Bill Bennett, Freakonomics, & Aborting Black Babies.

[sexdrugsmoney]

US Radio host Bill Bennett recently created a controversy by saying that the US could reduce it's crime rate by aborting every black baby, citing the social sciences book Freakonomics, where the declining crime rate is apparently linked with a rise in abortions.

The abortion/crime issue was discussed briefly in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3475357&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1), and the book Freakonomics was again mentioned. Although I haven't read the book (though I should) I'd assume the authors are talking purely in socio-economics and that unlike Bennett, do make the statement to abort every black baby in the country.

Bennett's comment, which he claims was taken out of context, has cost him his radio show IIRC, and has spawned outrage and criticism with many people saying "why did he say this?" in what seems like emotionally charged politically correct programmed 'kneejerk' responses to a statement which comes across with much generality. (it ignores black people like David Williams who are well educated and avoid the criminal lifestyle)

The whole issue arose by a caller arguing that if all the babies in the past 30 years who were aborted were alive, their tax revenue would have assisted the Government in funding Social Security, to which Bennett made the reply that the caller was assuming "the aborted" would have been productive citizens.

This is Bennett's comment in context:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously Bennett addresses:

- The impossibility of such an act. (both practically and legally)
- The ridiculousness of such an act. (treating 'Bourgeois Black Babies' as 'collateral damage')
&amp;
- The moral implications of such an act. (the humanity of the situation similar to Hitler's "solution" to the "Jewish problem")

I believe Bill Bennett is talking about children born into low socioeconomic environments (The "Barrios", Ghettos, Trailer Parks etc.) and that he has picked black people based on the statistics of black males (in particular) to crime and incarceration compared to other races such as Latinos and Whites. (and to a lesser extent Asians and Indians)

Ofcourse, I'm not going to assume Bennett secretly believes Black people are predisposed to crime more than these other races, though that is what many critics seem to believe he is trying to say.


So what does SMP have to do with this?

SMP is one of the rare places that morality can be removed for a moment to address the pure logic of the situation, and the hope is that members can treat each subject objectively.

Although in practice, we can never do this all the time as our biases and emotions manifest themselves in each of our posts to varying degrees, it is always the 'dream' that we can detach ourselves emotionally from an issue when assessing it and it's implications.

An issue I've wanted to see discussed in SMP for a while is the logic of humanity restricting breeding to certain people, who would be of at least a standard IQ (preferably above average) and naturally would not be exposed to a low socioeconomic environment.

This is a big issue, and instantly morals come into play. Everybody believes it their right to breed, yet is that logical?

We all know of China's "one child policy", where if a family has no more than one child many things like medical and education are subsidised by the Government, but having more than one child voids any subsidisation.

China's "one child policy" seems logical, if we contrast this to problems in Africa, it seems illogical (and selfish IMHO) for anyone to breed in some environments when self sustenance is a problem.

So I don't know really how to start this discussion as it is huge and I'm hoping everyone in SMP will participate, with that I throw it open to you for discussion.

Cheers,
SDM

Bennett's comments can be seen and heard here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006)

[sammysusar]

It does not sound like Bennett was trying to be racist here. He probably just should have added the caveat that is was all based on prior trends and you cant necessarily predict the future from the past or just said if one race was predisposed to violence, (should not have mentioned blacks - or maybe made the comment based on class.
Based on how Bennet seems to have made the comment based on what a caller said about how those aborted would have been productive citizens, it just seems he is talking in a theoretical sense and there should be no political offense taken.
Had Bennett initiated the comment without context it might be slightly offensive, but i can see how the context does not make it a completely wrong thing to say.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a big issue, and instantly morals come into play. Everybody believes it their right to breed, yet is that logical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Human if not logical.

The one child law would efinately not go over well in America. Though it is interesting that the people that need govt assistance most usually have the most children. That in and of itself is irresponsible.

While I don't really like stereotypes- they did start somewhere.

[Jeff V]

But he was well aware of the arena in which he made the comments. I'm sure he's also aware of our sue-happy,take it out of context,how could he say such a thing?, that's an outrage something must be done culture.

[Girchuck]

You are aware that the population of many European countries is decreasing, right?
How did they achieve this decrease without any restrictive "one child" policy? (by the way, China population keeps growing, only the rate of growth is decreased)
The answer is: universal acceptance and easy availability of all forms of birth control, and least restrictive sexual mores. Liberate the women from "be fruitful and multiply" mentality, and you won't need to do anything else to get population growth under control.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
You are aware that the population of many European countries is decreasing, right?
How did they achieve this decrease without any restrictive "one child" policy? (by the way, China population keeps growing, only the rate of growth is decreased)
The answer is: universal acceptance and easy availability of all forms of birth control, and least restrictive sexual mores. Liberate the women from "be fruitful and multiply" mentality, and you won't need to do anything else to get population growth under control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Population growth isn't the issue, the issue is the quality and attention a child recieves, especially if it's an only child compared to a larger family.

Europe's declining birthrate IIRC has more to do with the 'selfishness' of adults (their right) who don't want to burden their lives by adding children (though they can afford to in many cases) than it has to do with making a moral choice to abstain from having a family because of lack of opportunities. (like an African in Ethiopia making the decision not to bring children into the world based on knowledge of the type of life the child will face)

You say China's "one child policy" isn't necessary as enlightening the women of the 'non-need to multiply' is sufficient, but I would argue this isn't enough.

I'm on shaky ground here as I haven't researched the following line, but I would wager the higher IQ; less breeding, and the lower the IQ; the more breeding - when if anything it should be the opposite way around. (the upper class who can afford more children, therefore can have them wheras the lower class who can't therefore shouldn't)

Unfortunately due to human nature, having a significant other and producing children seems 'hard wired' into us, and while over the years some religions (such as Islam and Catholicism) may have directed their adherants to have big families I think people don't necessarily need the blessing of the pope or Allah to do what is instinctive.

So therefore if I'm right about the lower IQ = more children, then it's more likely that the lower IQ corresponds to a menial job and a lower class, and in some cases full-time wellfare.

I don't need to tell anybody how this increases the probability of an increase in crime, especially when the statistics show the sons of single mothers are the most likely to have a run in with the law. (figure I heard was 70% of them, though I can't recall if the research was restricted to low-socioeconomic areas)

So even though you could make birth control and this information available to the people, it's doubtful they will have the restraint to make the hard decision to not breed, there's just too much internal (instinctive) and external (peers, religion, entertainment) programming to overcome, especially for the poorer persons IMHO.

-SDM

[lautzutao]

His argument would have been valid had he suggested aborting the fetuses of lower income families. Instead he implicitly stated that blacks are the cause of crime, and by aborting all blacks the crime rate would decrease.

I believe freakanomics stated this fact as well. Abortion among lower income households was the "reason" for the crime rate dropping, not just among blacks.

I'm not much for being PC, but Bennetts statement was ignorant and incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not much for being PC, but Bennetts statement was ignorant and incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you are not much for beeing PC you could also add that it was intolerant, biased, elitist and racist.

[pokerjoker]

I am going to change Bill Bennetts arguement from Black to Dumb and poor. Not because they are synonyms for eachother but I think in his head he was equating the two. Since due to their lower status in society a greater percentage of blacks than other races are dumb and poor.

Even if we aborted every baby not made from two geniuses there would still have to be someone to take out or process the geniuses garbage or fix the geniuses toilets when they got deeply clogged (until some genius invents a robot to do it). Unless we become communist (I will leave it to someone else if you want to debate why this is a bad idea) these geniuses will not be making as much as the geniuses performing brain surgery. They will get pissed off and do things against the more affluent society or eachother.

Aborting every dumb or poor (white or black) baby would do little to solve antisocial behavior.

PS what if all geniuses took turns doing the tasks that sucked and took turns performing the brain surgeries during the day. Assuming they dont spend their whole preadulthood lives smoking pot and playing videogames I think everyone would be somewhat equally qualified to do some sort of intelligent job and everyone could be making around, though not exactly, the same ammount of income. Utopia time?

[Jim T]

I'm not particularly interested in the controversy over Bennet's remarks, but I did think this was worth discussing:

[ QUOTE ]
"An issue I've wanted to see discussed in SMP for a while is the logic of humanity restricting breeding to certain people, who would be of at least a standard IQ (preferably above average) and naturally would not be exposed to a low socioeconomic environment.

This is a big issue, and instantly morals come into play. Everybody believes it their right to breed, yet is that logical?

We all know of China's "one child policy", where if a family has no more than one child many things like medical and education are subsidised by the Government, but having more than one child voids any subsidisation.

China's "one child policy" seems logical, if we contrast this to problems in Africa, it seems illogical (and selfish IMHO) for anyone to breed in some environments when self sustenance is a problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

1. In discussing the system of allowing anyone to have children, you do realize that what you seem to believe is the "logical" solution would result in tyrany, don't you?

I'm happy with "illogical" freedom, thank you very much.

2. Someone later in the thread mentioned that China's population is still growing, but that is only short term. If the CIA estimate (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html) is correct, then China is WELL below a replacement fertility rate and will relatively soon begin a population decline. And when you consider that the children who ARE being born in China are overwhelmingly male (because female fetuses are aborted at much higher rates), the picture there is even worse.

China is already on the path to a dangerous increase in their median age:

[ QUOTE ]
Some Chinese scholars have warned that in 15 or 20 years' time, China will face an ageing population problem similar to that encountered by several developed countries, but without the welfare resources to meet the challenge.

