flumpy
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 623
Joined: Mar 27, 2009
|
#121 id:27688 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 3:53 pm
|
Kayle said:Why we continue to have these kinds of discussions on a MUD related forum astounds me...
And again...
Drama Llama's
Please remove the offending apostrophe. The lama would have none of this sort of thing!
|
|
|
Chris Bailey
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 602
Joined: Sep 13, 2008
|
#122 id:27690 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 4:03 pm
|
Stephen Hawking is a terrible example of a person that can't take care of himself. He can pay someone to take care of what he needs because he IS a productive member of society. I never said that this method was humane. I said that the unproductive members of society would, in effect, cease to exist. They would either learn to be productive so that they could take care of themselves, or they would be unable to take care of themselves and would no longer exist. If particular individuals decide to take care of someone that cannot take care of themselves then that is excellent, kudos to them. If some of these people that are strongly in favor of a welfare state would like to put their own money up to fund private organizations to handle that matter, then great. But forcing productive citizens to pay for the care of unproductive citizens is criminal in my opinion. I'm not a particularly caring individual, I would not contribute to such a system if I had a choice. And I should have a choice.
|
|
.........................
If what Proust says is true, that happiness is the absence of fever, then I will never know happiness. For I am possessed by a fever for knowledge, experience, and creation.
|
|
|
|
aidil
Magician
Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: Feb 9, 2009
|
#124 id:27692 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 4:12 pm
|
Chris Bailey said: Stephen Hawking is a terrible example of a person that can't take care of himself. He can pay someone to take care of what he needs because he IS a productive member of society. I never said that this method was humane. I said that the unproductive members of society would, in effect, cease to exist. They would either learn to be productive so that they could take care of themselves, or they would be unable to take care of themselves and would no longer exist. If particular individuals decide to take care of someone that cannot take care of themselves then that is excellent, kudos to them. If some of these people that are strongly in favor of a welfare state would like to put their own money up to fund private organizations to handle that matter, then great. But forcing productive citizens to pay for the care of unproductive citizens is criminal in my opinion. I'm not a particularly caring individual, I would not contribute to such a system if I had a choice. And I should have a choice.
The bottomline of that is that the human race will cease to exist since we are all incapable of taking care of ourselves at birth, and stay that way for long enough to have died before ever being able to take care of ourselves.
What is criminal in your opinion is one of the measurements of civilization according to many, how well does a society take care of its weak members?
Also, it is a consequence of a rather defining difference in behavior between many animals and humans, this concept of taking care.
So, while you should have a choice in the matter, you might do well to consider carefully.
|
|
|
Lyanic
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
|
#125 id:27693 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 4:14 pm
|
Ssolvarain said: The human race screwed itself over when it invented medicine.
Accept it, Idiocracy is the best prediction of the future there is.
It has electrolytes! 
Hmmm....and we all know that plants crave electrolytes. Most medicine is derived from plants. Eureka! That's it! The plants gave us medicine as the first step in a sinister plot, setting off a chain reaction that would lead to the gradual dumbing of our species - all the better for the plants to control us. All the better for the plants to get their never ending supply of electrolytes, fed to them by us - their unwitting slaves! We've got to put a stop to this evil plant conspiracy before it gets out of hand! We must join together to rid the world of all plants!
|
|
.........................
- Lyanic, Creator/Designer/Administrator
The 7th Plane (7thplane.ath.cx 8888)
|
|
flumpy
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 623
Joined: Mar 27, 2009
|
#126 id:27694 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 4:26 pm
|
Lyanic said:Ssolvarain said: The human race screwed itself over when it invented medicine.
Accept it, Idiocracy is the best prediction of the future there is.
It has electrolytes!
Hmmm....and we all know that plants crave electrolytes. Most medicine is derived from plants. Eureka! That's it! The plants gave us medicine as the first step in a sinister plot, setting off a chain reaction that would lead to the gradual dumbing of our species - all the better for the plants to control us. All the better for the plants to get their never ending supply of electrolytes, fed to them by us - their unwitting slaves! We've got to put a stop to this evil plant conspiracy before it gets out of hand! We must join together to rid the world of all plants!
Arrgh triffids!! noooooes
|
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 6,913
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#127 id:27695 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 5:09 pm
|
aidil said:
Chris Bailey said: Stephen Hawking is a terrible example of a person that can't take care of himself. He can pay someone to take care of what he needs because he IS a productive member of society. I never said that this method was humane. I said that the unproductive members of society would, in effect, cease to exist. They would either learn to be productive so that they could take care of themselves, or they would be unable to take care of themselves and would no longer exist. If particular individuals decide to take care of someone that cannot take care of themselves then that is excellent, kudos to them. If some of these people that are strongly in favor of a welfare state would like to put their own money up to fund private organizations to handle that matter, then great. But forcing productive citizens to pay for the care of unproductive citizens is criminal in my opinion. I'm not a particularly caring individual, I would not contribute to such a system if I had a choice. And I should have a choice.
The bottomline of that is that the human race will cease to exist since we are all incapable of taking care of ourselves at birth, and stay that way for long enough to have died before ever being able to take care of ourselves.
What is criminal in your opinion is one of the measurements of civilization according to many, how well does a society take care of its weak members?
Also, it is a consequence of a rather defining difference in behavior between many animals and humans, this concept of taking care.
