Murder is irrelevant. [modified]
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Just because it matters to them, doesn't mean it matters.
Since whether something matters or not is subjective, it mattering to them means it matters.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also, I don't get why people get so upset about murder especially.
It's not really something that can be explained.
harold aptroot wrote:
And then there's the overpopulation - murderers are doing us all a (very small) favour by helping a bit.
Overpopulation isn't really a problem.
harold aptroot wrote:
The cause of death is not relevant in any way, except to the current legal system, and to silly people.
Relevant to what? If it's relevant to people, then how is it irrelevant?
harold aptroot wrote:
Is it just because children are indoctrinated to 'care' about deaths? Does human life somehow have "value"? (why should any collection of chemical processes have "value"?)
No, it's because evolution couldn't possibly have progressed this far if organisms and populations had no motivation for survival.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Overpopulation isn't really a problem.
Because......
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I've seen a lot of people "complain" about 'events' that caused people to die. So what? People died .. ok? It doesn't matter, not even a bit. There are some groups of people who mistakenly think that it does. - People that got hurt financially by those deaths. - Relatives etc. Just because it matters to them, doesn't mean it matters. Also, I don't get why people get so upset about murder especially. Murder is illegal because almost no one wants to die. Not because it is inherently a bad thing when someone is killed. Realize that about 250k people die each day. One (or anything up 250 or so) more or less doesn't make a significant difference. And then there's the overpopulation - murderers are doing us all a (very small) favour by helping a bit. The cause of death is not relevant in any way, except to the current legal system, and to silly people. Is it just because children are indoctrinated to 'care' about deaths? Does human life somehow have "value"? (why should any collection of chemical processes have "value"?) (I have asked this often, just not on CP. I never got satisfying answers.) Discuss. edit: spelling fixed.
modified on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 9:12 AM
I take it you've never been murdered? :-) Human life has value to other humans that care about those lives, either in a specific way (close family/friends) or a general way (isn't it awful that all those people died in wherever?). So, whilst it is pretty meaningless in the general scale of things if n people get murdered it is meaningful in a much more immediate way. You are, of course, correct, that, in reality, one life, more or less, has no particular meaning to society as a whole; what matters is no one wants it to happen to them so, as a society, we make it unacceptable to take somebody else's life. That way there is less chance that we will be killed by someone else. However, you can't legislate against sociopaths. I guess what most people would be scared of is the manner of death not the fact of death.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven nils illegitimus carborundum
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Just because it matters to them, doesn't mean it matters.
Since whether something matters or not is subjective, it mattering to them means it matters.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also, I don't get why people get so upset about murder especially.
It's not really something that can be explained.
harold aptroot wrote:
And then there's the overpopulation - murderers are doing us all a (very small) favour by helping a bit.
Overpopulation isn't really a problem.
harold aptroot wrote:
The cause of death is not relevant in any way, except to the current legal system, and to silly people.
Relevant to what? If it's relevant to people, then how is it irrelevant?
harold aptroot wrote:
Is it just because children are indoctrinated to 'care' about deaths? Does human life somehow have "value"? (why should any collection of chemical processes have "value"?)
No, it's because evolution couldn't possibly have progressed this far if organisms and populations had no motivation for survival.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Overpopulation isn't really a problem.
True, that. So let me restate that - "overpopulation is a problem to many of the same people who think murder is a problem"
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, it's because evolution couldn't possibly have progressed this far if organisms and populations had no motivation for survival.
Yes, ok.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Overpopulation isn't really a problem.
Because......
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Overpopulation isn't really a problem.
True, that. So let me restate that - "overpopulation is a problem to many of the same people who think murder is a problem"
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, it's because evolution couldn't possibly have progressed this far if organisms and populations had no motivation for survival.
Yes, ok.
Question: if it's the dead of night, completely black, and there's a loud bang right behind you, do you shout and spin around, catecholamines flooding your body, ready to fight for your life?
-
This guy is an idiot. Overpopulation might or might not be a problem for us today, at our current levels. Given the strain on the food system ( which we in the West rarely see ) and our reliance on fragile monocultures, I'd say it is a problem, in terms of providing food. But, even if it's not, the capacity of the earth to feed humans cannot be infinite, so it is a potential problem at some point.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Question: if it's the dead of night, completely black, and there's a loud bang right behind you, do you shout and spin around, catecholamines flooding your body, ready to fight for your life?
-
Question: if it's the dead of night, completely black, and there's a loud bang right behind you, do you shout and spin around, catecholamines flooding your body, ready to fight for your life?
I just tell the wife she farted and that she needs charcoal tablets so I can get a night's sleep.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I just tell the wife she farted and that she needs charcoal tablets so I can get a night's sleep.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Wow. Too much information.
-
Survival instincts. As in, your life is somehow important to you...
-
I take it you've never been murdered? :-) Human life has value to other humans that care about those lives, either in a specific way (close family/friends) or a general way (isn't it awful that all those people died in wherever?). So, whilst it is pretty meaningless in the general scale of things if n people get murdered it is meaningful in a much more immediate way. You are, of course, correct, that, in reality, one life, more or less, has no particular meaning to society as a whole; what matters is no one wants it to happen to them so, as a society, we make it unacceptable to take somebody else's life. That way there is less chance that we will be killed by someone else. However, you can't legislate against sociopaths. I guess what most people would be scared of is the manner of death not the fact of death.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven nils illegitimus carborundum
digital man wrote:
I take it you've never been murdered?
Well, there was this one time, in Romania[^]... :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
This guy is an idiot. Overpopulation might or might not be a problem for us today, at our current levels. Given the strain on the food system ( which we in the West rarely see ) and our reliance on fragile monocultures, I'd say it is a problem, in terms of providing food. But, even if it's not, the capacity of the earth to feed humans cannot be infinite, so it is a potential problem at some point.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I dunno. My heart's not in an argument at the moment.
-
I dunno. My heart's not in an argument at the moment.
Well, I'd hope you'd not argue the earth has infinite resources. CSS is the only other person I've ever heard claim that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, I'd hope you'd not argue the earth has infinite resources. CSS is the only other person I've ever heard claim that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Of course I wouldn't argue that. I hope I don't strike you as the sort of person that believes that the Earth is either infinitely large or infinitely fertile, or both.
-
Survival instincts. As in, your life is somehow important to you...
-
Not necessarily to me (well, to what I see as "me", my consciousness) but to a part of me that I can not control. It's not a problem anyway, though. Just because my life might matter to me, does not mean it matters in the grand scale of things.
harold aptroot wrote:
Just because my life might matter to me, does not mean it matters in the grand scale of things.
No, you're right.
-
Of course I wouldn't argue that. I hope I don't strike you as the sort of person that believes that the Earth is either infinitely large or infinitely fertile, or both.
Well, no, you don't. I'm just not sure how else you could argue with what I said, is all :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, no, you don't. I'm just not sure how else you could argue with what I said, is all :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
;P <-- what happened here? :confused: I agree, there is undoubtedly an upper limit to the human population size, the carrying capacity if you look at the logistic function. But there are subtleties to population dynamics that we could conceivably discuss, if I didn't have a headache. X|
-
Hey, if you're looking for a reason to live, you have to find that yourself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
;P <-- what happened here? :confused: I agree, there is undoubtedly an upper limit to the human population size, the carrying capacity if you look at the logistic function. But there are subtleties to population dynamics that we could conceivably discuss, if I didn't have a headache. X|
It is broadly true that a lack of resources should control population. Trouble is, a lack of resources is not visible to us in the West. We keep breeding and less food just goes to the third world. I'll stop, you have a headache :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.