But Arthur Kroeber, managing editor of the China Economic Quarterly, isn't so sure.

"Demographic projections are very perilous because we don't know what tomorrow's birth rate is going to be," he said.

"But basically it does seem clear right now that China is in the midst of a demographic boom where there's a bulge of young people and that bulge is going to get older and older, and in 15 or 20 years' time we are likely to have a much older population with a much higher percentage of people in retirement and a lower percentage of people supporting them."

[/ QUOTE ]

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4184839.stm)

These demographic timebombs are serious enough in Japan, Europe and, to a lesser extent, here in the US. We have the wealth to cushion the shocks somewhat. However, China is still a comparatively poor nation.

[VarlosZ]

First Bennett's comment, then the eugenics issue the OP discussed.

For context, the relevant part of the transcript from Bennett's show:
[ QUOTE ]
"CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.


BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?


CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.


BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.


CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.


BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --


CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.


BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

[/ QUOTE ]

And from Bennett's remarks on the issue the next day:
[ QUOTE ]
"I was pointing out that abortion shouldn't be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism should be supported or opposed for economic reasons. Immoral policies are wrong. And they're wrong because they're wrong, not because of an economic calculus."

[/ QUOTE ]

He did not say anything racist. He referenced the correlative relationship between race and crime as an example, in passing, to make an unrelated point. One could infer that he was suggesting that there was causal relationship between the two, but I understand that he is on record in his books as saying that there is no such relationship (i.e., that crime and poverty are causally related, while crime and race are only incidentally related).

While I see no problem with his statement per se, the liklihood of its being taken out of context and/or misinterpreted is such that he should not have said it on the radio. He's guilty of being careless and perhaps a bit insensitive, but no more.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm on shaky ground here as I haven't researched the following line, but I would wager the higher IQ; less breeding, and the lower the IQ; the more breeding - when if anything it should be the opposite way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been studies that show that kind of negative correlation between education and birth-rate, bot not (ar far as I know) between intelligence and birth-rate. There is very likely an IQ correlation as well, but I'd wager that there would be a far stronger correlation between birth-rate and one's socio-economic class at birth.

Anyway, I have two main problems with what you're talking about.


1) Surely you would agree that restricting breeding rights is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. As we have a simple utilitarian interest in protecting such privacy, it would take an extraordinary counter-interest to justify such a thing. So:

-- Are you really so confident that we can measure "intelligence" accurately enough to deny breeding rights to those below a certain threshold on a certain test?

-- Are you confident that a more intelligent populace would be a safer, more righteous, more content populace? How can we say with any confidence what that populace would be like? True sociopaths, for example, are disproportianately intelligent.

-- Might there not be certain desirable traits in people that do not correlate with intelligence, or which even have a negative correlation? How would these be assessed, measured, and taken into consideration?


2)[ QUOTE ]
So therefore if I'm right about the lower IQ = more children, then it's more likely that the lower IQ corresponds to a menial job and a lower class, and in some cases full-time wellfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would a more intelligent populace eliminate menial, low-paying jobs? It seems the only difference would be that the janitor is now better equipped to understand how much his job sucks.

If you believe that intelligence correlates with ambition, initiative, or righteousness: cite?


In other words: how would this make the world better in such a way that the ends would justify the (monstrous, IMO) means?

[lautzutao]

Bennett could have said that we should abort all white children to lower crime yes? Why did he choose black? Happenstance? No, because people that listen to Bennetts show and Bennett himself feel that blacks are more responsible for crime than other races. Sounds like racism to me.

[sammysusar]

How can you say his statement is correct. If the crime rate was say 10% among a group and they make up 15% of the population while the rest of society had a crime rate of 5% you would lower the crime rate by eliminating that group.
So yeah, what he is saying is likely correct. Even if you assume a slightly lower crime rate in the next generation.
I suppose things are true can be offensive to say, but since he prefaced it by saying it was an extremely terrible idea i dont see why he cant say it.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bennett could have said that we should abort all white children to lower crime yes? Why did he choose black? Happenstance?

[/ QUOTE ]

He could have (and should have) said all poor children, as that would have been more accurate and less controversial. Since he was talking about crime rate, and not absolute numbers, saying that aborting all white children would lower crime wouldn't make much sense.

Why did he say black people? We have no way of knowing. Chances are it was just the first generally understandable example that popped into his head. Was it the first thing to pop into his head because he's a racist and that's how he thinks? We have no way of knowing, but that's certainly not the only explanation, so it behooves us not to assume the worst just because we don't like the man's politics.

[ QUOTE ]
No, because people that listen to Bennetts show and Bennett himself feel that blacks are more responsible for crime than other races. Sounds like racism to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Afro-Americans do, in fact, have a disproportiantately large crime rate (cites upon request). That statement comes with many caveats, but it's still a fact. The relationship between race and crime appears to be correlative, not causal. Conventional crime-statistics probably over-represent blacks and other minorities, since those stats measure convictions, and minorities who commit crime are more likely to be arrested and convicted than white people who commit crime. Etc, etc. Still, the correlation is there.

[Malachii]

I believe Bill Bennet is correct. There is considerable statistical evidence to prove that blacks have a higher crime rate than whites, latinos, or asians. Is it probable that these statistics have more to do with their economic status than the color of their skin? Of course. But it is also statistically justifiable to say that if we aborted every black child in America, we would have a lower crime rate. Frankly, I don't understand what the big deal is... it would be like saying if we aborted every Jew in America, our national average on SAT scores would suffer, which I'm sure is also statistically justifiable.

He went on to say that it would be morally reprehensible to ever do such a thing, and he's right about that also. Frankly, I don't understand why he created so much controversy by saying this, although I understand that because of Katrina the media is looking to play the race card wherever possible.

[sexdrugsmoney]

First of all, thanks for being one of the few to discuss this issue. I was a little surprised by the lack of responses from most of the people who debate about logic and religion. I only hope SMP isn't merely a battleground for the continual struggle of atheists vs theists, but for all 2+2ers to think about many big issues. (but sadly the lack of attentiton to this thread and the issue of the logic of eugenics may seem to indicate otherwise)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I have two main problems with what you're talking about.

1) Surely you would agree that restricting breeding rights is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. As we have a simple utilitarian interest in protecting such privacy, it would take an extraordinary counter-interest to justify such a thing. So:

-- Are you really so confident that we can measure "intelligence" accurately enough to deny breeding rights to those below a certain threshold on a certain test?

[/ QUOTE ]

The privacy is issue seems very emotional and personal. In the premodern era households didn't really have privacy like households do today. When society changes many things change with it, privacy and rights are just two of those things always subjected to the 'social contract' of one's day, a contract that they didn't sign at birth but was thrust upon them by their parents.

1) I'm not "confident" in these matters as I haven't researched this issue enough. (though after posting this thread I did watch Gattaca and have plans to read Huxley's Brave New World) Though Darwin's cousin was a believer in Eugenics, I'm not sure if Eugenics is what I am talking about per se. (though IQ breeding does play a big part in Eugenics it also addresses 'engineering' also, which seems logical)

It would seem though, from what we know now regarding medical issues, nobel prize winners and other intelligent folk, that a high IQ is preferable to a lower IQ, and that a 'perfect' body is preferable to one that is subject to various vices (alcoholism, substance abuse, etc) and diseases/conditions (hereditary diseases and a range of medical conditions - mental and physical)

With that said, it would seem logical given the current technology to use 'controlled breeding', and if that was done to possibly restrict it to those with at least average if not above average IQ's to reduce the crime rate of a society.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

-- Are you confident that a more intelligent populace would be a safer, more righteous, more content populace? How can we say with any confidence what that populace would be like? True sociopaths, for example, are disproportianately intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at what we know know, sociopaths aside, most crime is a result of the actions of the non-genius. I think a Utopia where there is peace and total harmony is naive, and pockets of crime as long as humans have emotion will occur, but on a whole the crime rate should fall sharply.

I'm not confident a Utopia will be achieved (as this is naive to expect) but I am confident many women would be confident that their chances of being raped have fallen considerably, as would the convenience store owner that his chances of robbery have also fallen.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

-- Might there not be certain desirable traits in people that do not correlate with intelligence, or which even have a negative correlation? How would these be assessed, measured, and taken into consideration?

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of artistic ability what other desireable traits could there be that couldn't be 'genetically assisted' and/or replaced by technology? (after all, we rely currently on technology for many things - ie brute strength/machines)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

2) How would a more intelligent populace eliminate menial, low-paying jobs? It seems the only difference would be that the janitor is now better equipped to understand how much his job sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some menial jobs in time will eventually be replaced by robots once the technology is perfected. (ie- self-vaccuming robots with sensor capability to navigate around a room are currently available)

If Eugenics was introduced one would assume the 'lowest' class of people would be of average intelligence and thus be the janitors, garbage men, shopkeepers etc.

Considering many people in these jobs have average IQ's (some higher - some lower depending on job) and are content with their life and happy to do the 9-5 and have their own life afterwards, I don't see the problem.

If however the 'benchmark' was say 120+ then there might be more chance of this, but if depression can be controlled via breeding one has to ask how an intelligent person in a menial job who recognises they can do better would feel and cope daily? (one of the many questions regarding this subject)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

If you believe that intelligence correlates with ambition, initiative, or righteousness: cite?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no sources. Currently this discussion is the 'birth' if you will, of my journey to reading and thinking more about Eugenics.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

In other words: how would this make the world better in such a way that the ends would justify the (monstrous, IMO) means?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the results would speak for themselves.

