Options

Humanity Industry Humanism Humanitarianism and the Incurrence of a Cruelty Debt

123457

Posts

  • Options
    #pipe#pipe Cocky Stride, Musky odours Pope of Chili TownRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
  • Options
    -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    Preferring truisms to evidence is easy because it means you never have to do any rigorous intellectual labor

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Options
    WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    #pipe wrote: »
    I'm Vyvyan and this video is this thread
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VH-tJSpkjA

    Young Ones and Bottom used to be on YTV right when I'd get off school, it was a great time.

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Stilts wrote: »
    Antibiotic resistance is a problem, but it's because of public ignorance about how microbes work and the proliferation of antibiotics for very trivial uses. You don't need antibacterial soap unless, you know, you're immunocompromised or interacting with someone who is.

    And antibiotic resistance doesn't mean "we die," it just means you're going to be sicker for longer. Somehow humanity managed to scrape by before Fleming came along.

    Also, like, "humans discover neat thing and then overuse neat thing" is something we've been doing for forever.

    I mean, shit, look at something as old as agriculture. It has taken us a long-ass time to really understand how agriculture should work in different environments to keep the soil from eroding or to minimize the negative impacts of irrigation or to properly do the many, many techniques that agriculture covers. And we learned a lot of those lessons by fucking up really badly. Americans can point to the Dust Bowl (which, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't all that long ago), but there are plenty of other examples of civilizations suffering severe consequences (sometimes so bad that they either collapsed or got very close to the edge of collapse) because of flawed agricultural practices.

    As went our previous technological advancements, so will antibiotics.

    In the meantime, please enjoy mortality rates akin to the Dark Ages, scaling all the way up to the era of the Black Plague - as well as an insane drop in average lifespan?

    You do understand what the rise of antibiotic resistant superbugs will eventually spell for modern medicine? Nothing short of doom. Everytime somebody requires open surgery, they will be just as likely to die from an infection, as they are from dying from whatever ails them to begin with? Also - there's a whole lot less people willing to do medical jobs, when exposing oneself to harmful bacteria is akin to playing Russian Roulette. The social stigma alone. Doctors and nurses might become ostracized for being disease vectors. Who would want people likely carrying antibiotics resistant flesh eating superbugs in their biome around their childern? Your doctor, they might literally eat your child's face.

    The problems we see now, like animal MRSA in the pork industry, are but the tip of the iceberg. Antibiotics resistant superbugs will likely have a huge impact on our species, more so than even than climate change and rising sea levels. If no permanent solution is found, from a medical point of view, it might hurl us back into the Dark Ages. Look forward to your child dying from a cut on a blade of gras, when it's 12 years old. Good times.

    BranniganSepp on
  • Options
    -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    the dark ages are a fake concept

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Options
    MorivethMoriveth BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWNRegistered User regular
    So, butts?

    Butts.

  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    so you just heard the phrase "superbug" and went from there right

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    I would be cool bringing back those sick ass beak masks for doctors

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Options
    MachwingMachwing It looks like a harmless old computer, doesn't it? Left in this cave to rot ... or to flower!Registered User regular
    All I think of when I see the title of this thread is "hmmm I wonder if I should finish The Witness

    wait, I already uninstalled it"

    l3icwZV.png
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    I'm declaring personal victory to the thread. The indisputably correct answer was the singularity. The singularity will take care of MRSA.

    There is no arguing against the singularity. Don't even try.

    Singularity 2016.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    really there are much duller dangers to public health than the scare factor of superbugs

    anti-vaxxers are probably more likely to get you or someone you know sick

    but it's not as sexy a story

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    Tommy2HandsTommy2Hands what is this where am i Registered User regular
    Superbugs

    Like the walking dead?

    Did anyone else see tonight's episode

    I really hope Maggie's baby ends up okay

    8j12qx8ma5j5.jpg
  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    one-of-the-best-moments-on-colbert-report-was-when-he-coined-truthiness-in-2005.jpg

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    really there are much duller dangers to public health than the scare factor of superbugs

    anti-vaxxers are probably more likely to get you or someone you know sick

    but it's not as sexy a story
    It is if you're a Victorian!

