Bill Bennett, Freakonomics, & Aborting Black Babies. - Page 3

sexdrugsmoney · #21 10-05-2005, 07:31 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

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

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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!)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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 · #22 10-05-2005, 02:24 PM

<quote>Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.</quote>

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 · #23 10-05-2005, 02:39 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<quote>Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.</quote>

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 · #24 10-05-2005, 03:22 PM

[ 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 · #25 10-05-2005, 03:58 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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, & theft etc seem to be pretty close across the board.

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

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

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

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

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

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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 · #26 10-05-2005, 05:15 PM

[ 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, & 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 · #27 10-06-2005, 06:53 AM

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 · #28 10-06-2005, 07:15 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<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 · #29 10-06-2005, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<quote>Stop assuming the only society worth discussing is the US.</quote>

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 · #30 10-06-2005, 04:01 PM

[ 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.