Two Plus Two Older Archives - View Single Post - Bill Bennett, Freakonomics, & Aborting Black Babies.

sexdrugsmoney · #32 10-06-2005, 10:28 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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 ]

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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".

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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 & 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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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