  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-common-will-antibiotic-resistant-infections-be-in-the-future-2015-6?IR=T


    chartoftheday_3095_Drug_Resistant_Infections_n.jpg


    I'm not saying superbugs are the end of humanity or anything. I'm saying that the aspect of humanism that puts our kind before all others plays into the rapid rise of superbugs. I use superbugs as an example. It's a tiny fraction of the countless problems that humanism causes for us ourselves. Needless to say, for most other species, humanism spells the end.

  • Options
    Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    In your other thread you made the argument that forcibly removing everyone's genitalia would help alleviate current and prevent future human suffering

    In that way wouldn't it be the less cruel option than letting human civilization continue on its current path

    To take away the possibility of natural reproduction - by whatever means are least cruel - is in my estimation the only way how to enforce limitations on human procreation. Figuratively - yes, I am for chopping off dicks and sewing shut vaginas.

    It certainly beats other entirely possible scenarios, like plagues and wars and whatnot.

    Dogg if you want someone to cruelly remove your genitals, why didn't you just ask? I'm a dab hand with a chainsaw and I have no work on tomorrow, gimme $50 and I'll get the job done for you at your convenience.

  • Options
    OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? the foot of mt fujiRegistered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    I would be cool bringing back those sick ass beak masks for doctors

    I want a horror movie starring one of those guys

    They'd make a cool looking monster/villain!

    signature-deffo.jpg
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
  • Options
    Tommy2HandsTommy2Hands what is this where am i Registered User regular
    Okay if I'm being really real here some of these posts reek of eugeneics

    8j12qx8ma5j5.jpg
  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    Okay if I'm being really real here some of these posts reek of eugeneics

    it was only a matter of time before the conversation went there, given that he invoked overpopulation in the first sentence of the first post of the thread

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    In defence of Bad Ideas Brann it's not really eugenics if nobody's reproducing. Although artificial means of reproducing will definitely benefit the rich.

    Gvzbgul on
  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Limiting procreation is easy with cashmoney.

  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Racists and the likes give eugenics a bad rep.

    It's the responsible thing to do, to screen for genetic baggage, and prevent unhealthy or damaged genes from spreading, so far as its medically possible. There's nothing wrong with providing the next generation with an as healthy nature, and as much natural potential, as we are able provide. It is not the most humanitarian, or even natural thing to do, but in many ways, I think it's the right thing to do. Within the context of evolution and natural selection, in relation to our technical possibilities, it's really the responsible thing to do.

    Furthermore, I also believe that as a self-aware species, we need to only procreate for practical purposes, with an aim in mind. We are aware of the cost of a human life. The extremely high cost in effort and ressources. The toll it takes on our environment and all manner of life around us. Reproducing simply because we want to - it's selfish and self-destructive.

    I'm sure most of you will disagree, because you fundamentally believe we're doing fine as a species. I don't share that confidence. I do not share a sense of hope. From my worldview, I can only find hope in radical changes to current paradigms of thinking and living. Global society embracing responsible reproduction and eugenics, is such a hope.

    BranniganSepp on
  • Options
    -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    Healthy populations are maintained by genetic diversity, which is achieved through free reproduction and not managed genetics.

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    I mean,

    if we gonna be all rational and no fun,

    we'll just realise that we're pointless.

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    Hmm, well, ok. I think you explained yourself clearly there.

    Perhaps a better idea than eugenics would be something like VHEMT? The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Which is just people deciding they don't want to have kids. Completely voluntary, no need for forced sterilisations or anything like that.

  • Options
    AbracadanielAbracadaniel Registered User regular
    ckl4glhe7u8a.jpeg

  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    Healthy populations are maintained by genetic diversity, which is achieved through free reproduction and not managed genetics.

    Obviously. So how would the scientific community be unable to both screen for genetic baggage, elimitate unsuitable cadidates for reproduction, as well as maintain genetic diversity? You simply assume it's not possible, because you come at eugenics from a profoundly negative point of view. Misuse and abuse are not a natural fact of eugenics. Not at all.

  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    Racists and the likes give eugenics a bad rep.

    It's the responsible thing to do, to screen for genetic baggage, and prevent unhealthy or damaged genes from spreading, so far as its medically possible. There's nothing wrong with providing the next generation with an as healthy nature, and as much natural potential, as we are able provide. It is not the most humanitarian, or even natural thing to do, but in many ways, I think it's the right thing to do. Within the context of evolution and natural selection, in relation to our technical possibilities, it's really the responsible thing to do.

