[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Remember, also, that the “laws of nature” are in all instances descriptive, not prescriptive.
[/QUOTE]
Following up on that, soulmurk, how exactly are you using the term, “laws of nature”? As I understand it, to violate the laws of nature is neither immoral nor unwise, but by definition impossible. Nothing that actually happens or exists can be “unnatural” – unless you are using that term to mean “artificial,” i.e., a result of conscious action by sentient beings (us); in which case all such actions and their results are “unnatural” equally, the welfare hospital no more so than the knapped-flint arrowhead.
[hijack]
Come to think of it, not even God can violate the laws of nature. Especially not God. If He exists, he is the source of those laws, and has both the power and the authority to decree a momentary variance, and the resulting “miracle” is as “natural” as anything else. I recall that once, in the early stages of the French Revolution when Louis XVI was still king, a minister advised him on a proposed course of action, “Sire, it is illegal.” Louis hotly replied, “That makes no difference! It is legal because I wish it!” In terms of French constitutional traditions Louis probably was wrong on that point. But if a truly absolute monarch such as the tsar of Russia had said that, he would have been right. And so would God.
[QUOTE=soulmurk]
Not all decisions that affect life and death are moral decisions. Manslaughter while acting in self-defense, for example. There is no moral decision, it’s kill or be killed.
[/QUOTE]
No, it is a morally excusable action. That does not mean it is not a moral decision. You are, after all, deciding whether or not to take a human life. It’s not the same as if the source of the threat were some inanimate object.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Yes, that’s what I said. The burden would feel the same.
Remember, a general die-off would include law enforcement officials. In my town, we have, say, 100 cops for 30,000 citizens. If 99% of the population died, that would leave 1 cop for three hundred. Numbers-wise it’s the same proportion, but that will be cold comfort to the sole law-enforcement officer left to control a panicked and traumatized population.
The same applies to doctors. What if the sole doctor left is a pediatrist?
Well, the answer depends upon whether the die-off is gradual or sudden. If it’s gradual, the whole question is moot because by the time it took for 99% of the population to be decreased by war, neglect and selective eugenics, mankind might have evolved into a totally different animal.
If it’s sudden, human nature tells me it won’t be a pretty sight. Humans crave status, wealth and power. Warlords will emerge, and we’ll most likely regress to a feudal system. (Democracy requires wealth and stability.)
Some people like to work and some don’t. When supplies start to get scarce, some people are going to prefer to steal food than farm. Some people just like to rape and kill, and with no criminal justice to stop them, they can indulge as much as they like.
[/quote]
We’re not talking about an equal, down the line, statistically equal die-off, so this, while interesting, is getting off track.
Yeah, leave it for future generations to worry about. They’ll probably have a ray gun that sterilizes people and a settlement on the moon for violent criminals anyway.
Because when it’s time to die off, we prevent the natural flux from happening.
Again I ask, why do we have to be in the crisis to deal with it? We’ve got highly touted brains, why not use them to avoid the drastic times altogether?
Might be less in the interpretation and more in the delivery.
Ironic, isn’t it?
It does make for an interesting question… maybe I’m just waiting for everyone else to go first.
Would depend upon the circumstances I’d guess.
As I understand it, his illness didn’t manifest itself until later in life, so it wouldn’t have been an issue because he would have survived into adulthood. If he were unable to survive to adulthood, no one would have known what he could have offered.
Fair enough, but there’s still no need to paint false imagery.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Actually, a question I don’t see answered here from Soulmurk is what exactly is meant by ‘natural selection’? He (I assume gender here) seems to believe that ‘natural selection’ will take care of the problem but never defines how that would be acheived. In what way would natural selection express itself? Shut down food distribution? Medical access and hospitals? What? By what magical means does natural selection take it upon itself to lower the population?
Because, regardless of his answer, I would posit that we are currently controlled by natural selection. Yes, we builds homes and farms and hospitals to offset certain causes of death. But these actions are completely natural for a social, learning species such as ourselves. We could no more help it than we could fly unassisted because it is natural for us to do so.
Just as it’s natural for beavers to make dams and alter their environment or for birds to build nests for protection of their young.
Altering environment and elimination of external threats to personal and species existence is as natural as breathing. We do it. Other species do it. The world goes on its merry course.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been struggling with that question.
The only way to effectively allow for a more natural selection of survival would be to take away technology and medical advances and revert back to a more animalistic and “natural” way of living, effectively eliminating scientific gains made over the past few centuries.
To get to that point there would need to be either some kind of major catastrophe or else a takeover of US government by some kind of dictator.
[QUOTE=soulmurk]
I’ve been struggling with that question.
The only way to effectively allow for a more natural selection of survival would be to take away technology and medical advances and revert back to a more animalistic and “natural” way of living, effectively eliminating scientific gains made over the past few centuries.
To get to that point there would need to be either some kind of major catastrophe or else a takeover of US government by some kind of dictator.
[/QUOTE]
In that case, you might well live long enough to get your wish (if your wish it be).
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No, it is a morally excusable action. That does not mean it is not a moral decision. You are, after all, deciding whether or not to take a human life. It’s not the same as if the source of the threat were some inanimate object.
[/QUOTE]
That begs the question, then, what makes it morally excusable? What are the parameters for being morally excusable versus morally inexcusable? If I felt my personal survival were threatened by an overpopulated country, would I be morally excused to defend my life by removing the threat?
In any event, the personal basis of the answer is exactly why morality does not belong in a discussion about something that affects everyone.
[QUOTE=soulmurk]
If, hypothetically speaking, it could be agreed that there were too many people on the planet and that something needed to be done about it, why should a legitimate alternative such as allowing nature to assist in deciding who lives and who dies, rather than trying to save everyone, be completely dismissed just because some (alright, most) people morally object? For logistical reasons, sure, but because it makes some people sqeamish?
[/QUOTE]
Because both the people who would be eliminated and those who who have to do the eliminating find it morally and personally objectionable. It’s like telling someone they can eliminate fleas by throwing their pets into a blast furnace; no matter how true, it misses the point.
Whatever social problems there are that would be solved by a die off, they pale in comparison to the social problem that is the die off. Mass starvation is a social problem if anything is.
[QUOTE=soulmurk]
Yeah, leave it for future generations to worry about. They’ll probably have a ray gun that sterilizes people and a settlement on the moon for violent criminals anyway.
[/quote]
Maybe. Who knows? Why don’t we wait until there actually is a problem before we propose radical solutions to it?
When our numbers get too great for the earth to support, there will be no way to prevent a die-off. Disease and starvation will thin the herd, just as they do in any wild population which gets out of control. Nature has its own ways of dealing with things that trumps our technology.
Because you’re suggesting drastic, brutal and morally reprehensible action to solve a “problem” which isn’t even certain to occur.
Well, that’s pretty hypocritical, don’t you think? What do value do you have that everyone else doesn’t? What makes you so superior that you should be further down on the list? Shouldn’t the “enlightened” lead the charge and set an example?
Oh, I see. So this is not to be a fair and equitable across-the-board implimentation. And just who decides whether your “circumstances” warrant your continued existance?
I don’t think you quite grasp what a loss for mankind this would have been.
Can you honestly say that your life is more valuable than his because you have freedom of movement? If anything, you’re likely to consume more resources than he is, and certainly less likely to contribute to society.
It’s not false. There’s no “nice” way to euthanize people who want to live.
