Discovery Channel hostage situation

[Humodour]

"Being completely ignorant to the problems of a planet you owe your life to doesn't take any balls either. "

 

*shrug* I'm sure the earth will get its revenge on me when its responsible for my death. I owe my future murderer nothing. Not to mention all the mass murders it commits on a daily basis.

What a sad way of looking at life. If you don't enjoy living, please stop wasting the resources for those of us who do.

 

Agreed.

[Volourn]

"What a sad way of looking at life. If you don't enjoy living, please stop wasting the resources for those of us who do."

 

What? I enjoy lifew, actually. I just don't believe in bowing to my future murderer. The only people who waste resources are those who believe animals and trees are somehow better than humans.

[Purkake]

A student of Ayn Rand?

 

Why I'd never!

[Pope]

"What a sad way of looking at life. If you don't enjoy living, please stop wasting the resources for those of us who do."

 

What? I enjoy lifew, actually. I just don't believe in bowing to my future murderer. The only people who waste resources are those who believe animals and trees are somehow better than humans.

Who said anything about bowing? Bowing down to and respecting something are completely different things. Calling nature your future murderer is like calling a tasty meal **** because eventually that's what it'll be. By doing so, you ignore all the good things you got out of it. If you truly enjoy life, you should respect everything that led up to your existence, including the (what you consider) bad things, for if all that hadn't happened, you wouldn't be here enjoying your life. By extension, depriving future generations (of both mankind and other species) of their enjoyment of life by just not caring about nature is, quite frankly, egoistic.

 

And I don't believe animals and trees to be better than humans. Which doesn't imply I consider humans to be the greatest species on this planet either. I do, however, have an enormous respect for mankind's ability to do science and gather knowledge. That knowledge should be preserved at all costs because it truly is the most amazing thing in the universe. I mean, in essence we're all just a bunch of particles, but a bunch of particles stacked together in such a way that collectively all those particales are in effect capable of being *aware* of the fact that that is what they are. Take a moment to consider what an incredible thing that is, and you might realize how valuable life - and the human species - is. You'll likely argue that eventually the universe will come to an end and therefore question the point of it all, but that's just ridiculous and means you do not really enjoy - and thereby respect - life as you say.

 

So yes, if a few billion people have to be eliminated to prevent the end of all that we've built up, I'm all for it. I'd even sacrifice myself to such a goal. Luckily, I'm pretty certain there's plenty of people on this planet that contribute a lot less than I do (and even hold back our progress) and should therefore be the first to go.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Gorth
Language filter is there for a reason

[Walsingham]

Excuse me?

[Volourn]

"So yes, if a few billion people have to be eliminated to prevent the end of all that we've built up"

 

So... you believe in mass murder. Cute.

[Nepenthe]

*looks around*

 

Yeah, looks like it's time for Godwin's law!

[Malcador]

Those of you who have asked me why I own so many guns (eight in all) and so much ammunition (over 4000 rounds of .308, .44 Magnum, and 12 GA shotgun shells) just read the last two posts. If people like Pope and Malcador ever actually get the political power to do what they think needs to be done, I suggest they send well armed and unmarried men with no families to think of when they come for me. I will not go without one hell of a fight. Heck I've been preparing for that for years anyway.

 

And prople like them have gotten politcal power in the past, I'm sure they will again.

 

Actually I was being sarcastic. And the guy I was referring to was, well see the post above mine

 

If I ever get political power, well, beware the tides of apathy as I'll do pretty much nothing, except make sure I have donuts on demand.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Malcador

[Pope]

"So yes, if a few billion people have to be eliminated to prevent the end of all that we've built up"

 

So... you believe in mass murder. Cute.

Nice way of ignoring all I've said above that.

 

People sometimes call me immoral when I discuss these things. I *am* being moral really, just from another point of view. Not in the sense that every individual is created equal, which seems to be today's consensus of what morality implies. By origin, morality is a naturally evolved social mechanism ensuring the survival of species. In that respect, it has indeed been an invaluable tool in the boom of mankind, but with over 6 billion people on a planet with limited resources, there's obviously an upper limit to the advantages of solidarity. So I consider myself moral in the sense that I think it's mankind as a species we should preserve (and all its accomplishments), rather than every single indivudual. No it's definitely not cute, but if anyone is being immoral, it's people who dismiss future generations.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Pope

[HoonDing]

People sometimes call me immoral when I discuss these things. I *am* being moral really, just from another point of view. Not in the sense that every individual is created equal, which seems to be today's consensus of what morality implies. By origin, morality is a naturally evolved social mechanism ensuring the survival of species. In that respect, it has indeed been an invaluable tool in the boom of mankind, but with over 6 billion people on a planet with limited resources, there's obviously an upper limit to the advantages of solidarity. So I consider myself moral in the sense that I think it's mankind as a species we should preserve (and all its accomplishments), rather than every single indivudual. No it's definitely not cute, but if anyone is being immoral, it's people who dismiss future generations.

