What do you guys think of the possibility of limiting how many children a mother can give birth to? In my opinion, in places like Africa and India, where there is lack of birth control, we should help focus on that. Apparently, Earth can only support about 10 ~ 20 billion people at max, and at the rate we are growing right now, it could reach that population in 2025~2030. (I have no sources for this, it's a rough estimate)
This has it's drawbacks though. You could never have a sibling, and families would be much smaller. What do you think?
Give me an honest choice, no legal ramifications, and I have to choose between putting a bullet in your head and doing the same to 100 or 500 animals, for this example we'll say wolves. So, I won't go to prison for murder if I kill you, and I won't go to prison for poaching if I kill 500 wolves. Guess what bub. Honest to goodness I'm putting a .40 S&W right into your ocularcranial cavity. Sorry.
Ouch man... FYI I'd pick the wolves for you : (
But come on; Here, answer this: Would you choose 1 person or 3 animals?
When is it more ethical to do that, than to screen for these things and say "Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but you have a 65% genetic predisposition for spina bifida. We simply cannot allow the chances that you create an offspring doomed to a life of suffering. However we can offer to implant a genetically healthy embryo for you to carry to term and raise if you still desire to raise children."
That just seems wrong. I mean, how do you prevent them from doing it in the first place (Lol I meant "doing it" with "it" meaning having a child, but I guess the inuendo definition works here, too! :P)? As an alternative, I'd say give them the info, advise them strongly against having a child, and then let them make their own choice.
I would agree that they would be fine with 2 or 3 kids. But you are infringing on their personal rights, as well as their cultural and religious beliefs in order to impose your brand of morality. How is that any different than imposing eugenics or population thinning? In either case you are infringing upon individual rights in the interest of the greater good.
By that definition, I'm impinging on your personal rights by spreading awareness of my opinion right now.
And as I said, if it happens when I'm crippled, sick, old, in a coma, or what have you then so be it.
Yeah, well if this situation arises we'll just see if that's how you feel when you're old and about to be killed for it....
It's like in terminator: salvation... once we start making cold decisions like that, we're no better than the machines. (lol sorry for the reference... on an unrelated note, that was an awesome movie!)
So you would unbalance an entire ecosystem and possibly force several species either to the brink of extinction or allow other species to procreate so rampantly that they begin to be a detriment to the environment all for one human life?
Would you choose 1 person or 3 animals?
Depends on the person and the animals to be perfectly honest.
I mean, how do you prevent them from doing it in the first place
I would suggest sterility drugs. When an individual is of breeding age (15-18 in most cases) then they will be screened for genetic propensity for diseases, deformities, and other undesirable traits. If they show no propensity then they are fine. If they show such propensity then they are administered a sterility drug which eliminates their ability to create offspring. While we don't have such a drug available now, at least to my knowledge, it really wouldn't be terribly difficult to identify what would be required in such a drug and begin development.
As an alternative, I'd say give them the info, advise them strongly against having a child, and then let them make their own choice.
We do that now, here, in the US. And look at how many teen pregnancies, misconceptions about child rearing, and abortions we have? Same with Britain, and they have an even more comprehensive education program than we do. The simple fact is that humans, regardless of the facts, will follow their cultural and religious inclinations. You cannot educate someone out of cultural and religious ideals, otherwise I would have educated every single Christian here out of their religion. It can't be done. At least not on the scale which is implied in this debate.
By that definition, I'm impinging on your personal rights by spreading awareness of my opinion right now.
Not at all. You are not forcing me to sit here at my computer and read what you are writing. The point I was making is that you cannot educate people into having less children when their culture and religion dictate that they need to have more. The only way to make a change there is by force and at that time you ARE infringing on personal rights.
Yeah, well if this situation arises we'll just see if that's how you feel when you're old and about to be killed for it....
