(November 13, 2012 at 6:24 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Discrimination????????????? are you serious?
I`m guilty of commiting almoust daily genocide on certain spicies of animals. By eating them. And then you thing there`s something like "discriminating a species?"

The central point of my last view posts was "We have a understanding of our surroundings and ourselves which is way suppirior towards other species"

And I dont think I have to explain more until you can actualy show me a potato or cockroach civilisation with spacestation, religions, housing, inferstructure and all other essential parts which when put together - form civilisation.

(November 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(November 13, 2012 at 11:48 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Depends on what society needs. We can keep them alive, resorting to sterilization only when the genetic pool becomes too unwieldy for the healthcare system to treat them. Until then, they are free to live and go about living normal lives.

Euthanasia will only be the final stage on that path, if things really become too much to bear. Say, if food shortages occur, and people are starving to death- instead of letting people live and die based on chance factors like poverty, geographic location, etc, we let people live and die based on how best to preserve genetic quality.

Listen, I know this sounds controversial, but it's only because of society. A few decades ago genetic population management had a serious place in political discussion in the United States, before the boom of social conservatism in the 50s.

It's going to come up again very soon, when the rising population and dwindling resources start becoming noticeable problems.

Wow. You're still sticking with you're REALLY slippery slope, aren't ya' Vinny?

The reason these ideas were basically abandoned in the 50's is because they were the same ideas Hitler used in the 30's and 40's to justify is extremination of 'inferior races.' And, yep, he started out like you in that he didn't want to outright execute them for belonging to a different race, but he put restrictions on them, restrictions specifically on reproduction for example, but as his war carried on he didn't want to have to waste any more resources on them so when he found a cost effective way to do it, he started executing people.

I don't know about you, Vincent, but if I find myself following the same path as the biggest madman in human history, I rethink my positions.

Unlike Hitler, I don't support racism. I don't support coercion or military involvement. Force is just ugly, and you gather more flies with honey than vinegar.

The way to do it is through cultural changes and the media. Post-Christianity, where people don't need "all men are created equal" bullshit. We need a more relativistic outlook on human worth. It's about time people get used to the idea of our evolutionary origins. Not some freakishly valuable "human souls" which is just an excuse to bring religious values into the picture.

What's wrong with just seeing ourselves as carbon-based life-forms? It's what we are.

(November 13, 2012 at 4:38 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:

(November 12, 2012 at 6:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Social darwinism ultimately creates a better, stronger human race.

At the expense of all the "weaker" people's well-being huh?

Valid question.

I think well-being is relative.

In fact, I think people 500 years ago were happier than we are now, because they didn't have artificial pressures on them like "I won't impress da ladies if I don't own fresh kicks", "I need to drive a Beemer to show im successful", "I'm worthless without my fashion sense", "I totally need to sleep with person x in order to gain social status in my social group", "If I won't make the team, my dad will reject me".

Well-being is an artificial standard. We can manipulate it to gain the optimal outcomes we desire.

The military is the perfect example. Can you imagine these guys, waking up at the crack of dawn, if they sleep at all, getting their asses kicked in boot camp, verbally berated. Going into battle, seeing their friends die, lose their limbs and come back, all to gain a small piece of metal called a purple heart?

Well-being LOLWUT

---

(November 13, 2012 at 6:24 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote:

(November 13, 2012 at 11:48 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: It doesn't make the ape human, I agree. But I'm saying "being human" is not special as opposed to "being a potato" or "being an orangutan".

They are all different categories of living things occupying different regions on the tree of life.


If your claim is that "being human" makes you special, than this is little more than discrimination based on species, no? You treat one species better than another, and the better species is yours.

Do you not know how this is discrimination?

Discrimination????????????? are you serious?
I`m guilty of commiting almoust daily genocide on certain spicies of animals. By eating them. And then you thing there`s something like "discriminating a species?"

The central point of my last view posts was "We have a understanding of our surroundings and ourselves which is way suppirior towards other species"

And I dont think I have to explain more until you can actualy show me a potato or cockroach civilisation with spacestation, religions, housing, inferstructure and all other essential parts which when put together - form civilisation.

I'm sorry, I think you are going round in circles.

No matter what you claim makes human beings special, the burden of proof is on you to show how your "factor x" makes a species special and morally valuable, or more so than any other living entity.

Ie, what is the link between "a civilization with space stations" and moral value? Before we could build space stations, were we less valuable?

I want you to be careful here, because you seem very emotional. Let go of the emotions and think rationally. I'm not interested in anybody's feelings on this matter.

(November 14, 2012 at 2:34 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: In fact, I think people 500 years ago were happier than we are now, because they didn't have artificial pressures on them like "I won't impress da ladies if I don't own fresh kicks",

Oh? For some reason I think that the variety and craftsmanship put into shoes (and a wide array of other garments) in the 1500's would disagree with you. Fashion (and an obsession with pretty clothes) isn't exactly a recent thing.

Quote: "I need to drive a Beemer to show im successful",

Ever take a look at carriages..saddles....the braided manes and tales and meticulous grooming of our equine friends?

Quote:"I'm worthless without my fashion sense",

15th and 16th century court would like to have a word.