So, while you should have a choice in the matter, you might do well to consider carefully.
I think that there's a big difference to be made between people who are unproductive because they have no choice, and people who are unproductive because they are lazy. I have far more sympathy for the former than for the latter. I think that the debate of how we care for the weaker members of our society is fairly different from that of the so-called "welfare state".
|
|
|
Lyanic
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
|
#128 id:27696 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 5:16 pm
|
David Haley said:
I think that there's a big difference to be made between people who are unproductive because they have no choice, and people who are unproductive because they are lazy. I have far more sympathy for the former than for the latter. I think that the debate of how we care for the weaker members of our society is fairly different from that of the so-called "welfare state".
Just like there's a difference between people who are born unproductive and people who are made unproductive by misfortune. A eugenics policy would simply eliminate the need of providing for the former, not leave the latter to die.
|
|
.........................
- Lyanic, Creator/Designer/Administrator
The 7th Plane (7thplane.ath.cx 8888)
|
|
aidil
Magician
Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: Feb 9, 2009
|
#129 id:27697 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 5:37 pm
|
David Haley said:
I think that there's a big difference to be made between people who are unproductive because they have no choice, and people who are unproductive because they are lazy. I have far more sympathy for the former than for the latter. I think that the debate of how we care for the weaker members of our society is fairly different from that of the so-called "welfare state".
Who organizes such support, and who should receive the benefits of it are two separate questions.
The point I was making however, and why I brought in Hawking as an example, is that you cannot predict beforehand if someone is going to be a productive member of society. While the exact causes of his disease are unclear, there is a strong su####ion that a dna defect is part of it. Lets assume this is the case, and there would be an eugenics program in place, he'd likely never have been born to begin with.
Beyond that, I predict that we'll with due time find out that many generic defects that aren't the result of recent mutations have some direct or indirect relation to beneficial traits.
A rather pronounced case of this is http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html
|
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 6,913
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#130 id:27698 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 6:31 pm
|
I was actually agreeing with you aidil.  I felt that when we start using the word "unproductive" we have to distinguish between various reasons for unproductivity. You were talking about protecting the weak as a measure of civilization, which I agree with; I was distinguishing that from the different problem of helping people who could be productive.
FWIW, I don't think that Shasarak was saying that any child with any defect should not be born. He said that all other things being equal, a child without deafness is preferable to one with deafness. I don't think he would argue that Hawking should not have been born. However, it does put any eugenics program in something of a pickle, because as you point out, you cannot predict what a child will bring the world. Hawking could have been a brilliant kid who went on to not do much with his brilliance; instead of went on to become one of the world's best scientists today, and perhaps in our entire history.
|
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,404
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#131 id:27700 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 6:50 pm
|
David Haley said:Your argument assumes that medicine and other technology in general do not exist to prevent nature from taking its course in the first place. Many centuries ago, people outside the norm of physical ability would be likely to die very young; today such people can live long, healthy lives.
Like when living on credit mankind will one day pay the price for modern medicine. Just because human evolution has come to a grind doesn't mean that the world around us won't. Drug resistant viruses are probably the best example, mosquitoes become increasingly more effective at feeding on humans, and bedbugs have become resistant to common pesticides.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyanic
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
|
#133 id:27702 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 7:03 pm
|
David Haley said:Yes, it was so much better back when we used leeches and other sophisticated techniques for curing things. :nods sagely:
Leeches and maggots are both making a come back in the medical field right now. :also nods sagely:
|
|
.........................
- Lyanic, Creator/Designer/Administrator
The 7th Plane (7thplane.ath.cx 8888)
|
|
Chris Bailey
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 602
Joined: Sep 13, 2008
|
#134 id:27703 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 7:28 pm
|
I think that people are grossly misunderstanding me but it is probably because I am so bad at explaining myself. I will try to simplify it even more.
I disagree with federally financed aid. I believe that removing such aid would force people to take care of themselves, or at least depend on friends and family, and not me. I was at one point in time homeless, at another point in time I was so poor that I ate only once or twice a week. For that period of roughly two years I never once took federal aid of any kind, I disagree with it that strongly. What I was saying about eugenics had nothing to do with how humane such a system was, or how well received it would be. I was simply saying "If we stop helping people that can't help themselves, they will go away." It might not be agreeable, but it's true.
|
|
.........................
If what Proust says is true, that happiness is the absence of fever, then I will never know happiness. For I am possessed by a fever for knowledge, experience, and creation.
|
|
Lyanic
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
|
#135 id:27704 Posted Jun 27, 2009, 7:35 pm
|
Chris Bailey said:I think that people are grossly misunderstanding me but it is probably because I am so bad at explaining myself. I will try to simplify it even more.
I disagree with federally financed aid. I believe that removing such aid would force people to take care of themselves, or at least depend on friends and family, and not me.
I never thought anything you were saying was difficult to understand. I'm not really sure other people misunderstood you either. They just get defensive about the anti-humanitarian aspect of what it ultimately implies.
Chris Bailey said:I was at one point in time homeless, at another point in time I was so poor that I ate only once or twice a week. For that period of roughly two years I never once took federal aid of any kind, I disagree with it that strongly.
That makes two of us.
|
|
.........................
- Lyanic, Creator/Designer/Administrator
The 7th Plane (7thplane.ath.cx 8888)
Last edited Jun 27, 2009, 7:36 pm by Lyanic
|
|