Do you not think it's logical though?

Cheers,
SDM

[DougShrapnel]

"First of all, thanks for being one of the few to discuss this issue. I was a little surprised by the lack of responses from most of the people who debate about logic and religion."

I definitely wrote several responses to this that I didn't think where up to snuff. But I'll give some of my thoughts.

Bennett said nothing wrong, although when I first heard him say it, I was shocked. But mainly because he didn't think about the ways what he said could be taken. But that's a whole 'nother post that I didn't want to get into to much.

Also I didn't want to get to much into China policies.

But what I do want to get into is the proper benefactor of ethics. When we use society as the reason for ethics, we can arrive at some faulty conclusions. Imagine a doctor who has 6 patients, 5 have a fatal malfunction of some sort. The 6th is perfectly healthy and can be used to save the life of the 5 others. If we use society as the basics of ethics we arrive at a very simple conclusion. But this hasn't yet touched on breading rights.

God has also chimed in on this "Go forth and multiple". But it's also incorrect to have God as the benefactor of ethics. If someone doesn't want to have children, that should be their choice.

It is the individual that is the recipient of ethics. It is not the world that gets the benefits of ethics. It is persons and not people. Individuals are the only ones with rights. So what are this rights that individuals have. An individual can be broken up into her past, her present, and her future.

Ones past is identified as ones property and wealth. Birth rights aren't a part of ones past. Ones future is their life and we aren't talking murder here,

It is only when we look at ones present to we begin to discuss the problem. What more can we say about ones rights in the present, other than that one should be free. We do make restrictions on ones freedoms, one is free to do anything provided it does not interfere with the rights of individuals. The right of life, liberty, and property. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is close and sounds a heck of a lot better.

This science of ethics prevents the doctor. It prevents someone from limiting individual’s birth rights.

But it doesn't address what to do with those who don't obey this type of logic (as in ethical treatment of criminals). It doesn't address the question of when birth rights conflict with availability of resources (as in China).
It doesn't address the damage that ignorant people do (people who can not provide for their children, but exercise their birth rights anyway).

Here is where my post falls further apart.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
The privacy is issue seems very emotional and personal. In the premodern era households didn't really have privacy like households do today. When society changes many things change with it, privacy and rights are just two of those things always subjected to the 'social contract' of one's day, a contract that they didn't sign at birth but was thrust upon them by their parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you aren't talking about some newfangled "privacy right", you are talking about liberty. You know, one of the "inalienable" rights that was being talked about at the country's founding (the irony of legal slaveholding notwithstanding).

You are discussing how "logical" it may be to deprive a huge percentage of their basic liberties, because they don't perform well enough on a test well enough to suit you. Let's also not forget that no one can agree on exactly what said test should be measuring or what weights should be assigned to different aspects.

BTW, serial killers are generally much more intelligent that the general population.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words: how would this make the world better in such a way that the ends would justify the (monstrous, IMO) means?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the results would speak for themselves.

Do you not think it's logical though?

[/ QUOTE ]

When limiting the means themselves is the most important end, then yes, the results of your "logic" would certainly speak for themselves.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
The privacy is issue seems very emotional and personal. In the premodern era households didn't really have privacy like households do today. When society changes many things change with it, privacy and rights are just two of those things always subjected to the 'social contract' of one's day, a contract that they didn't sign at birth but was thrust upon them by their parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you aren't talking about some newfangled "privacy right", you are talking about liberty. You know, one of the "inalienable" rights that was being talked about at the country's founding (the irony of legal slaveholding notwithstanding).

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

You are discussing how "logical" it may be to deprive a huge percentage of their basic liberties, because they don't perform well enough on a test well enough to suit you. Let's also not forget that no one can agree on exactly what said test should be measuring or what weights should be assigned to different aspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say for example, purely to narrow further discussion down, that persons IQ 120+ can breed.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

BTW, serial killers are generally much more intelligent that the general population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah but their parents who did most of the psychological damage to them, what was their IQ's?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
In other words: how would this make the world better in such a way that the ends would justify the (monstrous, IMO) means?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the results would speak for themselves.

Do you not think it's logical though?

[/ QUOTE ]

When limiting the means themselves is the most important end, then yes, the results of your "logic" would certainly speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that would be a lower crime rate and an increased probability in the further advancement of humanity right?

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

But what I do want to get into is the proper benefactor of ethics. When we use society as the reason for ethics, we can arrive at some faulty conclusions. Imagine a doctor who has 6 patients, 5 have a fatal malfunction of some sort. The 6th is perfectly healthy and can be used to save the life of the 5 others. If we use society as the basics of ethics we arrive at a very simple conclusion. But this hasn't yet touched on breading rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using Utilitarian ethics, assuming the 5 sick have more worth than the 1 person then yes, it would be ethical to sacrifice him to save the 5.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

God has also chimed in on this "Go forth and multiple". But it's also incorrect to have God as the benefactor of ethics. If someone doesn't want to have children, that should be their choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

One questions whether God said that just at that time or whether he mean't it to be a commandment, or like in Islam where it is encouraged.

I personally think God would prefer a decisive choice to have children and give them the best start in life as opposed to mindless breeding like rabbits.

But that's just my response to anyone who uses a deity as their excuse for having their woman knocked up on regular 9 month cycles with a down payment on a minivan to put all the little spawn in. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

It is the individual that is the recipient of ethics. It is not the world that gets the benefits of ethics. It is persons and not people. Individuals are the only ones with rights. So what are this rights that individuals have. An individual can be broken up into her past, her present, and her future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem as I see it.

When Nobel prize winners make a huge advancement, it benefits all of society, not just the scientist's family and their friends.

Yet included in this whole of society are people who do interfere with the rights of others, in some cases the right to live.

We already pick and choose who can and can't be a member of society based on their place of birth and subsequent actions in life as to whether they are allowed their liberty or should be deprived of it. (or deleted)

Humanity desires to seek out intelligent life in our universe or beyond, but what intelligent life are we really expecting to find?

I think regardless of whether this intelligent life is humanoid and kind like the Vulcans of Star Trek (ie- NASA'a wet dream) or cruel like something out of Independance Day (which in our optimism we can't fathom the thought) that either of these societies will use their resources better than us. (somewhat provable if they contact us, which we'll assume theit technology is more advanced)

I think it's incredibly naive to think that any intelligent form of ET life will have the liberal breeding proceedures we have on Earth, it's just illogical to me.

And if such ET life was hostie and reached us first, what is our plan of attack? Use nuclear weapons? Destroy ourselves to destroy our enemies? And all the while while this would be going on the echoes of the selfishness of Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Superdome would be repeated in many places worldwide. People throwing caution to the wind and raping women and children seeing their life nearly over, while large numbers wouldn't unite and fight but flee with their families in self interest.

I think we are making technological advancements but in many ways it is the idiots of the world preventing such rapid speed of progress and hindering quality of life. (from Akhmed the suicide bomber to George "Warmonger" Bush)

One would have to assume that Einstein for president/prime minister/dictator is more preferable than George Bush/Tony Blair/Fidel Castro.

One would also have to assume that Congress/house of representatives/senates would be better places if filled with Einsteins as opposed to what mimics at times a private school hall debating session between spoiled rich kids who don't really care about their society but just snide remarks at each other while collecting a nice public service wage.

I'm not saying Eugenics will instantly solve all this, I acknowledge I haven't done much research on it. But it seems logical that to first change the problems in society you must change the people, and that's where Eugenics enters, it really has to be the starting point or it's highly unlikely IMHO that these problems will disappear when there are idiots who still are able to produce sperm and convince silly mingers to marry them and breed.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Ones past is identified as ones property and wealth. Birth rights aren't a part of ones past. Ones future is their life and we aren't talking murder here,

[/ QUOTE ]

I think first we have to ask what our "birth rights" are, and once deciding what they are ask where they come from (nature or constructed by man)

Either way, even if one could prove we do have 'birth rights' by being part of a society we naturally give up many rights (such as land rights) so one would question why breeding would be any different.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

It is only when we look at ones present to we begin to discuss the problem. What more can we say about ones rights in the present, other than that one should be free. We do make restrictions on ones freedoms, one is free to do anything provided it does not interfere with the rights of individuals. The right of life, liberty, and property. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is close and sounds a heck of a lot better.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the Pursuit of Happiness is a double-edged sword. Because from a Utilitarian aspect if contolled breeding was introduced and if such breeding made more rapid advancements in science and therefore the quality of human life then that directly corresponds to the individuals pursuit of happiness, especially is such individual had disease x and through rapid advancement science was now able to cure it.

But apart from that, many of the rights that we would assume nature has given us (like living off the land) have been forgone. Now almost all the land on earth is controlled by someone, you can just walk up to an apple tree and pick an apple off, as that tree most likely will be on a farm owned by someone and is property. (ownership of nature, my God that's monsterous!)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

This science of ethics prevents the doctor. It prevents someone from limiting individual’s birth rights.

But it doesn't address what to do with those who don't obey this type of logic (as in ethical treatment of criminals). It doesn't address the question of when birth rights conflict with availability of resources (as in China).
It doesn't address the damage that ignorant people do (people who can not provide for their children, but exercise their birth rights anyway).

Here is where my post falls further apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obviously a tough issue, I think what it must ultimately boil down to is the sacrifice of a certain portion of liberties for the greater good, and society does that all the time at will. (State's of Emergency can be implemented at a Government's will and curfews implemented, National Appropriation of your property can occur for whatever reason in some governments, not to mention changes of laws, which cover all of society but are voted few by a portion which can be bribed)

It's a whole messy area but I think people get really emotional as they really want to create a copy of themselves and feel they should be allowed, but I see this as pure selfishness and inconsideration for the child and society.

