second, I think, is much more fundamentally flawed, in that it relies on a primarily cynical view of mankind to make sense of it, when there is nothing to say that its premise is true, that we are naturally inclined to misadventure and that perpetual youth would augment the amount of misadventure we are able to do. I argue to the contrary, that, supposing your initial premise is correct, man is inherently inclined to misadventure, man would, undoubtedly, be more gaurded in his action as an immortal, because, with death, there is an escaping of the consequences, whereas, with immortal life, he has no such refuge. Thus, rather than make man less responsible, it would, on the contrary, make him more responsible.



Add to that the inability to evolve. Evolution takes place over many generations. What good is a new generation if the last one never dies. Who needs children to carry a legacy, a genetic code, if you're not going anywhere? Populations would stagnate, and humanity would simply continue on without any improvements, any chance of rising above their limited ability to perceive the universe by evolving into a higher form of life, and would simply... exist.


Yet, with the advent of immortality, we would not need to adapt to our enviorment anymore, because our immortality assures us that we would adapt. Improvements, of course, would continue, so long as we need aid to our comfort, and we would, contrary, have eternity to study the universe.


Existence simply for its own sake is pointless. To live forever is to deny the possibility that there is something better just beyond the horizon of death. It robs us of our ability to yearn to become better because we will have no reason to. If anything living forever will plunge humanity into another dark age because no one will see the point in trying. You'll live anyway.


There is betterment of the current life, and of immortal life, there is no need to fear death, there
18990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 10/17/12
I don't mean to rain on your parade of love for humanity as a noble creature, longfenglim, but the sum total of human history seems to indicate that humanity is no more enlightened now than it was at the start. The only difference between us and early man is we understand our surroundings better. That does not, however, lend itself to a better comprehension of our own place in the universe in the grand scheme of everything.

Humanity, much like a virus, tends to expand beyond all viable ability for the host to support it (in our case, Earth) and does so to the detriment of said host. We do not adapt in any way, we haven't for millions of years. We have no defensive weapons (claws, fangs, etc) in which to ward off attackers. We have no protective layers aside from skin (which does not combat cold nor heat to any appreciable degree) and we are ill suited for survival in anything but perfect conditions. We, as a species, have had to turn to invention to ensure our race didn't die off. A human being is not, in any discernible way, a superior organism in nature. We exploit creatures around us, force nature to adapt to us, and manipulate anything and everything in order to maintain our 'comfortable' lives.

If it were not for invention, humanity would be dead. Humanity should have died out a long time ago were it not for ingenuity and the ability to pass on to our children the knowledge we collected before we died. Saying that immortality would be a boon to a species that can't even sustain itself without the exploitation of other species and of the environment is hopelessly and recklessly optimistic.

Now, to say that my view of humanity is cynical... well... perhaps it is, but I have the benefit of history and personal experience that tells me in no uncertain terms that I am not wrong in my view. Like most creatures, humanity ebbs and flows in cycles, and though these cycles may take generations to see full circle, they always do. There has always been war, there has always been peace, and they have always come at the end of the other. Tyranny, despotism, and hopelessness follow right behind ages of prosperity, freedom, and inspiration. It has happened over and over again, an endless series of learning and forgetting...

Immortality and perpetual youth are not the answer to humanity's ills no more than giving an angry child a gun is a solution to their problems. Immortality that is given, longevity that is not earned will not be appreciated or treated with the reverence it deserves. No man given a pill or a shot or a gene therapy and set loose upon this or any world will be a beacon of hope or change or betterment. They will feel just as entitled to the secrets of the universe as most young people today in the US feel they are entitled to life on a silver platter without any exertion whatsoever.

Living forever does not guarantee any sort of utopian society. Simply living without exertion is a hollow existence. The fact that we have already, as a species, forgotten the lessons of hard work, appreciation for one's trade, pride in our fellows and our accomplishments speaks volumes about what our children will think in generations to come when such longevity is possible. Saying that humanity will somehow 'grow out of' being selfish, ignorant, and arrogant is a level of optimism that is simply unrealistic. You can't ignore 65 million years of ingrained behavior simply because it doesn't fit your happy little view of the world. If anything, your happy little fantasy has no place in the real world.

