Murder is irrelevant. [modified]
-
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.
-
So evolution is to blame - the people who cared most about surviving made the best effort to survive and therefore did? Your currency argument looks valid, but trading with your life is useless (how would you use the thing you bought? you'd be dead.), so is that really a proper parallel to draw?
harold aptroot wrote:
how would you use the thing you bought? you'd be dead.
Maybe what you bought was the lives of others that carry your genes. There have been simulations showing that altruistic genes survive. Of course, what comes out of simulations depends on assumptions. We are just egg casings for the next generation of DNA.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
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.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
how would you use the thing you bought? you'd be dead.
Maybe what you bought was the lives of others that carry your genes. There have been simulations showing that altruistic genes survive. Of course, what comes out of simulations depends on assumptions. We are just egg casings for the next generation of DNA.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
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.
Sooo... Read any good books lately? :-D
-
But they keep breeding as well! Even though it's visible to them.. Are they just counting on the West to help them out?
The breeding has a bunch of factors. 1: Conditions were such that the need to breed a lot was required. When mortality rates are that high, the only way to insure a viable heir is to have 4-5. The west messed this up a bit with free modern medicine decreasing the mortality rates. 2: Religion showed up. Birth control?!?! BLASPHEMY!!!!! This further increases birth rates as when the mortality rate drops there was a smaller drop in birth rates than there would be when modern medicine shows. 3: There is no 3.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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)Deserves a 5!
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
-
I can predict how this one will go... CSS will chime in, calling you a eugenicist. The religious right will talk about life being sacred. The constitutionalists will chime in with the "Life, Liberty, and Property"... Gotta love this forum. But anyway... Yeah, in the greater scheme of things, a few extra people dying really doesn't matter. But if it was YOUR family/friends, I think you would care. If it was YOU, I think... Well, then you probably wouldn't care, being dead and all that. I figure it's all a matter of statistics. If the murder rate is X%, and public outrage triggers more effective crime prevention or (*gasp*) human decency that reduces it to Y%, then my chances of survival have increased by (X-Y)% (Yes, I'm oversimplifying). It's statistical self-preservation.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
that reduces it to Y%, then my chances of survival have increased by (X-Y)%
Hmm... This logic looks rather like the logic of carrying a bomb onto a 'plane, because the chances of there being two bombs on the same 'plane are vanishingly small... :suss: :laugh:
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
that reduces it to Y%, then my chances of survival have increased by (X-Y)%
Hmm... This logic looks rather like the logic of carrying a bomb onto a 'plane, because the chances of there being two bombs on the same 'plane are vanishingly small... :suss: :laugh:
wow, that's a great idea. "Have you ever heard of there being 2 bombs on a plane?" "No" "Neither have I, so I figured if I brought mine, no one would blow me up!"
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
that reduces it to Y%, then my chances of survival have increased by (X-Y)%
Hmm... This logic looks rather like the logic of carrying a bomb onto a 'plane, because the chances of there being two bombs on the same 'plane are vanishingly small... :suss: :laugh:
Hey you might be onto something here. We should set up a test run or two ;P
-
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
My brain read that too fast and I heard in my head, "I take it you've never been married?". :laugh:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
But they keep breeding as well! Even though it's visible to them.. Are they just counting on the West to help them out?
Breeding is an example. When fatalities are high, you breed as much as you can, in the hope that at least one survives. Breeding goes DOWN with a stable future, you have a reason to have one or two and try all you can to help them succeed, instead of breeding wildly in the hope that one survives to breed at 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.
-
Sooo... Read any good books lately? :-D
I loved the Omnivores dilemma. Superfreakenomics did little for me. I am finishing a book called The March of Folly, that was a good one.
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.
-
Help what? Just because you think people are the do all end all? Genes are the thing, and consciousness is an elephant, as far as genes go.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Help what?
Exactly. As far as the consciousness goes, the genes are the elephant. The genes may have built the car, but the consciousness is behind the wheel. Just because your genes want to survive, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be tricked and betrayed by them. Especially not when it comes to forming an opinion about the death of some random person - not really a place where instinct would kick in and seize control.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
so it is a potential problem at some point.
I could see this as being a self correcting problem. Too many people-> Not enough food-> Start eating people-> Less people-> Food supplies rebound-> Stop eating people -> Wait for repetition. Soylent Green!
-
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
harold aptroot wrote:
Is it just because children are indoctrinated to 'care' about deaths?
From what I've seen it's generally a far more selfish 'I'm never going to see them again' reaction. With a few exceptions in people who are truly close to someone. We're social animals, it's only makes sense that the sudden removal of someone that we've come to know, rely on and care about is going to have adverse effects on us. If it didn't odds are we wouldn't be terribly social.
harold aptroot wrote:
Does human life somehow have "value"?
In any aspect where that life contributes to the lives of others, humans can achieve far more than most any other kind of animal by the simple fact that we generally get along(so long as we haven't tossed up some social divider of some kind). Working together, specializing in tasks and becoming more effective as a society, if not a species, lends humans to far greater accomplishment. If there's no value in our accomplishments then no, there's no value in life, but I don't see things that way.
harold aptroot wrote:
(why should any collection of chemical processes have "value"?)
Because it actually does something? The make up of the universe is change(in a remarkably small) way every time a chemical process occurs. Mind you, I'm generally a pessimist, but for some reason I've never understood the angle of life having no value, we spend significant portions of our lives creating value, what else would there be?