Where does this morality come from? And who determines who should be preserved and who should not? Members of the G8?

[Nepenthe]

Where does this morality come from? And who determines who should be preserved and who should not? Members of the G8?

 

Party Elite? The Leader?

[Pope]

People sometimes call me immoral when I discuss these things. I *am* being moral really, just from another point of view. Not in the sense that every individual is created equal, which seems to be today's consensus of what morality implies. By origin, morality is a naturally evolved social mechanism ensuring the survival of species. In that respect, it has indeed been an invaluable tool in the boom of mankind, but with over 6 billion people on a planet with limited resources, there's obviously an upper limit to the advantages of solidarity. So I consider myself moral in the sense that I think it's mankind as a species we should preserve (and all its accomplishments), rather than every single indivudual. No it's definitely not cute, but if anyone is being immoral, it's people who dismiss future generations.

Where does this morality come from? And who determines who should be preserved and who should not? Members of the G8?

Yes that is indeed the real discussion here, and definitely not an easy one I will be the the first to admit. The way I see it, morality should be in function of the species. It should not be decided by the majority, which not only lacks the knowledge required for such affairs, it's also an undeniable truth that most people just care about themselves. So an elite educated in the well-being of humanity as a whole would be preferable. Alas, we're currently stuck in this idea that democracy is the ideal system for making decisions for all.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Pope

[Orogun01]

People sometimes call me immoral when I discuss these things. I *am* being moral really, just from another point of view. Not in the sense that every individual is created equal, which seems to be today's consensus of what morality implies. By origin, morality is a naturally evolved social mechanism ensuring the survival of species. In that respect, it has indeed been an invaluable tool in the boom of mankind, but with over 6 billion people on a planet with limited resources, there's obviously an upper limit to the advantages of solidarity. So I consider myself moral in the sense that I think it's mankind as a species we should preserve (and all its accomplishments), rather than every single indivudual. No it's definitely not cute, but if anyone is being immoral, it's people who dismiss future generations.

Where does this morality come from? And who determines who should be preserved and who should not? Members of the G8?

Yes that is indeed the real discussion here, and definitely not an easy one I will be the the first to admit. The way I see it, morality should be in function of the species. It should not be decided by the majority, which not only lacks the knowledge required for such affairs, it's also an undeniable truth that most people just care about themselves. So an elite educated in the well-being of humanity as a whole would be preferable. Alas, we're currently stuck in this idea that democracy is the ideal system for making decisions for all.

Platonic idealists :sigh: Humans are always going to screw up sooner or later. In any case as soon as resources become scarce there is bound to be turmoil, the human population will shrink and whomever is left standing is the fittest. Simple

[Pope]

Platonic idealists :sigh: Humans are always going to screw up sooner or later. In any case as soon as resources become scarce there is bound to be turmoil, the human population will shrink and whomever is left standing is the fittest. Simple

The term 'fittest' can have many interpretations. It can be the strongest, the smartest, the luckiest, or it can be the majority because - at least in numbers - they are superior to others. None of these interpretations necessarily equal most civilized.

 

Relating this to the fundamentalist discussion a few pages back: imagine creationists gaining the majority of political power in the US. That is a real possibility. Then imagine scarcity of resources on top. The US currently has the strongest military force on this planet, but would it be beneficial to mankind if that military force were employed by irrational creationists to wipe out the rational human population? Survival of the fittest? Maybe. Progress? Quite the opposite.

 

Or consider global warming. If we keep polluting the planet, its ecosystem will become so unbalanced that there will be no more room for humans. Extinction won't just be facing the unfit, it will face all of us. Once again, smaller species will survive and eventually take over, as we have done before them. Nice for them, but what a waste of the civilization we've built up, which - despite all its faults - has many things that are worth preserving.