Regardless of how far we've come, we have a LONG way to go before we're even ready to accept the mantle of immortality and perpetual youth. First we need to figure out how to get along with one another before we can ever stand to live together forever without end.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/17/12

jonileth wrote:

I don't mean to rain on your parade of love for humanity as a noble creature, longfenglim, but the sum total of human history seems to indicate that humanity is no more enlightened now than it was at the start. The only difference between us and early man is we understand our surroundings better. That does not, however, lend itself to a better comprehension of our own place in the universe in the grand scheme of everything.

Humanity, much like a virus, tends to expand beyond all viable ability for the host to support it (in our case, Earth) and does so to the detriment of said host. We do not adapt in any way, we haven't for millions of years. We have no defensive weapons (claws, fangs, etc) in which to ward off attackers. We have no protective layers aside from skin (which does not combat cold nor heat to any appreciable degree) and we are ill suited for survival in anything but perfect conditions. We, as a species, have had to turn to invention to ensure our race didn't die off. A human being is not, in any discernible way, a superior organism in nature. We exploit creatures around us, force nature to adapt to us, and manipulate anything and everything in order to maintain our 'comfortable' lives.


I am, however, do intend to dampen your self-satisfied and smug cynicism, pessimism, and misanthropy, and I do so gladly. First, you argue that your wholly negative view of man, as a creature of pure bêtise, is vindicated by history, but neglect to show the history that vindicates your view of humanity, and then make an unargued epistemological argument that ‘our fuller understanding of the universe does not make our understanding of the universe fuller’. How the predicate can be derived from the subject is not explained.

The second argument begins with a vivid, but ill formed, image of humanity as a virus, and is compared to a virus in that we ‘tend to expand beyond what is viable for our host to contain’, a Malthusian concept, which, however, has not been vindicated by history. This tendency, of course, would need to explain why the Earth was able to host Humanity for the last few million years without humanity consuming all its resources- Malthus, of course, wisely added that Nature provided several natural ‘checks’ in the form of famine, disasters, etc. which help contain humanity, as with all other species. However, as stated above, Malthusianism has been discredited, simply by the fact that human progress has been able to produce a greater amount of food that Malthus expected, beyond his Linear model of food production, and human fertility is entirely exponential. Malthus, granted, was right about this one aspect- an increase in Education does, in fact, help decrease the population.


If it were not for invention, humanity would be dead. Humanity should have died out a long time ago were it not for ingenuity and the ability to pass on to our children the knowledge we collected before we died. Saying that immortality would be a boon to a species that can't even sustain itself without the exploitation of other species and of the environment is hopelessly and recklessly optimistic.


Another false statement, Humanity owes its survival not only to invention of tools, a trait that is found in several other species, but also their greater ability to communicate with one another and our greater degree of cooperation and our greater tactical ability, stemming from the evolution of our larynx as well as our brains. Into this complex mix, humanity arises and survives, not simply to the ingenuity of the inventors. If we were immortal, however, we would, instead of passing on our knowledge and leaving it to our children to build upon it, accumulate and expand upon our initial knowledge.

However, this argument does reveal a contradiction in your argument, that is, that, on the one hand, in your previous post, you argue that humanity would suffer to never produce children with the coming of immortality because there is no point in it- now your argument depends explicitly on the idea that humanity will continue reproducing. Either you must renounce one to argue the other, or you must somehow reconcile two fundamentally and essentially contradictory arguments. I will assume you renounce your argument that humanity will never reproduce, simply for the purpose of arguing with this point at the moment. First, as I stated above, Malthus was right in that the rise of Education and in comfort would lead to a decrease in reproduction, and this is evident in the Post-Industrial Countries, such as Japan and Germany, that suffers from ‘Negative Population Growth’. Therefore, optimistic as it may be, it is, to a degree, vindicated by empirical observation.


Now, to say that my view of humanity is cynical... well... perhaps it is, but I have the benefit of history and personal experience that tells me in no uncertain terms that I am not wrong in my view. Like most creatures, humanity ebbs and flows in cycles, and though these cycles may take generations to see full circle, they always do. There has always been war, there has always been peace, and they have always come at the end of the other. Tyranny, despotism, and hopelessness follow right behind ages of prosperity, freedom, and inspiration. It has happened over and over again, an endless series of learning and forgetting...


You have yet to cite the history that justifies your misanthropy. For every period of Tyranny, there exist men who fight against it, for every system of despotism, there has always been those that resisted, for every form of oppression, there is those that seek to end this oppression, every war, pacifist, every genocide, those that speak out to end it- Humanity is not a monolithic race, it is a component of individuals in a group, and their actions within that group. It is not a vicious cycle of hopelessness.