As long as we have selfishness I believe humanity will always be hindered. I envy Spock on star trek, the way he always used logic and remained stoic. I'm not saying hard stoicism is what should be practiced by humanity all the time, but it should be implemented often when asking the hard decisions that require and objective approach.

Hardly anyone does it though, maybe the world is doomed, but if this is humanity you can't say it's a total loss, and if all humanity was wiped out and ET life did exist, they probably would have been given the greatest favor by nature/God for never meeting such a selfish illogical race.

?

-SDM

[Jim T]

&lt;quote&gt;Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.&lt;/quote&gt;

The Declaration of Independence's claims of "inalienable rights" is not limited to Americans. Your "logical" idea would be an abomination no matter where it might be enacted.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
&lt;quote&gt;Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.&lt;/quote&gt;

The Declaration of Independence's claims of "inalienable rights" is not limited to Americans. Your "logical" idea would be an abomination no matter where it might be enacted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jim, tell me why this logical idea is an 'abomination'?

What makes it so?

Cheers,
SDM

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Using Utilitarian ethics, assuming the 5 sick have more worth than the 1 person then yes, it would be ethical to sacrifice him to save the 5.


[/ QUOTE ] I think this demonstrates why Utilitarian ethics is flawed. It's that we give rights to the "greater good". Rights belong to individuals. Any thought that bases it's correctness on the greater good can only be correct if it doesn't interfere with individual rights.

[ QUOTE ]
En respuesta a:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God has also chimed in on this "Go forth and multiple". But it's also incorrect to have God as the benefactor of ethics. If someone doesn't want to have children, that should be their choice.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One questions whether God said that just at that time or whether he mean't it to be a commandment, or like in Islam where it is encouraged.

I personally think God would prefer a decisive choice to have children and give them the best start in life as opposed to mindless breeding like rabbits.

But that's just my response to anyone who uses a deity as their excuse for having their woman knocked up on regular 9 month cycles with a down payment on a minivan to put all the little spawn in.

[/ QUOTE ] I was actually really trying to work on my thoughts that God is the antithesis of freedom. Not really sure why I included it in the post.

[ QUOTE ]
When Nobel prize winners make a huge advancement, it benefits all of society, not just the scientist's family and their friends.

[/ QUOTE ] Who is to say advancements are always improvements. The good can not be separated from the bad. But's it's not important so much to whether or not everyone gets benefits, but whether the noble laureate wants to produce these "advancements". If this is what he wants to do, then the consequences of his actions are known. Add society owes him nothing but what the market will bear.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet included in this whole of society are people who do interfere with the rights of others, in some cases the right to live.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed, and what to do with this people is as important question as you can get at. I don't think we are anywhere close to ethical treatment.

[ QUOTE ]
Humanity desires to seek out intelligent life in our universe or beyond, but what intelligent life are we really expecting to find?

I think regardless of whether this intelligent life is humanoid and kind like the Vulcans of Star Trek (ie- NASA'a wet dream) or cruel like something out of Independance Day (which in our optimism we can't fathom the thought) that either of these societies will use their resources better than us. (somewhat provable if they contact us, which we'll assume theit technology is more advanced)

I think it's incredibly naive to think that any intelligent form of ET life will have the liberal breeding proceedures we have on Earth, it's just illogical to me.

And if such ET life was hostie and reached us first, what is our plan of attack? Use nuclear weapons? Destroy ourselves to destroy our enemies? And all the while while this would be going on the echoes of the selfishness of Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Superdome would be repeated in many places worldwide. People throwing caution to the wind and raping women and children seeing their life nearly over, while large numbers wouldn't unite and fight but flee with their families in self interest.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not sure what this is all about.

[ QUOTE ]
One would have to assume that Einstein for president/prime minister/dictator is more preferable than George Bush/Tony Blair/Fidel Castro.

[/ QUOTE ] The problem is assuming we need a leader. The sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect those who hire them. I'm not sure if Einstein would be best, even though I'll concede that he'd be better in the current roles of governments. But governments have no rights. Individuals are the only ones with rights.

[ QUOTE ]
But the Pursuit of Happiness is a double-edged sword. Because from a Utilitarian aspect if controlled breeding was introduced and if such breeding made more rapid advancements in science and therefore the quality of human life then that directly corresponds to the individuals pursuit of happiness, especially is such individual had disease x and through rapid advancement science was now able to cure it.

But apart from that, many of the rights that we would assume nature has given us (like living off the land) have been forgone. Now almost all the land on earth is controlled by someone, you can just walk up to an apple tree and pick an apple off, as that tree most likely will be on a farm owned by someone and is property. (ownership of nature, my God that's monstrous!)

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy pursuit of happiness as a right, it does sound optimistic. Living off the land may be a right you can extend to animals, but I don't see the need for humans to have that right, unless of course they can afford it.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as we have selfishness I believe humanity will always be hindered.

[/ QUOTE ] Selfishness is the only moral standard for humanity, it is not a hindrance. Altruism and Stoicism are the bogus moral standards.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Using Utilitarian ethics, assuming the 5 sick have more worth than the 1 person then yes, it would be ethical to sacrifice him to save the 5.


[/ QUOTE ] I think this demonstrates why Utilitarian ethics is flawed. It's that we give rights to the "greater good". Rights belong to individuals. Any thought that bases it's correctness on the greater good can only be correct if it doesn't interfere with individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's anarchy, and anarchy doesn't work.

So all models base thier correctness on the greater good at some cost to the individuals, what cost(s) that is differs slightly from society to society, most things like murder, rape, &amp; theft etc seem to be pretty close across the board.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
When Nobel prize winners make a huge advancement, it benefits all of society, not just the scientist's family and their friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is to say advancements are always improvements. The good can not be separated from the bad. But's it's not important so much to whether or not everyone gets benefits, but whether the noble laureate wants to produce these "advancements". If this is what he wants to do, then the consequences of his actions are known. Add society owes him nothing but what the market will bear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think scientists do want to produce these advancements (I would like to think they do) especially if they benefit humankind by releasing us from the things that plague us.

I don't understand this though:

Add society owes him nothing but what the market will bear

Could you clairfy this for me?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Yet included in this whole of society are people who do interfere with the rights of others, in some cases the right to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and what to do with this people is as important question as you can get at. I don't think we are anywhere close to ethical treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but emotion aside, let me give you an example.

A murderer kills someone, and gets 25 years in prison. What most societies will do is incarcerate this murderer at the cost to society or end their life, both of these are illogical IMHO.

I think convicts should be used as slaves, their labour used to pay society, thus their work not only supports their keeping but also benefits the government which put forth the laws they transgressed.

An example is hemp plantations. Rather than the murderer sitting around prison thinking about who to stab in the shower and who to rape and make his "bitch", if the convict was made to work the field under close watch of surveillance and guard tower they would be doing something productive and this would be closer to "rehabilitation" into society than sitting around a cell lifting weights etc.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Humanity desires to seek out intelligent life in our universe or beyond, but what intelligent life are we really expecting to find?

I think regardless of whether this intelligent life is humanoid and kind like the Vulcans of Star Trek (ie- NASA'a wet dream) or cruel like something out of Independance Day (which in our optimism we can't fathom the thought) that either of these societies will use their resources better than us. (somewhat provable if they contact us, which we'll assume theit technology is more advanced)

I think it's incredibly naive to think that any intelligent form of ET life will have the liberal breeding proceedures we have on Earth, it's just illogical to me.

And if such ET life was hostie and reached us first, what is our plan of attack? Use nuclear weapons? Destroy ourselves to destroy our enemies? And all the while while this would be going on the echoes of the selfishness of Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Superdome would be repeated in many places worldwide. People throwing caution to the wind and raping women and children seeing their life nearly over, while large numbers wouldn't unite and fight but flee with their families in self interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what this is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

We as humans only have a finite amount of resources which we use in an exploitive way and we waste alot while we are at it.

If intelligent ET life exists we assume they wouldn't do this, that they would be more 'advanced' than us, and I would wager things like breeding and capitalism would be very different.

The point I was trying to make was to say how stepping "outside" our view of humanity to see ourselves as some foreign species would see us, might highlight our faults and where we are just 'playing our cards wrong' in terms of the illogic of our actions.

If humanity is to advance we must address these issues and change them, especially the 'checking' of our emotions.

If we want to be free and emotional, fine ... but it comes at a cost, and I wager it's illogical. (compare this with a logical ET lifeform and if it existed and we made contact we would have to hope it is friendly or we'd most certainly be subject to its mercy ... if any)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
One would have to assume that Einstein for president/prime minister/dictator is more preferable than George Bush/Tony Blair/Fidel Castro.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is assuming we need a leader. The sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect those who hire them. I'm not sure if Einstein would be best, even though I'll concede that he'd be better in the current roles of governments. But governments have no rights. Individuals are the only ones with rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we do need a leader and this is why Anarchism doesn't work.

If there is no leader, then when Person J decides to molest a 6 year old girl in their Community, who will step in to protect the little girl's liberty? (and that infringes on Person J's liberty and their 'pursuit of happiness' however sick we deem it)

If you are talking about no leader but all society making decisions together as a 'unit', that degree of intelligence and responsibility we are not even close to IMHO. (if it's possible at all)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
But the Pursuit of Happiness is a double-edged sword. Because from a Utilitarian aspect if controlled breeding was introduced and if such breeding made more rapid advancements in science and therefore the quality of human life then that directly corresponds to the individuals pursuit of happiness, especially is such individual had disease x and through rapid advancement science was now able to cure it.