Honestly if I'm to the point that I'm a burden on my family and society I don't want to be here anyway. There is no joy to be had from an existence like that. Let me go skydiving without a parachute or something.
once we start making cold decisions like that, we're no better than the machines.
Yes and look at how often we use machines in our day to day lives. They are precise, accurate, easy, and beneficial. Great analogy there (I just had to pick that one apart)
[quote]Ouch man... FYI I'd pick the wolves for you : (
So you would unbalance an entire ecosystem and possibly force several species either to the brink of extinction or allow other species to procreate so rampantly that they begin to be a detriment to the environment all for one human life?
Would you choose 1 person or 3 animals?
Depends on the person and the animals to be perfectly honest.[/quote]
I'm liking you less and less...
Okay: a chicken, a lizard, and a wolf... or someone you don't like very much.
And my point on Islam is that if my religion tells me to have a lot of kids, but I also know that having a lot of kids will cause suffering for all, I would at least have less kids than I would've otherwise.
Honestly if I'm to the point that I'm a burden on my family and society I don't want to be here anyway. There is no joy to be had from an existence like that. Let me go skydiving without a parachute or something.
Your family would love you and not want you to go, btw, I don't think you'd ever be viewed by them as a "burden". (Unless you kill one of them to save some wolves :P... jk) Tho that would be a pretty cool way to die... : )
Yes and look at how often we use machines in our day to day lives. They are precise, accurate, easy, and beneficial. Great analogy there (I just had to pick that one apart)
Honestly, I don't see how you picked it apart. The point was that it's wrong to make cold, calculated decisions. Also, who made those machines so precise, accurate, easy, and beneficial? WE DID, BABY!!
Okay: a chicken, a lizard, and a wolf... or someone you don't like very much.
If I already have a strong dislike for the person, probably them. If not, then the animals, and especially if they are at or near mature size. They are all 3 edible so no loss there.
And my point on Islam is that if my religion tells me to have a lot of kids, but I also know that having a lot of kids will cause suffering for all, I would at least have less kids than I would've otherwise.
This is a possibility, but you also have to look it from their perspective. They believe that the more children they have the better their position and the position of their family will be in heaven. Now let's say you firmly believe this, as they do. What is more important to you, a better eternity for you and your family at a small loss to your environment for this finite life? Or a better finite life and a lesser eternity? It's pretty simple to see that if you firmly believe in the tenets regarding procreation that they do that you will choose a better eternity. Now you have a small grasp on what you are trying to educate against.
Your family would love you and not want you to go
I understand that, and I wouldn't want to leave them. However there also comes a point when your life lacks quality, substance. You go from living and prospering to merely existing. I don't ever want to just exist. If I am an invalid or bedridden I don't want to live. At that point you are just prolonging the agony in my book. Let me go, donate my body to science and use the money you won't be spending and the food I won't be eating to do something good in the world.
The point was that it's wrong to make cold, calculated decisions.
I disagree. Cold, calculated decisions are the easiest, most beneficial, and most easily justified decisions one can make. Yes we made those machines. We made them because they make our lives easier. Granted, I'm not emotionless, nor do I think we should be unemotional all the time. However there are instances when being cold and calculating is of the greatest benefit, even if it is difficult.
If I already have a strong dislike for the person, probably them. If not, then the animals, and especially if they are at or near mature size. They are all 3 edible so no loss there.
Wow... that is shocking. From the sound of it, the only thing stopping you from killing a hunter whom you dislike is the law... (when you think about it, that's what you are saying).
They believe that the more children they have the better their position and the position of their family will be in heaven. Now let's say you firmly believe this, as they do. What is more important to you, a better eternity for you and your family at a small loss to your environment for this finite life? Or a better finite life and a lesser eternity?
I guess you may be right here. How much do you know specifically about Islam? I don't know very much, but I think Islamists can care about the future of humanity on Earth enough to have at least 1 or 2 less children.