Immortality and perpetual youth are not the answer to humanity's ills no more than giving an angry child a gun is a solution to their problems. Immortality that is given, longevity that is not earned will not be appreciated or treated with the reverence it deserves. No man given a pill or a shot or a gene therapy and set loose upon this or any world will be a beacon of hope or change or betterment. They will feel just as entitled to the secrets of the universe as most young people today in the US feel they are entitled to life on a silver platter without any exertion whatsoever.


Immortality and perpetual youth may bring forth new problems, it may not satisfactorily satisfy to curb the old ills, but it is no way ‘giving an angry child a gun’, and, frankly, I think you know this comparison is not apt because you offer no reason why the two are alike. Now, more to the point, you argue that immortality and is given would result in a depreciation of that gift, just as saying that being born does not make you appreciate the gift of life, or having a brain makes you unappreciative of the gift of thinking- they are all given to you naturally, as you say, on a silver platter! Yet, people do appreciate these, some more than others, admittedly, but everyone appreciate these gifts to some degree, or at least respect these gift to make use of them.

As to the comment on ‘Young People in America’, I would imagine their grievances to be the same as the ‘Young People’ everywhere- there is no job for anyone, especially newly graduates buried in debt.


Living forever does not guarantee any sort of utopian society. Simply living without exertion is a hollow existence. The fact that we have already, as a species, forgotten the lessons of hard work, appreciation for one's trade, pride in our fellows and our accomplishments speaks volumes about what our children will think in generations to come when such longevity is possible. Saying that humanity will somehow 'grow out of' being selfish, ignorant, and arrogant is a level of optimism that is simply unrealistic. You can't ignore 65 million years of ingrained behavior simply because it doesn't fit your happy little view of the world. If anything, your happy little fantasy has no place in the real world.


Immortality does not suddenly entail idleness- the body still needs to be sustained, the thirst for comfort still needs to be satisfied, people still need to learn- as long as there are needs and wants, people must work to satisfy them. Being immortal does not necessarily entail that they suddenly disappear, new needs may appear, new wants may come, but it, assuredly, won’t be completely nihilated.

As for ‘growing out of 65 Million years of ingrained behaviour’- i.e. being selfish, ignorant, and arrogant, which I take it to mean your view of natural human behaviour, I would argue that being ‘selfless, knowledgeable, and kind’ is more natural to man, as man, being a weak creature- as you have pointed out- humans must developed them out of the necessity of working within a community of other humans to survive.


Regardless of how far we've come, we have a LONG way to go before we're even ready to accept the mantle of immortality and perpetual youth. First we need to figure out how to get along with one another before we can ever stand to live together forever without end.


And that can be solved simply through greater investment in education, both moral and intellectual.
3335 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/25/12

longfenglim wrote:
First, your argument seems that by eliminating the 'undesired' elements of humanity, humanity may progress forward with greater speed, those vulgar people being impediments. Now, I agree on the point of their being 'impediments' to the progress of humanity, but, I disagree with you on the value of progress. That is not to say that I do not want progress, but that if this progress comes at the price of destroying our humanity by getting rid of all the 'scums', by withholding their happiness for the happiness of this closed clique of 'intelligent and kind' people, it is no longer a greater good, but an act of unmitigated evil and selfishness made in the name of cold, lifeless rationalism, when, given their Eternal life and youth, they have nothing to lose in waiting a bit longer.


What about the lives that will be lost because of these undesireables?
Countless people have lost their lives because of the behaviour of the scums. Either directly, or indirectly.
If the scums were all removed, it would not only make the world better for the good people, but it would also save the lives of people that might've otherwise been killed because of the scums.

Every time a child is concieved, one potential child gets chosen to live, and millions of children gets cheated out of an existence.
I don't see this as being a whole lot different to that. One life will always be saved at the cost of another one.
Why not make sure it is the good people that get saved at the cost of the bad?




longfenglim wrote:
This offends one's innate sense of morality, because it eliminates people on the grounds that they do not have so or so characteristics, and, in truth, as I have argued before, those characteristics are not founded on any basis- how can one be kind and eliminate whole sections of humanity for the sake of 'progress', how does one judge who and who is intelligent, why should an unintelligent but kind person, or a intelligent and incompassionate person be left to perish, as though they have nothing to contribute to this future society of eternal spring? In short, you allow the rest of humanity to perish, while there is a small clique of 'Superior' people, who are forced to watch as those that they knew, and loved, and who loved them, die, turn to dust, and for no reason but some vague conception of 'a greater good' based upon 'progress'.