But apart from that, many of the rights that we would assume nature has given us (like living off the land) have been forgone. Now almost all the land on earth is controlled by someone, you can just walk up to an apple tree and pick an apple off, as that tree most likely will be on a farm owned by someone and is property. (ownership of nature, my God that's monstrous!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy pursuit of happiness as a right, it does sound optimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree. Jim T says the Declaration of Independance talks about inalienable rights that are 'self evident' to humans, but critics ask who gave humans these "rights", and that's a good question.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Living off the land may be a right you can extend to animals, but I don't see the need for humans to have that right, unless of course they can afford it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currency was contructed. Almost everybody agrees humans were hunter-gatherers in the beginning, everything else is constructed and ordered. I only use this example as a point that if there is any "God given/natural right" it is to live off the land, for when that goes presumably we also will go.

I was merely trying to illustrate in the construction of society, humans don't have the right to live off the land anymore, we have given up this right to other humans and contractually agree if they hunt and gather we will compensate them with currency.

Now if this is a natural right we have given up, then in theory it is not much different to right of breeding. Both are said to be of "God given/natural right" yet one is given up for the greater good of society but the other deemed 'sacred' and coveted.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
As long as we have selfishness I believe humanity will always be hindered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Selfishness is the only moral standard for humanity, it is not a hindrance. Altruism and Stoicism are the bogus moral standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

But selfishness is what would prevent a Utopia (though I don't see this ever happening) and any society run by selfishness (eg capitalism) surely you have to agree is a sad society indeed?

Cheers,
SDM

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
But that's anarchy, and anarchy doesn't work.

So all models base thier correctness on the greater good at some cost to the individuals, what cost(s) that is differs slightly from society to society, most things like murder, rape, &amp; theft etc seem to be pretty close across the board.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not talking anarchy. There is a severly restricted government that protects individual rights under it's governence, and does not extend beyond that. Muder, rape, and theft are close across the board because ther are based on the proper benefactor of ethics. All systems are flawed in making distinctions between greater good and individual rights.

[ QUOTE ]
I think scientists do want to produce these advancements (I would like to think they do) especially if they benefit humankind by releasing us from the things that plague us.

[/ QUOTE ] Then that is their right, it is not that the altruistic nature of the scientist gives him more credit or rights or freedoms then someone who chooses not to be altruistic. Well maybe more freedoms but only inderictly. It does not make his actions more ethical than someones who's aim is only to advance himself.

[ QUOTE ]
and this would be closer to "rehabilitation" into society than sitting around a cell lifting weights etc.

[/ QUOTE ] "Rehabilitaion" and Education are the only ethical treaments. When those options fail prevention is the next ethical treatment. Prevention of a "unrehabitable", "uneducatable" is much trickier.

Slavery is equavalint to Death. Either option is certainly ethically for those who disrespect individual rights.

[ QUOTE ]
We as humans only have a finite amount of resources which we use in an exploitive way and we waste alot while we are at it.

If intelligent ET life exists we assume they wouldn't do this, that they would be more 'advanced' than us, and I would wager things like breeding and capitalism would be very different.

The point I was trying to make was to say how stepping "outside" our view of humanity to see ourselves as some foreign species would see us, might highlight our faults and where we are just 'playing our cards wrong' in terms of the illogic of our actions.

If humanity is to advance we must address these issues and change them, especially the 'checking' of our emotions.

If we want to be free and emotional, fine ... but it comes at a cost, and I wager it's illogical. (compare this with a logical ET lifeform and if it existed and we made contact we would have to hope it is friendly or we'd most certainly be subject to its mercy ... if any)

[/ QUOTE ] An outside perspective is great to have, it can open up many possiblities. But to change our values based of an outside perspective seems a bit of a stretch. It is only from our perspective can we see what values are. If humanity and reason are not the arbitors of values and eithics, my arguements have no basis.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we do need a leader and this is why Anarchism doesn't work.

If there is no leader, then when Person J decides to molest a 6 year old girl in their Community, who will step in to protect the little girl's liberty? (and that infringes on Person J's liberty and their 'pursuit of happiness' however sick we deem it)

If you are talking about no leader but all society making decisions together as a 'unit', that degree of intelligence and responsibility we are not even close to IMHO. (if it's possible at all)

[/ QUOTE ] Yes the government would step in to protect the little girls liberty. That is the sole reason for government. It is a crime that we let the government do more.

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree. Jim T says the Declaration of Independance talks about inalienable rights that are 'self evident' to humans, but critics ask who gave humans these "rights", and that's a good question.


[/ QUOTE ] It is the nature of life that give us rights. It is our reason that allows us to extend those rights to other humans. Without reason, ethics is an unreachable pursuit.

[ QUOTE ]
Currency was contructed. Almost everybody agrees humans were hunter-gatherers in the beginning, everything else is constructed and ordered. I only use this example as a point that if there is any "God given/natural right" it is to live off the land, for when that goes presumably we also will go.

I was merely trying to illustrate in the construction of society, humans don't have the right to live off the land anymore, we have given up this right to other humans and contractually agree if they hunt and gather we will compensate them with currency.

Now if this is a natural right we have given up, then in theory it is not much different to right of breeding. Both are said to be of "God given/natural right" yet one is given up for the greater good of society but the other deemed 'sacred' and coveted.


[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy the natural God given right to live of the land, free of charge. You have the right to your past, your present, and your future. Those are your rights. The right to what you earned through effort and work, your freedom and liberty, and your life. You must provide for yourself, the earth does not recongnize your rights. The land does not have reason with which to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
But selfishness is what would prevent a Utopia (though I don't see this ever happening) and any society run by selfishness (eg capitalism) surely you have to agree is a sad society indeed?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not looking for a Utopia, I am looking for the science of ehtics. Society has made much progress, I don't think its sad at all. Mankind is clearly on it's way toward an ethical, reason based social structure.

I haven't yet gotten to the points you wanted to talk about yet, because i think that the "common good" or "it benefits society", or "keeping up with the alien jones" aren't good reasons to discuss such propositions. I'm not saying that humans have a natural right to reproduce, or the opposite, just that the reasons you mention are not the correct reasons. China's situation may be different, but I assure you that they didn't arrive at the solution thru individual rights.

[VarlosZ]

SDM,

You seem to be a Utilitarian in one form or another -- good, so am I. I'm glad we have an agreed upon framework with which to work.

In our calculus of felicity, I think you're missing two things: the degree to which the benefits of your plan are uncertain, and the amount of misery from restricted breeding that would have to be overcome. I'll get to those briefly, but first a practical, probably insurmountable obstacle to your idea.

You mentioned restricting breeding rights to those with an IQ of 120 or greater, which is roughly 10% of the population. Even if you lowered the bar all the way to 100 (50% of the population), it would be collective suicide for any nation or alliance to try this.

The people who would be in the breeding group would presumably be the most educated and successful people in the community. As we know, however, there's a negative correlation bewtween those traits and birth rate. Without the the high birth rate of the lower classes to make up for this, the population would plummet within a year or two.

This is a huge problem, and it should be obvious why. A nation's productive capacity is limited by it's population. A country which loses 3/4 (or more) of it's population overnight (relatively speaking) while the rest of the world continues to expand will not be able to keep up. Its ability to manufacture goods and food will be severely reduced, hence a reliance on imports from other places and an inability to compete economically with its more populace neighbors. Less manpower will be available for national defense. Even its ability to generate scientific advances will be hindered -- a country of 75 million smart people will produce far fewer geniuses than a country of 1 billion average people, and also fewer people with the inclination and means to pursue discovery.

Such a nation might produce excellent results on a per capita basis, but it would be severely outclassed by the gross output of other nations, which is all that matters. It would be uncompetitive economically, militarily, and scientifically. It would be swallowed whole by its more powerful neighbors, one way or another.

This is why the ball will never get rolling on such a thing. Any nation or group of nations that tried it would be dominated by the rest of the world. It's even problematic for some hypothetical one-world government, as certain peoples would be reluctant to go along, and even those who supported the plan would have to think twice because they would risk giving a huge advantage to those who might decide against compliance. The whole thing is a non-starter.


Calculus of felicity to follow.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I'm not talking anarchy. There is a severly restricted government that protects individual rights under it's governence, and does not extend beyond that. Muder, rape, and theft are close across the board because ther are based on the proper benefactor of ethics. All systems are flawed in making distinctions between greater good and individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all systems are flawed in making distinctions between greater good and individual rights then doesn't that make Eugenics seem all the more logical as eventually more higher IQ's should lead to better created systems to govern "better" humans?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I think scientists do want to produce these advancements (I would like to think they do) especially if they benefit humankind by releasing us from the things that plague us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then that is their right, it is not that the altruistic nature of the scientist gives him more credit or rights or freedoms then someone who chooses not to be altruistic. Well maybe more freedoms but only inderictly. It does not make his actions more ethical than someones who's aim is only to advance himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you but only because I value my individuality and freedom. (which would be gone if this plan came to pass)

But from a humanity perspective, doing things for the collective is more logical than doing such a thing for a minority that don't care about the collective, isn't it?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
and this would be closer to "rehabilitation" into society than sitting around a cell lifting weights etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Rehabilitaion" and Education are the only ethical treaments. When those options fail prevention is the next ethical treatment. Prevention of a "unrehabitable", "uneducatable" is much trickier.

