Murder is irrelevant. [modified]
-
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[^]
-
Could you say something that I could argue with? That would make things more interesting.
Why don't you go on a murder spree?
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
-
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.
If you believe in a grand scale then that is kind of like god and he/she says life is precious so don't kill each other. If you don't believe in a grand scale/god then shit's just flying around and you are all that matters so your life is important to you and therefore other folks lives are important to them. Not much in life matters if you are dead right? So your life is extremely important to you. Correct? So if you agree that people (and I guess animals and anything else that is alive and aware that it is alive) are the same and every person must value their own life as much as you value your own life, then how can you think that other people's lives are not as valuable as your own life? Everything being equal my neighbor's life matters as much as mine. No? I think I'm starting to get a headache too! :omg:
-
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]
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Just because my life might matter to me, does not mean it matters in the grand scale of things.
If you believe in a grand scale then that is kind of like god and he/she says life is precious so don't kill each other. If you don't believe in a grand scale/god then shit's just flying around and you are all that matters so your life is important to you and therefore other folks lives are important to them. Not much in life matters if you are dead right? So your life is extremely important to you. Correct? So if you agree that people (and I guess animals and anything else that is alive and aware that it is alive) are the same and every person must value their own life as much as you value your own life, then how can you think that other people's lives are not as valuable as your own life? Everything being equal my neighbor's life matters as much as mine. No? I think I'm starting to get a headache too! :omg:
-
Why don't you go on a murder spree?
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[^]
-
Why would I? That's hardly to my advantage - they'd just capture me and no matter how many people I killed, the difference I would have made would be insignificant
harold aptroot wrote:
Why would I?
It might answer your questions.
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[^]
-
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:
(I have asked this often, just not on CP. I never got satisfying answers.)
That's because the concept of value is a human invention to qualify the relative utility of things but there is no absolute of "value" that can be assigned to anything. Things can be more valuable than other things depending on the frame of reference. Change the frame of reference and you change the relative valuation of those things. Remove the frame of reference and you've rendered the question of value meaningless. Eg. A glass of water is more valuable than a diamond to someone dying of thirst, less valuable to someone with indoor plumbing, and not valuable at all to a pizza. Accordingly, human life is only valuable when other people agree it's valuable. A better question would be if you're really concerned that human life and by extension the human experience has no intrinsic value, of what possible value is exploring the question in the first place? Might as well just get high and wait until you don't exist anymore.
- F
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Why would I?
It might answer your questions.
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[^]
-
That is nice, but that doesn't matter either - so what that I'd get some answers? The universe goes on the same way it has been going
-
harold aptroot wrote:
(I have asked this often, just not on CP. I never got satisfying answers.)
That's because the concept of value is a human invention to qualify the relative utility of things but there is no absolute of "value" that can be assigned to anything. Things can be more valuable than other things depending on the frame of reference. Change the frame of reference and you change the relative valuation of those things. Remove the frame of reference and you've rendered the question of value meaningless. Eg. A glass of water is more valuable than a diamond to someone dying of thirst, less valuable to someone with indoor plumbing, and not valuable at all to a pizza. Accordingly, human life is only valuable when other people agree it's valuable. A better question would be if you're really concerned that human life and by extension the human experience has no intrinsic value, of what possible value is exploring the question in the first place? Might as well just get high and wait until you don't exist anymore.
- F
-
-
uhm.. I'm not sure I'm following you The idea was that things only matter to someone and not in general - therefore nothing really matters.
harold aptroot wrote:
uhm.. I'm not sure I'm following you
Me neither! :) Nothing Else Matters - pretty good Metallica song!:thumbsup:
harold aptroot wrote:
The idea was that things only matter to someone and not in general
Yep pretty much. Except somehow the human race has decided to take the internalized "things that matter" and apply them to society. So I live in a group and my life matters to me and i don't want you to take my life so I have to agree to not take your life. I guess everything always returns to a self-preservation motive. And murderers think that they can get away with taking others lives without losing their own. I guess that is why we have death penalties. You take something that someone else values and we (as a society) will take that one thing that you most value.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
(I have asked this often, just not on CP. I never got satisfying answers.)
That's because the concept of value is a human invention to qualify the relative utility of things but there is no absolute of "value" that can be assigned to anything. Things can be more valuable than other things depending on the frame of reference. Change the frame of reference and you change the relative valuation of those things. Remove the frame of reference and you've rendered the question of value meaningless. Eg. A glass of water is more valuable than a diamond to someone dying of thirst, less valuable to someone with indoor plumbing, and not valuable at all to a pizza. Accordingly, human life is only valuable when other people agree it's valuable. A better question would be if you're really concerned that human life and by extension the human experience has no intrinsic value, of what possible value is exploring the question in the first place? Might as well just get high and wait until you don't exist anymore.
- F
-
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.
:laugh: :laugh: Oh man I wish I could 5 that!!
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Why would I? That's hardly to my advantage - they'd just capture me and no matter how many people I killed, the difference I would have made would be insignificant
But why should a bag of chemicals care if it's captured?
Steve
-
But why should a bag of chemicals care if it's captured?
Steve
It shouldn't. But that's irrelevant, just like everything else. I'm not saying that not being captured is preferable, just that it's useless to get yourself captured on purpose. It's equally useless to put effort into evading capture. And none of that matters at all. So why did you even ask that question?