Murder is irrelevant. [modified]
-
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?
-
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?
Ok :) So that's empathy, accomplishment, and change. Right? IMO our (the species) accomplishments are insignificantly small. Knowing that physics are not Newtonian may be our greatest accomplishment.. But really, if you look at the whole universe, what does it matter what we know or do here? Accomplishments are only worth something as long as there is someone who believes that they are. So, IMO, even accomplishments are not something that inherently has "value" - they only has value because we gave them value. And the "creating value" part, well, it has the problem of "needing a starting point", as if it were a induction proof. Eventually you reach something where you just have to assume that it has value, and only then will there be other things with value.
-
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.
harold aptroot wrote:
As far as the consciousness goes, the genes are the elephant
The genes can get along without the consciousness, but not vice versa.
harold aptroot wrote:
Just because your genes want to survive, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be tricked and betrayed by them.
Oh yeah? Never known anyone who ended up coyote without drinking? The little head thinking for the big head is your genes tricking you. Ending up coyote is them betraying you.
harold aptroot wrote:
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.
I never said anything about a random person, I was talking about genes saving related genes. How ever, one altruism, in the form of self sacrifice, is in the gene, the mind can have something to do with when it is expressed.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
As far as the consciousness goes, the genes are the elephant
The genes can get along without the consciousness, but not vice versa.
harold aptroot wrote:
Just because your genes want to survive, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be tricked and betrayed by them.
Oh yeah? Never known anyone who ended up coyote without drinking? The little head thinking for the big head is your genes tricking you. Ending up coyote is them betraying you.
harold aptroot wrote:
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.
I never said anything about a random person, I was talking about genes saving related genes. How ever, one altruism, in the form of self sacrifice, is in the gene, the mind can have something to do with when it is expressed.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I never said anything about a random person, I was talking about genes saving related genes. How ever, one altruism, in the form of self sacrifice, is in the gene, the mind can have something to do with when it is expressed.
No.. but I did, which is how we got into this conversation in the first place
RichardM1 wrote:
Oh yeah? Never known anyone who ended up coyote without drinking? The little head thinking for the big head is your genes tricking you. Ending up coyote is them betraying you.
Yea well, I said "not necessarily" :)
-
Ok :) So that's empathy, accomplishment, and change. Right? IMO our (the species) accomplishments are insignificantly small. Knowing that physics are not Newtonian may be our greatest accomplishment.. But really, if you look at the whole universe, what does it matter what we know or do here? Accomplishments are only worth something as long as there is someone who believes that they are. So, IMO, even accomplishments are not something that inherently has "value" - they only has value because we gave them value. And the "creating value" part, well, it has the problem of "needing a starting point", as if it were a induction proof. Eventually you reach something where you just have to assume that it has value, and only then will there be other things with value.
harold aptroot wrote:
But really, if you look at the whole universe, what does it matter what we know or do here?
At best we have an off chance of making some other later intelligent species go 'Oh cool' like our archaeologists do when they find dig sites. Once you reach a certain scale there's only so much you can hope for.
harold aptroot wrote:
And the "creating value" part, well, it has the problem of "needing a starting point", as if it were a induction proof. Eventually you reach something where you just have to assume that it has value, and only then will there be other things with value.
It's kinda funny, because I was going to toss something in about apparently creating something from nothing, but I really don't have an answer for that. We do use what has been created by natural forces, we assign value to many things that we had absolutely nothing to do with, but I really don't quite know how we could assume or assign value on a universal scale. So I typically stick with the bits that are going to matter during my life time, which mostly consists of other people. If it means something to them, I consider it to have some value.
-
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!
The more probable solution is that we'll respond short term with agricultural solutions that denude the soil and make long term survive en masse a lot less likely.
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:
But really, if you look at the whole universe, what does it matter what we know or do here?
At best we have an off chance of making some other later intelligent species go 'Oh cool' like our archaeologists do when they find dig sites. Once you reach a certain scale there's only so much you can hope for.
harold aptroot wrote:
And the "creating value" part, well, it has the problem of "needing a starting point", as if it were a induction proof. Eventually you reach something where you just have to assume that it has value, and only then will there be other things with value.
It's kinda funny, because I was going to toss something in about apparently creating something from nothing, but I really don't have an answer for that. We do use what has been created by natural forces, we assign value to many things that we had absolutely nothing to do with, but I really don't quite know how we could assume or assign value on a universal scale. So I typically stick with the bits that are going to matter during my life time, which mostly consists of other people. If it means something to them, I consider it to have some value.
-
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.
Breading in the west is not causing the population problem. In general, I think 'western' countries do not keep up with the replacement rate, except through immigration, so you can get over white guilt on that. :) The best correlation seems to be inverse, fertility rate[^] goes down as income[^] goes up.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I never said anything about a random person, I was talking about genes saving related genes. How ever, one altruism, in the form of self sacrifice, is in the gene, the mind can have something to do with when it is expressed.