Slavery is equavalint to Death. Either option is certainly ethically for those who disrespect individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

But detaining someone and denying them their liberty is slavery, the only difference is that under the current way prisoners get adjusted to the 'survival of the fittest' environment that is the current prison system.

Having prisoners seperated from each other and made to work daily is not only logical but also helps rehabilitate them by protecting them from other prisoners.

If every prisoner had a private cell with TV and books and they had a menu of which a portion of their wages was their to buy themselves a deluxe meal every night, that is fairer and logical than the current system IMHO.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
We as humans only have a finite amount of resources which we use in an exploitive way and we waste alot while we are at it.

If intelligent ET life exists we assume they wouldn't do this, that they would be more 'advanced' than us, and I would wager things like breeding and capitalism would be very different.

The point I was trying to make was to say how stepping "outside" our view of humanity to see ourselves as some foreign species would see us, might highlight our faults and where we are just 'playing our cards wrong' in terms of the illogic of our actions.

If humanity is to advance we must address these issues and change them, especially the 'checking' of our emotions.

If we want to be free and emotional, fine ... but it comes at a cost, and I wager it's illogical. (compare this with a logical ET lifeform and if it existed and we made contact we would have to hope it is friendly or we'd most certainly be subject to its mercy ... if any)

[/ QUOTE ]

An outside perspective is great to have, it can open up many possiblities. But to change our values based of an outside perspective seems a bit of a stretch. It is only from our perspective can we see what values are. If humanity and reason are not the arbitors of values and eithics, my arguements have no basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with our perspective is that we know we only get one life and are biased. I'm not saying we should allow what another lifeform does to dictate what we should do, but if we are deluded enough to think the current system is the 'pinnacle' of what humans can achieve then we don't deserve saving.

On the other hand if we acknowledge the current way is not the pinnacle yet these problems aren't addressed, we should tell all the scientists to stop wasting their lives and to just f**k like the rest of the population, caring about nothing but pleasure, squandering their intelligence for pure selfishness.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I think we do need a leader and this is why Anarchism doesn't work.

If there is no leader, then when Person J decides to molest a 6 year old girl in their Community, who will step in to protect the little girl's liberty? (and that infringes on Person J's liberty and their 'pursuit of happiness' however sick we deem it)

If you are talking about no leader but all society making decisions together as a 'unit', that degree of intelligence and responsibility we are not even close to IMHO. (if it's possible at all)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the government would step in to protect the little girls liberty. That is the sole reason for government. It is a crime that we let the government do more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically though the next step would be preventing people like Person J ever being born though, enter Eugenics.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I would agree. Jim T says the Declaration of Independance talks about inalienable rights that are 'self evident' to humans, but critics ask who gave humans these "rights", and that's a good question.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is the nature of life that give us rights. It is our reason that allows us to extend those rights to other humans. Without reason, ethics is an unreachable pursuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nature has given us hunger and the right to feed that hunger by simply 'gathering' from it what it provides, then our fellow humans who take a tree and give it to Farmer X and say we are trespassing if we eat from it have stolen our rights have they not?



</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Currency was contructed. Almost everybody agrees humans were hunter-gatherers in the beginning, everything else is constructed and ordered. I only use this example as a point that if there is any "God given/natural right" it is to live off the land, for when that goes presumably we also will go.

I was merely trying to illustrate in the construction of society, humans don't have the right to live off the land anymore, we have given up this right to other humans and contractually agree if they hunt and gather we will compensate them with currency.

Now if this is a natural right we have given up, then in theory it is not much different to right of breeding. Both are said to be of "God given/natural right" yet one is given up for the greater good of society but the other deemed 'sacred' and coveted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy the natural God given right to live of the land, free of charge. You have the right to your past, your present, and your future. Those are your rights. The right to what you earned through effort and work, your freedom and liberty, and your life. You must provide for yourself, the earth does not recongnize your rights. The land does not have reason with which to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

"the earth does not recognize your rights"?

Dude where are you getting your food from? It's all from nature.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
But selfishness is what would prevent a Utopia (though I don't see this ever happening) and any society run by selfishness (eg capitalism) surely you have to agree is a sad society indeed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not looking for a Utopia, I am looking for the science of ehtics. Society has made much progress, I don't think its sad at all. Mankind is clearly on it's way toward an ethical, reason based social structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the speed we are going the earth will be dead before that dream comes to fruition IMHO.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

I haven't yet gotten to the points you wanted to talk about yet, because i think that the "common good" or "it benefits society", or "keeping up with the alien jones" aren't good reasons to discuss such propositions. I'm not saying that humans have a natural right to reproduce, or the opposite, just that the reasons you mention are not the correct reasons. China's situation may be different, but I assure you that they didn't arrive at the solution thru individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "keeping up with the alien jones'" it's a matter of advancement. I wager no intelligent ET life has a society like ours and if it did at one point it would have acknowledged it only prevented progress and would have to be seen as their "dark age".

But who knows?

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
&lt;quote&gt;Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.&lt;/quote&gt;

The Declaration of Independence's claims of "inalienable rights" is not limited to Americans. Your "logical" idea would be an abomination no matter where it might be enacted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jim, tell me why this logical idea is an 'abomination'?

What makes it so?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

Just substitute "the blacks" or "the Jews" for your "less intelligent", and you MIGHT get the idea. If not, then you probably wouldn't qualify for reproduction rights under your own plan.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking anarchy. There is a severely restricted government that protects individual rights under its governance, and does not extend beyond that. Murder, rape, and theft are close across the board because they are based on the proper benefactor of ethics. All systems are flawed in making distinctions between greater good and individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all systems are flawed in making distinctions between greater good and individual rights then doesn't that make Eugenics seem all the more logical as eventually more higher IQ's should lead to better created systems to govern "better" humans?


[/ QUOTE ]So what you are saying is we can sacrifice the right of the individual now, for the rights of the individual later? The goal is to get more correct rights not to sacrifice them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think scientists do want to produce these advancements (I would like to think they do) especially if they benefit humankind by releasing us from the things that plague us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then that is their right, it is not that the altruistic nature of the scientist gives him more credit or rights or freedoms then someone who chooses not to be altruistic. Well maybe more freedoms but only indirectly. It does not make his actions more ethical than someone’s whose aim is only to advance himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you but only because I value my individuality and freedom. (which would be gone if this plan came to pass)

But from a humanity perspective, doing things for the collective is more logical than doing such a thing for a minority that don't care about the collective, isn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]You are human; the bold are your values. If you also decide you value other human life generally above your own. Your values (freedom and individuality) have somehow been subjugated below the values of others. The continued existence of mankind is not a value, it is a desire. Desires do not ethics make. The problem with hedonism

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and this would be closer to "rehabilitation" into society than sitting around a cell lifting weights etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Rehabilitation" and Education are the only ethical treatments. When those options fail prevention is the next ethical treatment. Prevention of an "unrehabitable", "uneducatable" is much trickier.

Slavery is equivalent to Death. Either option is certainly ethically for those who disrespect individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

But detaining someone and denying them their liberty is slavery, the only difference is that under the current way prisoners get adjusted to the 'survival of the fittest' environment that is the current prison system.

Having prisoners seperated from each other and made to work daily is not only logical but also helps rehabilitate them by protecting them from other prisoners.

If every prisoner had a private cell with TV and books and they had a menu of which a portion of their wages was their to buy themselves a deluxe meal every night, that is fairer and logical than the current system IMHO.


[/ QUOTE ]
Seems fair enough, provided we are actually able to re-instate values into criminals. And we are actually jailing the correct people. And that the punishment fits the crime.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We as humans only have a finite amount of resources which we use in an exploitive way and we waste alot while we are at it.

If intelligent ET life exists we assume they wouldn't do this, that they would be more 'advanced' than us, and I would wager things like breeding and capitalism would be very different.

The point I was trying to make was to say how stepping "outside" our view of humanity to see ourselves as some foreign species would see us, might highlight our faults and where we are just 'playing our cards wrong' in terms of the illogic of our actions.

If humanity is to advance we must address these issues and change them, especially the 'checking' of our emotions.

If we want to be free and emotional, fine ... but it comes at a cost, and I wager it's illogical. (compare this with a logical ET lifeform and if it existed and we made contact we would have to hope it is friendly or we'd most certainly be subject to its mercy ... if any)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing is wrong with emotions provided you know what it is for. Fear for instance is for strength. Hmm..to outlive the usefulness of emotions.. Or to regulate current emotions meaningless. Interesting thoughts you have sometimes SDM. I guess I missed this the first time around.

[ QUOTE ]
An outside perspective is great to have, it can open up many possibilities. But to change our values based of an outside perspective seems a bit of a stretch. It is only from our perspective can we see what values are. If humanity and reason are not the arbiters of values and ethics, my arguments have no basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with our perspective is that we know we only get one life and are biased. I'm not saying we should allow what another lifeform does to dictate what we should do, but if we are deluded enough to think the current system is the 'pinnacle' of what humans can achieve then we don't deserve saving.

On the other hand if we acknowledge the current way is not the pinnacle yet these problems aren't addressed, we should tell all the scientists to stop wasting their lives and to just f**k like the rest of the population, caring about nothing but pleasure, squandering their intelligence for pure selfishness.