A lot of the stuff you talk about here are in the more complex parts of the idea.
I'm not necessarily for all the intelligent, but evil / unintelligent, but good being perished, as long as the intelligent but evil are set to positions where they can do good, and we make sure they don't do evil things, while the unintelligent but good people get to live their lives, but are supervised when it comes to things like reproduction and other things that could impact humans in a potentially negative way. Surely they do have potential to benefit society and I think that they should be given a chance.

And like I said previously, not just for progress, but also so that the people that are left/will be born in the future live overall much better lives because they don't have to deal with these scumbags of society that we now have.



longfenglim wrote:
I think that your proposal would constitute a greater evil than the vast majority of evils today, and your proposal, should it ever become possible, would only lead to more and more evil, because it depends on the close mindedness and clique-mentality that has fuelled nationalism, fuelled racism, fuelled the various evils of the world.


But is it evil if it is done to make lives better for good people and to remove what is evil in the world?



longfenglim wrote:
You say that you find my proposal 'implausible', it is only implausible because people, including you, would not want to contribute to it.

It isn't just the world leaders who are hindering this from being a reality, there are those who, having enough wealth for self-sufficiency and, nay, even luxury, they do not care to invest in schools and medicine, and, in short, invest in the rest of humanity. They are simply content to generate as much wealth as possible to the detriment of the rest of the world- but let's not go there. It is plausible only when we make an effort towards this goal, rather than inaction and the deluge.


If I ever saw a chance to make your proposal become a reality, if I ever saw a glimmer of hope that society would unite in order to make it happen, I would be all over it, no doubt.
Problem is, I don't see it happening because of the greedy nature of mankind and especially of those in power. I do not think that the ones in power would make such a thing happen, perhaps unless the public as a whole demanded it, which I also do not think will happen, because I don't think society cares enough to make it happen.
41589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 10/25/12 , edited 10/25/12
I don't think it'll work because not everyone is kind and intelligent. Some are indifferent and intelligent, some are intelligent but wicked and some are kind but simple.

Even if in the future people could design tests to determine "good" qualities in people, it doesn't guarantee that those good qualities will pass on to their offspring. Intelligence and kindness are not hereditary.

Besides, doing this is will not profit society. We need diversity in the population, according to Natural Selection and Evolutionary Biology.

A person may be dumb and cruel, but they could have the best immune system in the whole species.
A person might be smart and kind... but they have weak immune system - this will pass on to their offspring and so forth... it's not good for the human race as a whole.


Diversity helps ensure that the fittest genes will survive in the gene pool.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/25/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


What about the lives that will be lost because of these undesireables?
Countless people have lost their lives because of the behaviour of the scums. Either directly, or indirectly.
If the scums were all removed, it would not only make the world better for the good people, but it would also save the lives of people that might've otherwise been killed because of the scums

Every time a child is concieved, one potential child gets chosen to live, and millions of children gets cheated out of an existence.
I don't see this as being a whole lot different to that. One life will always be saved at the cost of another one.
Why not make sure it is the good people that get saved at the cost of the bad?
.



Yes, what about the lives that will be lost because of these 'undesirables'?

Do you suggest, the, 'scums' as you call them, should be punished for murders and crimes they may potentially commit, while the greater crime of denying them this elixir to eternal youth and effectively sentencing them to death for no better reason than that 'they are inferior and undesirable' is lauded and crowned with laurels and encomiums? So, in this scale, a potential murder they may commit during the span of their eternal youth is worth much more than actual, effective, murder of them by those who claim to be doing so for some greater cause- that of progress and utopianism.

How would it make the world a better place, that the vast majority of humanity is eliminated? If it is simply progress and advancement of learning that you want, then build a self-sufficient supercomputer- let it collect data, let it compute, construct theorems, let it fathom the depths of the universe and the movement of the stars- there, humanity is now redundant! If it is for the happiness of the elected, then, pray, how can they be happy, when those whom they love, despite their faults, are left to wither and die, while they live on for this dead, sterile, and mechanical search for progress? And even if they can be content without them, why is it necessary that they should die out, denied the gift of eternal youth, when 'the scums of the earth and the darkness over the world' have eternity to grow more intelligent and more compassionate?