No.. but I did, which is how we got into this conversation in the first place
RichardM1 wrote:
Oh yeah? Never known anyone who ended up coyote without drinking? The little head thinking for the big head is your genes tricking you. Ending up coyote is them betraying you.
Yea well, I said "not necessarily" :)
harold aptroot wrote:
No.. but I did, which is how we got into this conversation in the first place
Right. That was why I pointed out that once altruism was in the gene pool, there is no telling how the mind can play with it's expression. We're wired that the 'average' of people we see is 'attractive' or more likely to reproduce successfully. Coyote is the gene 'going bad' (not what we are conditioned to think is healthy). The predisposition to altruism 'going bad' in helping random people (unrelated genes).
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
No.. but I did, which is how we got into this conversation in the first place
Right. That was why I pointed out that once altruism was in the gene pool, there is no telling how the mind can play with it's expression. We're wired that the 'average' of people we see is 'attractive' or more likely to reproduce successfully. Coyote is the gene 'going bad' (not what we are conditioned to think is healthy). The predisposition to altruism 'going bad' in helping random people (unrelated genes).
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
No.. but I did, which is how we got into this conversation in the first place
Right. That was why I pointed out that once altruism was in the gene pool, there is no telling how the mind can play with it's expression. We're wired that the 'average' of people we see is 'attractive' or more likely to reproduce successfully. Coyote is the gene 'going bad' (not what we are conditioned to think is healthy). The predisposition to altruism 'going bad' in helping random people (unrelated genes).
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
The predisposition to altruism 'going bad' in helping random people (unrelated genes).
except that isn't altruism going coyote. Any individual being assisted has the opportunity to assist you in an unrelated manner due to their own altruism kicking in. Ever see that stupidly sappy insurance commercial where a guy sees someone about to step into traffic while on the phone and just grabs them, saving their life, which then follows the guy on the phone seeing someone drop something and give it back to them, which follows... and eventually it loops to the kid being helped who then sees a guy about to walk into the street. It resonates with people because it feels right. You feel good seeing altruism in action. We are wired to feel that way even with strangers because if we help others in some small way and it means something to them, we left a mark and they may do the same for someone else. Paying it forward may feel like it is an abnormality to some, but early society depended on it. Help those around you and they will help the society you are in. We do thrive with altruism as long as the altruistic people do more helping than the selfish people do taking.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if we hear about you in the news someday. A serial killer, rapist, torturer, child molester, you fit the profile.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if we hear about you in the news someday. A serial killer, rapist, torturer, child molester, you fit the profile.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
The predisposition to altruism 'going bad' in helping random people (unrelated genes).
except that isn't altruism going coyote. Any individual being assisted has the opportunity to assist you in an unrelated manner due to their own altruism kicking in. Ever see that stupidly sappy insurance commercial where a guy sees someone about to step into traffic while on the phone and just grabs them, saving their life, which then follows the guy on the phone seeing someone drop something and give it back to them, which follows... and eventually it loops to the kid being helped who then sees a guy about to walk into the street. It resonates with people because it feels right. You feel good seeing altruism in action. We are wired to feel that way even with strangers because if we help others in some small way and it means something to them, we left a mark and they may do the same for someone else. Paying it forward may feel like it is an abnormality to some, but early society depended on it. Help those around you and they will help the society you are in. We do thrive with altruism as long as the altruistic people do more helping than the selfish people do taking.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Any individual being assisted has the opportunity to assist you in an unrelated manner due to their own altruism kicking in.
And going coyote gives your genes the opportunity to get passed along, due to pregnancy kicking in. :-D So both give your genes the chance to get passed along in a 'non-standard' manner. I'm all for altruism, both in my personal actions, based on my beliefs, and based on my understanding of evolution. Harold was the one who needed a nudge in that direction. I was just being altruistic doing my part! ;P
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if we hear about you in the news someday. A serial killer, rapist, torturer, child molester, you fit the profile.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
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!
thrakazog wrote:
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.
Well I'm not sure about the eating people part. :-D maybe more like this: Too many people-> Not enough food-> people die-> Less people-> Food supplies rebound-> Less people die-> Wait for repetition. I read about experiments with rats where rats were kept in a specific size cage or habitat and fed a specific amount of food and they would breed to fill the space to it's capacity and then they would maintain that population. Give them a bigger space and more food and whammo more rats. Give them a smaller space and less food and whammo less rats. Everything was kept in equilibrium. I kind of feel like man has messed that equilibrium bit up. Nature has a way of maintaining that equilibrium. Floods, droughts, famines and disease. But man has developed so many things to combat nature that we upset the equilibrium. The planet is not full yet but when it is full up the population will stop increasing. Simple! :) When enough people X| then the population will increase again until it is full up again. Ad infinitum! Unless we move to the moon or something and then there is lots more room. :-D