[/ QUOTE ]We shouldn't tell all the scientists to do anything. It is their choice. But to tell anyone that desires are to be interchangeable with values is to mislead.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we do need a leader and this is why Anarchism doesn't work.

If there is no leader, then when Person J decides to molest a 6 year old girl in their Community, who will step in to protect the little girl's liberty? (and that infringes on Person J's liberty and their 'pursuit of happiness' however sick we deem it)

If you are talking about no leader but all society making decisions together as a 'unit', that degree of intelligence and responsibility we are not even close to IMHO. (if it's possible at all)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the government would step in to protect the little girls liberty. That is the sole reason for government. It is a crime that we let the government do more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically though the next step would be preventing people like Person J ever being born though, enter Eugenics.


[/ QUOTE ]Preventing Person J from becoming a pedophile has lost all hope? Rehabilitating Person J gone too? The yes it's on to prevention of Person J being born. Perhaps that's not possible either. Then taking away the life or imprisoning Person J is ethical.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would agree. Jim T says the Declaration of Independance talks about inalienable rights that are 'self evident' to humans, but critics ask who gave humans these "rights", and that's a good question.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is the nature of life that gives us rights. It is our reason that allows us to extend those rights to other humans. Without reason, ethics is an unreachable pursuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nature has given us hunger and the right to feed that hunger by simply 'gathering' from it what it provides, then our fellow humans who take a tree and give it to Farmer X and say we are trespassing if we eat from it have stolen our rights have they not?



[/ QUOTE ]Nature sends a flood to destroy the entire crop in the field, is nature unethical?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currency was constructed. Almost everybody agrees humans were hunter-gatherers in the beginning, everything else is constructed and ordered. I only use this example as a point that if there is any "God given/natural right" it is to live off the land, for when that goes presumably we also will go.

I was merely trying to illustrate in the construction of society, humans don't have the right to live off the land anymore, we have given up this right to other humans and contractually agree if they hunt and gather we will compensate them with currency.

Now if this is a natural right we have given up, then in theory it is not much different to right of breeding. Both are said to be of "God given/natural right" yet one is given up for the greater good of society but the other deemed 'sacred' and coveted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy the natural God given right to live of the land, free of charge. You have the right to your past, your present, and your future. Those are your rights. The right to what you earned through effort and work, your freedom and liberty, and your life. You must provide for yourself, the earth does not recognize your rights. The land does not have reason with which to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

"the earth does not recognize your rights"?

Dude where are you getting your food from? It's all from nature.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are saying that the earth has cognition? Yes, mankind was mainly gatherers. The plant and man had a symbiotic relationship. I will provide you food, you will spread my seed. Farmer X in your example spread the seed, it is his food. You can trade with Farmer X for your food. Arrangements change, but there is nothing unethical about this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But selfishness is what would prevent a Utopia (though I don't see this ever happening) and any society run by selfishness (eg capitalism) surely you have to agree is a sad society indeed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not looking for a Utopia; I am looking for the science of ethics. Society has made much progress; I don't think it’s sad at all. Mankind is clearly on its way toward an ethical, reason based social structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the speed we are going the earth will be dead before that dream comes to fruition IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't yet gotten to the points you wanted to talk about yet, because I think that the "common good" or "it benefits society", or "keeping up with the alien Jones" aren't good reasons to discuss such propositions. I'm not saying that humans have a natural right to reproduce, or the opposite, just that the reasons you mention are not the correct reasons. China's situation may be different, but I assure you that they didn't arrive at the solution thru individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "keeping up with the alien Jones'" it's a matter of advancement. I wager no intelligent ET life has a society like ours and if it did at one point it would have acknowledged it only prevented progress and would have to be seen as their "dark age".

But who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]Fear is a powerful motivator, as well as your desire for mankind to exist forever. But these do not lead to choices of ethics. They are only choices of desires and emotions. This is a damn interesting conversation SDM.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
&lt;quote&gt;Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.&lt;/quote&gt;

The Declaration of Independence's claims of "inalienable rights" is not limited to Americans. Your "logical" idea would be an abomination no matter where it might be enacted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jim, tell me why this logical idea is an 'abomination'?

What makes it so?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

Just substitute "the blacks" or "the Jews" for your "less intelligent", and you MIGHT get the idea. If not, then you probably wouldn't qualify for reproduction rights under your own plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's illogical. We now know race doesn't equal inferiority.

As for me reproducing, never, I have made the choice not to bring children into this world.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
If all systems are flawed in making distinctions between greater good and individual rights then doesn't that make Eugenics seem all the more logical as eventually more higher IQ's should lead to better created systems to govern "better" humans?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is we can sacrifice the right of the individual now, for the rights of the individual later? The goal is to get more correct rights not to sacrifice them.

[/ QUOTE ]


</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
You are human; the bold are your values. If you also decide you value other human life generally above your own. Your values (freedom and individuality) have somehow been subjugated below the values of others. The continued existence of mankind is not a value, it is a desire. Desires do not ethics make. The problem with hedonism

[/ QUOTE ]

But how do we know mankind is "this". Traditionally many things have been "x" and then changed to "y" and become acceptable and a better way.

The Mankind of today with its illogical individualism maybe the "x", The mankind of tomorrow with it's collective logic maybe the "y".

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Nothing is wrong with emotions provided you know what it is for. Fear for instance is for strength. Hmm..to outlive the usefulness of emotions.. Or to regulate current emotions meaningless. Interesting thoughts you have sometimes SDM. I guess I missed this the first time around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fear does have it good properties but it can also have a negative impact. I'm going to look into Stoicism more and eventually try to experiment with it in my real life, to see if one can live "like spock" or as close as possible and note any change to living, but that's beyond the scope of our discussion here. (look for my 'spock' thread, coming to a SMP near you) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Preventing Person J from becoming a pedophile has lost all hope? Rehabilitating Person J gone too? The yes it's on to prevention of Person J being born. Perhaps that's not possible either. Then taking away the life or imprisoning Person J is ethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preventative measures only come from experiencing something first. (ie- Russian boards plane with fur hat, lands in spain, "wow it's hot", takes off fur hat. - next time Russian flys to spain, he will know not to wear heavy clothing etc)

Rehabilitation for pedophille's seems futile. Studies don't favor rehabilitating them, I remember a documentary once about one pedophile who had himself castrated and said that "you never stop the urge, its a sickness". Obviously this "man" took preventative (and harsh) measures so the 'beast' side was quelled, but in his sick mind he must still fantasize about pedophilia, and after all, pedophilia is a mental sickness.

For the record I believe the death penalty is illogical. (leaving aside ethics for the moment)

As for pedophiles I believe because what the studies have shown the only logical life for them is one removed from children, and jail seems the only place that is possible unfortunately. (unfortunate in the "current" prison system is the de-evolution of civilization, I prefer the logical 'prison farms' I proposed.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Nature sends a flood to destroy the entire crop in the field, is nature unethical?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure nature is capable of ethics? (though I may be wrong)

I believe nature is what it is, it is us who say it is unfair or fair.

Nature seems to do what it does, whether what it does is always logical or not I am not sure.

But if we came from nature (ie evolution) and a flood destroyed us, that would be logical that the creator could end it's creation at will IMHO.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />


You are saying that the earth has cognition? Yes, mankind was mainly gatherers. The plant and man had a symbiotic relationship. I will provide you food, you will spread my seed. Farmer X in your example spread the seed, it is his food. You can trade with Farmer X for your food. Arrangements change, but there is nothing unethical about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have proven my point, "arrangements change". Obviously there came a point where a certain amount of humans didn't want to spread the seeds nature provided for them, and they probably thought they could better spend their time making other things to advance humanity and thus benefit everyone, so Farmer X said "I'll do it, but I need Z" (z being the new invention the ones who didn't want to spread the seed began using thier traditional "seed sowing" time to invent/make) thus that became the contract.

This is an example of how society changed from 'hunter/gatherer' to 'contractual/commercial'.

Thus if roles in society can change, presumably for the logical benefit of all humanity, then that proves my point.

What unfortunately has been ignored is this point:

The children of Farmer X have their natural link with the land through being on the natural side of the contract, wheras the children of "Z" (for lack of better term) no longer do, they forfeited that right for Z and only have X by trade.

Due to the nature of capitalism now, the children of Z can't go back and reclaim the land that their forefathers have contracted away. (not a good example but a good talking point: Israel vs Palestine)

And society is always changing, new seeds that are Genetically Modified (GM) can be made to not reproduce.

A normal seed grows into a plant, plant opens up, drops seed to continue cycle of life, new seeds grow plant - repeat.

With GM seeds they can be made to grow into a plant, the plant opens up, but the seeds it now drops are sterile, forcing Farmer X to continually be at the mercy of the person he bought the seeds off if he wishes to have that plant grow.

It's all a messy issue and I don't want to 'slide' around into other issues like GM etc, but the point I'm trying to make is this:

You and I doug, are the children of z, our forefathers determined our fate by their actions, be it logical or illogical, and the whole world's &amp; your children's fate will be what their fathers today make of it. They will be born into the only reality they know and whatever that is will be normal for them.