 

These are scenarios any rational being would agree should be prevented.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Pope

[Walsingham]

whomever is left standing is the fittest. Simple

 

Or, assuming the contest is decided in war, it could also be the ones who got lucky.

 

EDIT: I agree with Pope that fitttest can mean the most savage. And I think we agree that humans have made a lot of progress over the past couple of years and it should be protected. But I still insist we disagree over the whole way to treat the planet. Managing the resources available is simple mathematics. treating the planet as a treasure which will return the compliment is Gaian nonsense. And as head of the Spartan faction I demand Lady Deidre be removed from the room.

 

Sorry. I don't know what came over me...

Edited September 8, 2010 by Walsingham

[Pope]

whomever is left standing is the fittest. Simple

EDIT: I agree with Pope that fitttest can mean the most savage. And I think we agree that humans have made a lot of progress over the past couple of years and it should be protected. But I still insist we disagree over the whole way to treat the planet. Managing the resources available is simple mathematics. treating the planet as a treasure which will return the compliment is Gaian nonsense.

Is that what I'm doing then? I thought I was treating human civilization and scientific knowledge as the treasure. Protecting the planet is just a means to preserve those.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Pope

[Walsingham]

Aha. Me being thick then.

 

However, I would suggest for debate the notion that protecting it is rather like baking a hash cake in a student house. You are likely to put in substantial effort and see very little of the benefit yourself.

[Orogun01]

Civilizations have been lost before, what we found from them tell us that technology we though we invented was actually engineered thousands of years ago. Whatever is lost will eventually come back to us since the needs that humans face remain as constant. We also have the ability to change our environment; this what has set us apart, adaptation is a compromise between comfort and necessity. Anyone that can adapt to whatever comes is the fittest, preconceptions don't factor into it since it's the environment that determines it.

[Pope]

However, I would suggest for debate the notion that protecting it is rather like baking a hash cake in a student house. You are likely to put in substantial effort and see very little of the benefit yourself.

The sad truth. Which again clearly demonstrates how fixated we all are on our tiny little selves.

 

 

Civilizations have been lost before, what we found from them tell us that technology we though we invented was actually engineered thousands of years ago. Whatever is lost will eventually come back to us since the needs that humans face remain as constant. We also have the ability to change our environment; this what has set us apart, adaptation is a compromise between comfort and necessity. Anyone that can adapt to whatever comes is the fittest, preconceptions don't factor into it since it's the environment that determines it.

Also true, but with this planet - as any other - facing ultimate destruction, a constant cycle of resetting our advancements is probably not the ideal way to ever get away from this rock. Not that I'm putting blind faith in finding another planet like ours within reach, but there are other ways to preserve our achievements (like sending an AI into space). All very sci-fi I know, but I would just like *some* legacy of ours to endure.

[Orogun01]

Civilizations have been lost before, what we found from them tell us that technology we though we invented was actually engineered thousands of years ago. Whatever is lost will eventually come back to us since the needs that humans face remain as constant. We also have the ability to change our environment; this what has set us apart, adaptation is a compromise between comfort and necessity. Anyone that can adapt to whatever comes is the fittest, preconceptions don't factor into it since it's the environment that determines it.

Also true, but with this planet - as any other - facing ultimate destruction, a constant cycle of resetting our advancements is probably not the ideal way to ever get away from this rock. Not that I'm putting blind faith in finding another planet like ours within reach, but there are other ways to preserve our achievements (like sending an AI into space). All very sci-fi I know, but I would just like *some* legacy of ours to endure.

I find your need for transcendence blinds you, there isn't even proof of life on the universe that would find our accomplishments. There isn't even a chance of our successors knowing our purpose on sending an AI into space. Plus, really hard to make an AI that contains all of our human knowledge.

 

I actually find the resetting quite refreshing and necessary. Great advents in technology and culture are made around a great civilization, which in time becomes corrupt and falls leading to a renewal. This model is no longer true since now the world has become an information society, rampant with the trade of ideas. Only with a fullblown cataclysm that wipes every nation is this going to be lost. Loss of resources, famine, pestilence, these are already happening, what you call the apocalypse is merely an expansion which I assure you won't wipe us all out since there is a close relation to socio-economical factors. As long as modern society stands while it hits us the fittest will be the richest; you know the tune, schism amongst classes, social upheaval, crime, communism and such. It's kind of a dystopian future which will more than likely change society but in no way end it; it's not even a certainty that it will come to happen or that it will last.