I understand that, and I wouldn't want to leave them. However there also comes a point when your life lacks quality, substance. You go from living and prospering to merely existing. I don't ever want to just exist. If I am an invalid or bedridden I don't want to live. At that point you are just prolonging the agony in my book. Let me go, donate my body to science and use the money you won't be spending and the food I won't be eating to do something good in the world.
Okay, that's fine for you, then. The fact remains that many people do not have this outlook and that's the problem with forced killing. And again, I think that if you were in the situation your view would be different.
Also I think I am right to assume that you are an atheist, in which case I would figure that you would cling to life as much as you could, considering it's all you get.
I disagree. Cold, calculated decisions are the easiest, most beneficial, and most easily justified decisions one can make.
You're right. I mean, why do we even have ethics? I can make life so much easier by coldly deciding to kill the sick and elderly, or sending in a group of soldiers on a suicide mission in order to kill some enemies, or killing off others (but never myself) to curb overpopulation!
From the sound of it, the only thing stopping you from killing a hunter whom you dislike is the law... (when you think about it, that's what you are saying).
To some degree I suppose. I don't want to go around and eliminate everyone I don't like, but if I'm faced with a choice between a person whom I strongly dislike and an animal, I'd rather let the animal live.
I guess you may be right here. How much do you know specifically about Islam? I don't know very much, but I think Islamists can care about the future of humanity on Earth enough to have at least 1 or 2 less children.
I am not Muslim, but I have read the Qu'ran through and I have studied many of the world's religions. The issue with educating someone who holds a view in which Earth is a test and Heaven is the reward is that they will invariably slight the Earth in favor of Heaven. This makes social and economic concerns difficult to instill.
Okay, that's fine for you, then. The fact remains that many people do not have this outlook and that's the problem with forced killing. And again, I think that if you were in the situation your view would be different.
You are right, the vast majority of people do not have that outlook. What I've always found interesting is that it is typically those who profess a belief in the afterlife who are the most afraid to die and wish to prolong life as much as possible. Wouldn't you want to hurry up and get it over so you can go to heaven?
And to be very blunt with you I've been in positions in which I've had to take life, and I've also been in positions in which I had to be prepared to give mine up. I know what my views are on taking life and losing it.
Also I think I am right to assume that you are an atheist, in which case I would figure that you would cling to life as much as you could, considering it's all you get.
Yes I am. And yes, I love living life and I don't want it to be over. But I don't want to have a poor quality of life, or to burden my loved ones with my care. To me that's not living life, that's just existing and that's just not any fun at all.
I can make life so much easier by coldly deciding to kill the sick and elderly, or sending in a group of soldiers on a suicide mission in order to kill some enemies, or killing off others (but never myself) to curb overpopulation!
Exactly. And we already do that. We pull the plug on those who are terminally ill, we offer assisted suicide to them, we do send soldiers on suicide missions, and we kill off our own species left and right. We have ethics and morals, we just don't all have the same ones, or we pick and choose which areas they apply in. So if we can pick and choose our ethics based on our political, social, or religious views, why can't we pick and choose our ethics based on scientific principles?
The most obvious method of population thinning is to first eliminate the sick and the old.
Maybe most obvious to you. To me, the obvious solution would be to increase the population threshold.
why can't we pick and choose our ethics based on scientific principles?
Because that's impossible, by definition of scientific principles. Science has nothing to do with ethics. There are no such things as "good" or "bad" in science, because science does not make those kinds of judgements.
The closest you could come to using science as a replacement for ethics (in regards to population control) would be if you set future goals for the state of human kind. Then, you could use the scientific method to determine to most likely way of achieving said goals.
BUT how do you go about deciding these goals in the first place? For instance, say bipolar disorder is discovered to be genetically determined. So obviously we don't want people who carry this trait to have children. They might grow up and have bipolar disorder, which would make them alternatively depressed and unproductive or manic.
However, several of the most creative minds in history are known to be bipolar. More importantly, some have created their most famous works while in the Manic state of mind.