Right now, the discussion of a 'transition to Eugenics' seems unatural for us, because all changes are unsettling because of the "grand scale" it will be on to begin it, but one generation later, it will seem normal to the children born under this plan, and eventually all children will be born under this plan. (though it may take a couple of generations to get the % of people who can reproduce up to 99.9999%, but I'm sure with technological assistence it may only take one)

If therefore what the fathers do today impacts the children of tomorrow, we must ask the fathers to make the best choice, and logic seems the best guideline here as selfishness is illogical and nihlistic to a degree.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Fear is a powerful motivator, as well as your desire for mankind to exist forever. But these do not lead to choices of ethics. They are only choices of desires and emotions. This is a damn interesting conversation SDM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fear is a powerful motivator, it has saved many a persons life, but has also driven many a person to insanity, murder, and suicide. Emotions not 'checked' by logic and rationale are dangerous.


The ethics of Eugenics I suppose are inseperably linked to their logic because of the 'Utilitarian' foundation, our emotions though are often related to the self and the individual. We now many emotions we experience are illogical, but they are just so powerful they take hold of us so often, it's only logic and rationale that stops those emotions - who if given free reign - would kill us or drive us to insanity. (prime example, your emotions would be tempted to not use a condom at certain times, it is only your logic and rationale that overcomes that emotion and says "no" - and that is what will prevent you from HIV, not your emotions IMHO)

I'm glad you are enjoying this conversation, as I am, pity the other 80% of SMP would rather chase their tails in the atheism vs theism "washing machine". (round and round) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Don't get me wrong, I believe the issue of God is an important one for sure, but if the atheists wish to further humanity by using logic and reason, issues that pertain to society are more worth their time than trying to convince theists of their folly. (or at least worth 'equal' time if not more IMHO)

Cheers,
SDM

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]


That's illogical. We now know race doesn't equal inferiority.



[/ QUOTE ]

My point clearly went over your head.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />


That's illogical. We now know race doesn't equal inferiority.



[/ QUOTE ]

My point clearly went over your head.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it didn't.

I am only asking if it's logical to do this, and if so then how can you compare it to hate propaganda? (which is probably based on lies - protocols elders of zion, blood libel etc)

I understand you are concerned with the deprivation of liberty to some people of their rights, but can you honestly say the current system is more logical than one Eugenics could provide?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all systems are flawed in making distinctions between greater good and individual rights then doesn't that make Eugenics seem all the more logical as eventually more higher IQ's should lead to better created systems to govern "better" humans?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is we can sacrifice the right of the individual now, for the rights of the individual later? The goal is to get more correct rights not to sacrifice them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Since you left this one alone, I think we are running on 2 different definitions of rights. This inherent difference affects our conversation on many levels.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are human; the bold are your values. If you also decide you value other human life generally above your own. Your values (freedom and individuality) have somehow been subjugated below the values of others. The continued existence of mankind is not a value, it is a desire. Desires do not ethics make. The problem with hedonism

[/ QUOTE ]

But how do we know mankind is "this". Traditionally many things have been "x" and then changed to "y" and become acceptable and a better way.

The Mankind of today with its illogical individualism maybe the "x", The mankind of tomorrow with it's collective logic maybe the "y".

[/ QUOTE ]Rights are not an ‘x’ or a ‘y’. Correct rights are unalterable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is wrong with emotions provided you know what it is for. Fear for instance is for strength. Hmm..to outlive the usefulness of emotions.. Or to regulate current emotions meaningless. Interesting thoughts you have sometimes SDM. I guess I missed this the first time around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fear does have it good properties but it can also have a negative impact. I'm going to look into Stoicism more and eventually try to experiment with it in my real life, to see if one can live "like spock" or as close as possible and note any change to living, but that's beyond the scope of our discussion here. (look for my 'spock' thread, coming to a SMP near you) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]To remove the negative impact of emotions is a brilliant goal. One we all should undertake.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Preventing Person J from becoming a pedophile has lost all hope? Rehabilitating Person J gone too? The yes it's on to prevention of Person J being born. Perhaps that's not possible either. Then taking away the life or imprisoning Person J is ethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preventative measures only come from experiencing something first. (ie- Russian boards plane with fur hat, lands in spain, "wow it's hot", takes off fur hat. - next time Russian flys to spain, he will know not to wear heavy clothing etc)

Rehabilitation for pedophille's seems futile. Studies don't favor rehabilitating them, I remember a documentary once about one pedophile who had himself castrated and said that "you never stop the urge, its a sickness". Obviously this "man" took preventative (and harsh) measures so the 'beast' side was quelled, but in his sick mind he must still fantasize about pedophilia, and after all, pedophilia is a mental sickness.

For the record I believe the death penalty is illogical. (leaving aside ethics for the moment)

As for pedophiles I believe because what the studies have shown the only logical life for them is one removed from children, and jail seems the only place that is possible unfortunately. (unfortunate in the "current" prison system is the de-evolution of civilization, I prefer the logical 'prison farms' I proposed.

[/ QUOTE ]We have a right to protect ourselves. In your prison farm the profit from the criminal should go to the victim.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nature sends a flood to destroy the entire crop in the field, is nature unethical?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure nature is capable of ethics? (though I may be wrong)

I believe nature is what it is, it is us who say it is unfair or fair.

Nature seems to do what it does, whether what it does is always logical or not I am not sure.

But if we came from nature (ie evolution) and a flood destroyed us, that would be logical that the creator could end it's creation at will IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn’t exactly what I was trying to get at. The right of man to live of the land? who are the parties in this right? Nature is incapable of being ethical or unethical. Rights and ethics are two sides of the same coin.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are saying that the earth has cognition? Yes, mankind was mainly gatherers. The plant and man had a symbiotic relationship. I will provide you food, you will spread my seed. Farmer X in your example spread the seed, it is his food. You can trade with Farmer X for your food. Arrangements change, but there is nothing unethical about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have proven my point, "arrangements change". Obviously there came a point where a certain amount of humans didn't want to spread the seeds nature provided for them, and they probably thought they could better spend their time making other things to advance humanity and thus benefit everyone, so Farmer X said "I'll do it, but I need Z" (z being the new invention the ones who didn't want to spread the seed began using thier traditional "seed sowing" time to invent/make) thus that became the contract.

This is an example of how society changed from 'hunter/gatherer' to 'contractual/commercial'.

Thus if roles in society can change, presumably for the logical benefit of all humanity, then that proves my point.

What unfortunately has been ignored is this point:

The children of Farmer X have their natural link with the land through being on the natural side of the contract, wheras the children of "Z" (for lack of better term) no longer do, they forfeited that right for Z and only have X by trade.

Due to the nature of capitalism now, the children of Z can't go back and reclaim the land that their forefathers have contracted away. (not a good example but a good talking point: Israel vs Palestine)

And society is always changing, new seeds that are Genetically Modified (GM) can be made to not reproduce.

A normal seed grows into a plant, plant opens up, drops seed to continue cycle of life, new seeds grow plant - repeat.

With GM seeds they can be made to grow into a plant, the plant opens up, but the seeds it now drops are sterile, forcing Farmer X to continually be at the mercy of the person he bought the seeds off if he wishes to have that plant grow.

It's all a messy issue and I don't want to 'slide' around into other issues like GM etc, but the point I'm trying to make is this:

You and I doug, are the children of z, our forefathers determined our fate by their actions, be it logical or illogical, and the whole world's &amp; your children's fate will be what their fathers today make of it. They will be born into the only reality they know and whatever that is will be normal for them.

Right now, the discussion of a 'transition to Eugenics' seems unatural for us, because all changes are unsettling because of the "grand scale" it will be on to begin it, but one generation later, it will seem normal to the children born under this plan, and eventually all children will be born under this plan. (though it may take a couple of generations to get the % of people who can reproduce up to 99.9999%, but I'm sure with technological assistence it may only take one)

If therefore what the fathers do today impacts the children of tomorrow, we must ask the fathers to make the best choice, and logic seems the best guideline here as selfishness is illogical and nihlistic to a degree.

[/ QUOTE ]Our fate is not determined. Only our obstacles. The stage is set, but we can deny our fathers plans if we so choose. Right now, the discussion of a ‘transition to Eugenics’ seems unethical to me, because it denies human rights.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fear is a powerful motivator, as well as your desire for mankind to exist forever. But these do not lead to choices of ethics. They are only choices of desires and emotions. This is a damn interesting conversation SDM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fear is a powerful motivator, it has saved many a persons life, but has also driven many a person to insanity, murder, and suicide. Emotions not 'checked' by logic and rationale are dangerous.


The ethics of Eugenics I suppose are inseperably linked to their logic because of the 'Utilitarian' foundation, our emotions though are often related to the self and the individual. We now many emotions we experience are illogical, but they are just so powerful they take hold of us so often, it's only logic and rationale that stops those emotions - who if given free reign - would kill us or drive us to insanity. (prime example, your emotions would be tempted to not use a condom at certain times, it is only your logic and rationale that overcomes that emotion and says "no" - and that is what will prevent you from HIV, not your emotions IMHO)

I'm glad you are enjoying this conversation, as I am, pity the other 80% of SMP would rather chase their tails in the atheism vs theism "washing machine". (round and round) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Don't get me wrong, I believe the issue of God is an important one for sure, but if the atheists wish to further humanity by using logic and reason, issues that pertain to society are more worth their time than trying to convince theists of their folly. (or at least worth 'equal' time if not more IMHO)

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]It is this ‘Utilitarian’ foundation that I have a problem with, not eugenics. It gives rights to society and not to persons. Emotions aren’t bad or good, they can be used. It is this use of emotions that is either ethical or unethical.

Eugenics in your own choices or voluntary participation of people in eugenics is acceptable to me. I, you, and the future world would benefit a great deal from eugenics goals, but the rights of others are not ours to take. The choices of people are not ours to make. The goals of people are not ours to decide.