[Pope]

I find your need for transcendence blinds you, there isn't even proof of life on the universe that would find our accomplishments.

It's not about other life finding our accomplishments, it's about our accomplishments continuing what we started: searching to understand as much as possible of our surroundings, which in turn enables whomever possesses such information to survive.

 

 

Plus, really hard to make an AI that contains all of our human knowledge.

With today's technology indeed. I'm talking about the distant future, which hopefully we will live to see.

 

Your further comments are interesting. I will definitely ponder upon them.

[LadyCrimson]

General muse:I think, barring some cataclysm such as the one that destroyed the dinosaurs (or something nearly as destructive, population-wise), humanity will survive and build new cultures. They may not be exactly the same, but I'd agree w/Orogun01 that it's unlikely all the advances would be lost this time around. eg, we won't go back to the stone age or whatever.

 

However, I do find it sad that it feels like our dominance seems to have to be based on destroying current planet diversity. Such isn't actually necessary for species survival, thus it's not very rational, thus not a situation created from our supposed intellectual superiority, but rather, imo, from our instinctive & selfish animal brain. But such is life, and I'm as big a part of it as anyone else.

 

*sits down to eat her mass produced, chemical-laden food while sitting in front of a polluting, factory-made computer before she gets in her emission-spouting car to run a bunch of superfluous errands*

 

Edit: by "not necessary for 'species survival'" I don't mean just simple caveman survival, but even with retaining/expanding our tech/knowledge.

Edited September 8, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Walsingham]

I'm intrigued by the way the 'game' rules change things. Particularly technology.

 

It seems to me that we have never before had the same capacity to work together. We can send comms over vast distances. We share science (mostly) and we have unprecedented opportunities to work across cultural divides thanks to shared understanding and learning of language.

 

But at the same time all the most tremendous projects that we might embark upon are at unprecedented risk of being scuppered by feverish wankers. Our great economic endeavours can be torn to shreds by the turbulence induced by profit-crazed (if not just crazed) bastards. While our attempts to forge cross cultural harmony are constantly under attack by people like our koran burners and bomb planters.

 

This is important, because we are not safe, but for our own hand. Pandemics, meteorites, geo/eco catastrophe. We need to sort ourselves out so we can meet such challenges.

 

I do not believe that rolling back the clock is the way because each clock rolll back leaves us just hurtling to where we are now, and nor will people quietly accept such a roll back voluntarily. Instead I suggest the notion that there may be some architecture of technology which will support healthy collaboration without conflict.

[Orogun01]

I'm intrigued by the way the 'game' rules change things. Particularly technology.

 

It seems to me that we have never before had the same capacity to work together. We can send comms over vast distances. We share science (mostly) and we have unprecedented opportunities to work across cultural divides thanks to shared understanding and learning of language.

 

But at the same time all the most tremendous projects that we might embark upon are at unprecedented risk of being scuppered by feverish wankers. Our great economic endeavours can be torn to shreds by the turbulence induced by profit-crazed (if not just crazed) bastards. While our attempts to forge cross cultural harmony are constantly under attack by people like our koran burners and bomb planters.

 

This is important, because we are not safe, but for our own hand. Pandemics, meteorites, geo/eco catastrophe. We need to sort ourselves out so we can meet such challenges.

 

I do not believe that rolling back the clock is the way because each clock rolll back leaves us just hurtling to where we are now, and nor will people quietly accept such a roll back voluntarily. Instead I suggest the notion that there may be some architecture of technology which will support healthy collaboration without conflict.

Not only have the rules changed so has the pace. Before progress would take longer since it faced more challenges and education was a privilege, nowadays we are evolving at an alarming rate which has caused most of modern problem. We move and pollute faster than the world's ability to adapt. But I do believe that we are closer as a world and that in fact it's greed and warfare that have brought us to this point. But change is not always a peaceful transition, eventually I hope that we'll be able to reach stability as usual when our ability to fight effectively ends.

[Atreides]

The increasing ratio of retirees to workers in some developed country is putting a strain on pensions and service maintenance. Particularly for pay-as-you-go pensions and services (medical subsidies, old age pensions, etc) that are funded by taxes, mainly from production.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Atreides