Syndicaidramon wrote:

A lot of the stuff you talk about here are in the more complex parts of the idea.
I'm not necessarily for all the intelligent, but evil / unintelligent, but good being perished, as long as the intelligent but evil are set to positions where they can do good, and we make sure they don't do evil things, while the unintelligent but good people get to live their lives, but are supervised when it comes to things like reproduction and other things that could impact humans in a potentially negative way. Surely they do have potential to benefit society and I think that they should be given a chance.

And like I said previously, not just for progress, but also so that the people that are left/will be born in the future live overall much better lives because they don't have to deal with these scumbags of society that we now have.



So, the kind and intelligent are privileged, the unkind and intelligent are slaves, and the kind and unintelligent are chattel.

How, again, is this an ideal world?




Syndicaidramon wrote:
But is it evil if it is done to make lives better for good people and to remove what is evil in the world?


To remove what is evil in this world, then, would require that everyone who participate in this programme to kill themselves, as they have participated in a genocide. Like all genocides, it justifies itself on making life better for the good, it has a clear enemy, and it says 'we must eliminate this enemy for the good of the rest of us', it is no better than the Nazis rounding up the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Homosexuals, etc., to make life better for 'good people' (in their case, the Germanic Aryan Master-Race), and, as all genocides, there is absolutely no moral justification of it. It is an evil, and, worse, it is an ineffective evil- it creates a breed of Monstrous Elects, eliminates large sectors of humanity, all for a dubious happiness of the few (I doubt that the intelligent and unkind people would very much appreciate their slave status or that the unintelligent and kind people would appreciate their pet status).


Syndicaidramon wrote:
If I ever saw a chance to make your proposal become a reality, if I ever saw a glimmer of hope that society would unite in order to make it happen, I would be all over it, no doubt.
Problem is, I don't see it happening because of the greedy nature of mankind and especially of those in power. I do not think that the ones in power would make such a thing happen, perhaps unless the public as a whole demanded it, which I also do not think will happen, because I don't think society cares enough to make it happen.


As I said, you do not see it happening, because no one is putting any effort towards that goal- you can blame man for being 'inherently greedy' or 'the politicians do not want it', it is a moral duty to do what is best for the all and get rid of the politicians that do not want it, set up such moral education to curb your supposed natural tendency to avarice! If no one wants to bring it up, to speak about it, to debate it, to do anything towards, even those who do know better, then it obviously why it would not come into fruition- no one has bothered to plant the seed.
175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / SEA
Offline
Posted 10/28/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

So after reading the news and once again being brought down by the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit (if you'll pardon the expression) that goes on in the world, I started thinking about how we could make the world a better place...

After a bit of thinking I was struck with the thought of the following scenario:

At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).
Obviously, this is something that could potentially benefit the human species immensely.
However, it goes without saying that it is something that cannot just be handed out for free with no changes in laws and society...

So what if it was decided that to be granted this gift of eternal youth, one would have to qualify to a certain set standard of intelligence, kindness and whatever other virtue that may be deemed important?
This would basicly mean that the ones deemed "desireable" for society would live on, while the "undesireables", meaning the ones with low intelligence and lack of kindness and compassion would be left to die out.

This way, only humans that are intelligent and kind would be living on the planet, and all the undesired scum of the earth would be gone. And the world would enter an age of prosperity unlike what has been seen before.


As a potential addition to this, society could make a collective effort to rid the world of religion, meaning it would not only be an era of only kind and intelligent people, but also without religion and all the bad things it brings with it, ushering in an age of a world united under science, logic and reason.

Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated than what I write here. This is just the basic jist of the idea.


So what do you people think of this idea? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, and why?


Good, Hello, Alien Era!
It's nice having an idea you do. Elimination.
but somehow, now I realize it doesn't fit me anymore.
Humanities are great, but..
nevertheless.. I still need my God. It's just scary for me to stands by myself
3335 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/7/12 , edited 11/7/12

longfenglim wrote:
Yes, what about the lives that will be lost because of these 'undesirables'?

Do you suggest, the, 'scums' as you call them, should be punished for murders and crimes they may potentially commit, while the greater crime of denying them this elixir to eternal youth and effectively sentencing them to death for no better reason than that 'they are inferior and undesirable' is lauded and crowned with laurels and encomiums? So, in this scale, a potential murder they may commit during the span of their eternal youth is worth much more than actual, effective, murder of them by those who claim to be doing so for some greater cause- that of progress and utopianism.