So how do you determine whether it is more important to have a few creative geniuses or nation without bipolar disorder? How does one scientifically determine the value of a person like Hemingway, who was depressed most of his life but revolutionized the world of literature?
Maybe most obvious to you. To me, the obvious solution would be to increase the population threshold.
Notice I was referring to the practice of population thinning. In that context your reply is out of place.
Furthermore, how do increase the population threshold? There is only so much surface area for crops and people to live, only so much water for those crops and the animals we eat. When space and resources are limited it is very difficult to increase that limit.
Because that's impossible, by definition of scientific principles. Science has nothing to do with ethics. There are no such things as "good" or "bad" in science, because science does not make those kinds of judgements.
I'm well aware of that. However humans do make those decisions and they make them based on their morals. What I am saying is why is basing ethics off of books which are thousands of years old and completely fallible perfectly acceptable, yet to base our morals off of science is considered cold and inhuman?
How does one scientifically determine the value of a person like Hemingway, who was depressed most of his life but revolutionized the world of literature?
That is a difficult situation, and one which would have to be addressed. I look at it as I said earlier. The greatest quality of life for the greatest number of people for the greatest time. Personally I would be happy to give up Hemingway in exchange for no human ever having to suffer clinical depression.
The millions who gain a greater quality of life for a great period of time far outweigh the loss of one man's creative works in my opinion. And who is to say that had he not been depressed his works would not have been as inspirational? Obviously they would have been different, but we can't say that his depression was his sole source of creativity and linguistic genius.
So you would unbalance an entire ecosystem and possibly force several species either to the brink of extinction or allow other species to procreate so rampantly that they begin to be a detriment to the environment all for one human life?
Not to mention the lack of biological diversity, which is like the shortcut to extinction. And there's the fact that humans pretty much rely on most animals to survive.
Wow... that is shocking. From the sound of it, the only thing stopping you from killing a hunter whom you dislike is the law... (when you think about it, that's what you are saying).
There actually was a psychological test about that. The results suggested that the only thing stopping humans from assaulting each other was legal ramifications.
What I am saying is why is basing ethics off of books which are thousands of years old and completely fallible perfectly acceptable, yet to base our morals off of science is considered cold and inhuman?
1. Because people have feelings. I think you are an exception to that point but the very vast majority do have feelings. 2. Because ethics are something that, while building more itself over time, remain more or less the same basis. Those books have that basis very well made, while science has no consideration for things like art, literutare, ect. To it the greatest masterpeace is some oil on paper or some sentenses in a certain order or a bit of marble. That is, until we can unlock with science the brain and the DNA. 3. Lets put you in a position of where you should die along with every single member of your family so that a certain gene would not spread. Would you happilly watch the execution of your parents and simblings, knowing you are helping humanity a bit, or would you fight for your life. This is an equivalent of "the silver rule" found in the bible. 4. When all else fails, try reading "Enders shadow" or watching "the big bang theory". Compare yourself with Bean or Sheldon respectfully.
Because people have feelings. I think you are an exception to that point but the very vast majority do have feelings.
No, I have feelings as well. A lot of them actually. I also know that our feelings and our instincts are often wrong.
Because ethics are something that, while building more itself over time, remain more or less the same basis. Those books have that basis very well made, while science has no consideration for things like art, literutare, ect. To it the greatest masterpeace is some oil on paper or some sentenses in a certain order or a bit of marble. That is, until we can unlock with science the brain and the DNA.
And what do ethics have to do with art? Seriously, what is the purpose of your analogy. I am failing to see any correlation there.
Lets put you in a position of where you should die along with every single member of your family so that a certain gene would not spread. Would you happilly watch the execution of your parents and simblings, knowing you are helping humanity a bit, or would you fight for your life.
Interesting. Well, I don't have siblings, and my parents and I don't really speak. It wouldn't be something that I'd want to go through, but I'm sure the process would be over quickly.