Quote:"I totally need to sleep with person x in order to gain social status in my social group",

Oh, you mean like sleeping with a baron, or a duke..etc etc etc....?

Quote:"If I won't make the team, my dad will reject me".

What team? Nobility, titles of honor, the priesthood, mercantile guilds?

Behavioral modernity stretches back a great deal further than 500 years...and while we may not be able to imagine every passing thought of our ancestors of 500 or so years ago they aren't exactly completely unrecognizable. Beauty, status, sexuality, pride a sense of acceptance by ones family did not spring forth recently. It's similarly tenuous to imagine that people were by-and-large more unhappy 500 years ago. We might be happier or less happy if we transported ourselves to that time...but isn't likely that these people would have found happiness and unhappiness in their situations, possessions, status, and surroundings in a way that is much different from the way we do today. I know that we like to imagine the "miserable peasant" and "carefree savage"....but why we do this..meh, who knows.

(November 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 14, 2012 at 2:34 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: In fact, I think people 500 years ago were happier than we are now, because they didn't have artificial pressures on them like "I won't impress da ladies if I don't own fresh kicks",

Oh? For some reason I think that the variety and craftsmanship put into shoes (and a wide array of other garments) in the 1500's would disagree with you. Fashion (and an obsession with pretty clothes) isn't exactly a recent thing.

Quote: "I need to drive a Beemer to show im successful",

Ever take a look at carriages..saddles....the braided manes and tales and meticulous grooming of our equine friends?

Quote:"I'm worthless without my fashion sense",

15th and 16th century court would like to have a word.

Quote:"I totally need to sleep with person x in order to gain social status in my social group",

Oh, you mean like sleeping with a baron, or a duke..etc etc etc....?

Quote:"If I won't make the team, my dad will reject me".

What team? Nobility, titles of honor, the priesthood, mercantile guilds?

So what are you saying? Well-being is not relativistic?

That there is one objective standard line for everybody, and if they don't meet that line they are destined to be unhappy, while if they do meet that line they can't be anything but happy?

It seems like you don't really think your position through.

(November 14, 2012 at 2:34 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm sorry, I think you are going round in circles.

No matter what you claim makes human beings special, the burden of proof is on you to show how your "factor x" makes a species special and morally valuable, or more so than any other living entity.

Ie, what is the link between "a civilization with space stations" and moral value? Before we could build space stations, were we less valuable?

I want you to be careful here, because you seem very emotional. Let go of the emotions and think rationally. I'm not interested in anybody's feelings on this matter.

nope i`m not running in circles.
I have given you a clear argument of why humans are a supirior species - civilisation.

And the fact that civilisation took time to be built and is still evolving doesnt make it less of an argument

You are the one who thinks there is "no difference" between humans and potatos. So you are the one who has to give an explaination

No Vinny, lol, I'm saying that I don't think your appraisal of the relative level happiness of people from 500 years ago (especially for the reasons you offered) was anywhere close to accurate or well researched. Those "artificial pressures" you seem to think didn't exist are clearly and obviously present.

(November 14, 2012 at 2:52 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote:

(November 14, 2012 at 2:34 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm sorry, I think you are going round in circles.

No matter what you claim makes human beings special, the burden of proof is on you to show how your "factor x" makes a species special and morally valuable, or more so than any other living entity.

Ie, what is the link between "a civilization with space stations" and moral value? Before we could build space stations, were we less valuable?

I want you to be careful here, because you seem very emotional. Let go of the emotions and think rationally. I'm not interested in anybody's feelings on this matter.

nope i`m not running in circles.
I have given you a clear argument of why humans are a supirior species - civilisation.

And the fact that civilisation took time to be built and is still evolving doesnt make it less of an argument

You are the one who thinks there is "no difference" between humans and potatos. So you are the one who has to give an explaination

The explanation is simple. I see no connection between civilization and greater life value.

Civilization does not provide anything special for the value of one's life.

This is simply an objective fact.

[-the man responded from the magical device capable of bringing all of the information he clearly does not wish to possess to his fingertips in an instant]

Provides quite a bit for the value of mine Vinny, I'm sorry you haven't reaped those benefits ...I guess.

(November 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No Vinny, lol, I'm saying that I don't think your appraisal of the relative level happiness of people from 500 years ago (especially for the reasons you offered) was anywhere close to accurate or well researched. Those "artificial pressures" you seem to think didn't exist are clearly and obviously present.

Way to miss the forest for the trees, Rhythm.

The point was that no matter how much civilization improves, well-being is relatively stagnant, providing the changes in civilization are gradual and not sudden (like the stock market crash in the 20s).

The net value of artificial pressures remain the same. Sometimes, they get worse than a civilization gets better.

Therefore, well-being is relativistic, and therefore the well-being of "weak people" is not an objective measure when it comes to eugenics.

Stripped of all pretenses, the argument of human superiority boils down to this:

As humans, we feel, and probably are, more secure if we place ourselves above other species. It would be a risky world for humans if we have to let pigs eat before we do, or are willing to submit to being hunted for sport like gazelles.

We are so constituted as to be willing be overlook a great amount of flaws in and accept any argument that is perceived to contribute to making ourselves more secure.