I never though of it that way. That's a valid point indeed.
I'll have to take that into deeper concideration.


longfenglim wrote:
If it is for the happiness of the elected, then, pray, how can they be happy, when those whom they love, despite their faults, are left to wither and die, while they live on for this dead, sterile, and mechanical search for progress? And even if they can be content without them, why is it necessary that they should die out, denied the gift of eternal youth, when 'the scums of the earth and the darkness over the world' have eternity to grow more intelligent and more compassionate?


How about if we give them a choice? They can have it, provided they take on a new education. An education towards compassion and intelligence. That way, we would give everyone a chance to change for the better. And the ones that are unwilling to change, will only have themselves to thank for it.
Would that be satisfying?



longfenglim wrote:
So, the kind and intelligent are privileged, the unkind and intelligent are slaves, and the kind and unintelligent are chattel.

How, again, is this an ideal world?


I messed up there. I failed to express that I think that restrictions on such things as reproduction should be the case for EVERYONE, not just the stupid/evil.
As for the unkind and intelligent being slaves... Not really. But made sure that they stay in line and don't use their brilliance for evil.



longfenglim wrote:
To remove what is evil in this world, then, would require that everyone who participate in this programme to kill themselves, as they have participated in a genocide.
Like all genocides, it justifies itself on making life better for the good, it has a clear enemy, and it says 'we must eliminate this enemy for the good of the rest of us', it is no better than the Nazis rounding up the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Homosexuals, etc., to make life better for 'good people' (in their case, the Germanic Aryan Master-Race), and, as all genocides, there is absolutely no moral justification of it.

Well the case of the Nazis, the genocide was based on racism and religion, rather on an objective point of view of which people would actually be good for society and which people that wouldn't...
And I don't agree in the genocide part.
It would be selective survival, yes, but it wouldn't be taking their lives. Only having the ones refusing to change be left out.



longfenglim wrote:
As I said, you do not see it happening, because no one is putting any effort towards that goal- you can blame man for being 'inherently greedy' or 'the politicians do not want it', it is a moral duty to do what is best for the all and get rid of the politicians that do not want it, set up such moral education to curb your supposed natural tendency to avarice! If no one wants to bring it up, to speak about it, to debate it, to do anything towards, even those who do know better, then it obviously why it would not come into fruition- no one has bothered to plant the seed.


Obviously.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 11/7/12 , edited 11/7/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

So after reading the news and once again being brought down by the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit (if you'll pardon the expression) that goes on in the world, I started thinking about how we could make the world a better place...

After a bit of thinking I was struck with the thought of the following scenario:

At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).
Obviously, this is something that could potentially benefit the human species immensely.
However, it goes without saying that it is something that cannot just be handed out for free with no changes in laws and society...

So what if it was decided that to be granted this gift of eternal youth, one would have to qualify to a certain set standard of intelligence, kindness and whatever other virtue that may be deemed important?
This would basicly mean that the ones deemed "desireable" for society would live on, while the "undesireables", meaning the ones with low intelligence and lack of kindness and compassion would be left to die out.

This way, only humans that are intelligent and kind would be living on the planet, and all the undesired scum of the earth would be gone. And the world would enter an age of prosperity unlike what has been seen before.


As a potential addition to this, society could make a collective effort to rid the world of religion, meaning it would not only be an era of only kind and intelligent people, but also without religion and all the bad things it brings with it, ushering in an age of a world united under science, logic and reason.

Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated than what I write here. This is just the basic jist of the idea.


So what do you people think of this idea? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, and why?


Great idea, this could very well lead to a utopian society and a perfect life for everybody.
1687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The heart of Linc...
Offline
Posted 2/14/13
This almost sounds like another bioshock. A utopia that unites the best against the failing current society. The only flaw is us, people.

If it happened, those with the eternal youth would begin to be corrupt, unwilling to help others. While those who didn't would rebel, claiming to be true humans, not going against the natural order/cycle.

Ultimately, humans will always find ways of destroying themselves and the societies they build. History has taught us this. We can still change our future but we must never forget we are human, we are flawed and a utopia is not a place but humans as a whole. We can only achieve it, or something close to it when all humans can begin to agree with one another. In that we all try to sort things the peaceful way and result to violence as THE final result.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.