When all else fails, try reading "Enders shadow" or watching "the big bang theory". Compare yourself with Bean or Sheldon respectfully.
I've read Ender's Shadow. Great series and I'm glad the story has continued. Ender's Game would be my favorite though. Of course, the original usually is. And I can empathize with others, especially in Bean's position. However as I pointed out earlier I understand that our emotions are fallible and often incorrect. This is why I place such great emphasis on the scientific method. I prefer to arrive at truth and understand that truth.
However as I pointed out earlier I understand that our emotions are fallible and often incorrect. This is why I place such great emphasis on the scientific method. I prefer to arrive at truth and understand that truth
I still have a huge problem with your whole "scientific" morality thing. Morality is normative (in the economic sense). It's a way of defining things we ought and ought not do. These words -"ought" and "ought not"- do not exist in science.
We can use science to determine what does and does not exist; what is and is not possible. We can use it to determine the outcome of various reactions. But we cannot say which outcome is preferable.
In order for morality to be scientific, there would have to be some universal quality (let's call this quality "utils" in all things from which humans could derive satisfaction. In other words, satisfaction would have to have a measurable, uniform, physical manisfestation.
This would allow us to accurately compare the lack of utils caused by depression with the addition of utils caused by Hemingway's artistic works. Then you could objectively determine whether the world is better off depression free or with Hemingway.
But such a quality does not exist outside of our own minds. I cannot objectively determine the worth of "A Farewell to Arms", because such a work mainly has value emotionally. And the way I experience "A Farewell to Arms" is different from how others will experience it. So, the only thing I have to go off is my own emotions. Obviously, it is impossible to make a purely objective decision based of my own emotions.
The point: If you are using some sort of utilitarianist thought process to derive your morality, at some point your are going to have to use your own emotions. And, if you apply this morality towards directing all of humanity (IE eugenics) that means you will be making life and death decisions based on how you personally feel.
I believe someone has already menitioned how feelings can err...
And to be very blunt with you I've been in positions in which I've had to take life, and I've also been in positions in which I had to be prepared to give mine up. I know what my views are on taking life and losing it.
Let me start by saying that if that's the case, I'm sorry for my brashness.
That being said...
No, I have feelings as well. A lot of them actually. I also know that our feelings and our instincts are often wrong.
Here's my first problem. What are you basing this off of? Why do you say our feelings and instincts are often wrong? I say they are fallible but more often are good to listen to. Please elaborate.
You are right, the vast majority of people do not have that outlook. What I've always found interesting is that it is typically those who profess a belief in the afterlife who are the most afraid to die and wish to prolong life as much as possible. Wouldn't you want to hurry up and get it over so you can go to heaven?
I've found that interesting, too. The main reason why religious people are against assisted suicide is because suicide is wrong (or, I guess the Torah/Bible/Qur'an says so, to be objective). And it makes sense; if earth is a test to see if you go to heaven, suicide would be cheating.
[quote]I can make life so much easier by coldly deciding to kill the sick and elderly, or sending in a group of soldiers on a suicide mission in order to kill some enemies, or killing off others (but never myself) to curb overpopulation!
Exactly. And we already do that. We pull the plug on those who are terminally ill, we offer assisted suicide to them, we do send soldiers on suicide missions, and we kill off our own species left and right. We have ethics and morals, we just don't all have the same ones, or we pick and choose which areas they apply in.[/quote]
First off, pulling the plug on terminals and assisted suicide aren't the same as killing sick and elderly against their will so they won't burden us. And only bad generals send troops to their imminent death (at least, without the troops knowing it. If the troops are knowingly and willingly making the ultimate sacrifice, then that's different.).
So if we can pick and choose our ethics based on our political, social, or religious views, why can't we pick and choose our ethics based on scientific principles?
Politics, Society, and Religion are all Subjective and are themselves developed based on morals. The Science you describe is Objective. So that's why.