    Furthermore, I also believe that as a self-aware species, we need to only procreate for practical purposes, with an aim in mind. We are aware of the cost of a human life. The extremely high cost in effort and ressources. The toll it takes on our environment and all manner of life around us. Reproducing simply because we want to - it's selfish and self-destructive.

    I'm sure most of you will disagree, because you fundamentally believe we're doing fine as a species. I don't share that confidence. I do not share a sense of hope. From my worldview, I can only find hope in radical changes to current paradigms of thinking and living. Global society embracing responsible reproduction and eugenics, is such a hope.

    Nah, and also your world view stinks, and also your opinion on how the human race is "doing" is not a good reason for eugenics.

  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Hmm, well, ok. I think you explained yourself clearly there.

    Perhaps a better idea than eugenics would be something like VHEMT? The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Which is just people deciding they don't want to have kids. Completely voluntary, no need for forced sterilisations or anything like that.

    That's if extinction is your aim in life. I guess I'm okay with the concept of it on a personal level. I wouldn't mind if my bloodline ended with me. However, I believe, as self-aware individuals, it is our responsibility to act as a species. In our best interest. I think we should aim to be sustainably healty in mind and body and soul, and work together as a species to gain a stronger foothold in life. Expansion into space comes to mind. Shielding the Earth against extinction level impacts from space. That sort of stuff.

    Living in a society that is driven by self-interest first and foremost, as a self-aware individual? It's not great for me. Yachts and professional blow-jobs don't further the survival of our species. I'm not saying luxuries aren't nice to have, but given the high priority of these selfish aims in our global society - well, I'm not on board.

    If I'm working overtime because I live in an all-hands-on-deck society, with the aim of building a space elevator? Sure, I'm in. Working overtime so that some rich fuck somewhere can become so rich, that he can carve his fucking name into the crust of the Earth, so it is visible from space? I'd rather become a violent militant.

    BranniganSepp on
  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    One child? Cheap. Two childs? Expensive. Five childrens? You pay extra double taxes for crimes against the Autobahn.

  • Options
    -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    You don't know what the fuck an "unhealthy" gene or genetic "baggage" is. A single gene can affect 5000 different things and those things may be advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous depending on the current environment, which is always changing. Populations stay adaptable by having a large, varied gene pool so that alleles can change frequency based on what is currently advantageous to survival and reproduction. You've been talking a lot about human hubris but now you're advocating the biggest hubris, which is thinking we can outdesign billions of years of evolution with our extremely limited knowledge of how genetics and epigenetics works.

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Options
    LalaboxLalabox Registered User regular
    A year or so before they had my older sister, my parents were interviewed for a book called Childless by Choice.

  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    -Tal wrote: »
    You don't know what the fuck an "unhealthy" gene or genetic "baggage" is. A single gene can affect 5000 different things and those things may be advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous depending on the current environment, which is always changing. Populations stay adaptable by having a large, varied gene pool so that alleles can change frequency based on what is currently advantageous to survival and reproduction. You've been talking a lot about human hubris but now you're advocating the biggest hubris, which is thinking we can outdesign billions of years of evolution with our extremely limited knowledge of how genetics and epigenetics works.

    Of course I mean to apply sound measures according to whatever technical possiblities we have at any given time. Prenatal screenings reveal a lot these days. Why is it in our interest as a species to allow offspring with birth defects to be born? It isn't in our interest. The reasons for allowing it are humanitarian and personal in nature.

    Our expertise in genetics is bound to increase exponentially, and the more capable we become, the more responsibility we have. Have some vision - man. If we still let short-sighted, cancer-prone, low-intelligence, hobbled and hunchbacked, genetically-stifled persons be born, when we'd have the technical knowhow to prevent it, we'd be giant fucking selfish assholes.

    BranniganSepp on
  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    You don't know what the fuck an "unhealthy" gene or genetic "baggage" is. A single gene can affect 5000 different things and those things may be advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous depending on the current environment, which is always changing. Populations stay adaptable by having a large, varied gene pool so that alleles can change frequency based on what is currently advantageous to survival and reproduction. You've been talking a lot about human hubris but now you're advocating the biggest hubris, which is thinking we can outdesign billions of years of evolution with our extremely limited knowledge of how genetics and epigenetics works.

    Of course I mean to apply sound measures according to whatever technical possiblities we have at any given time. Prenatal screenings reveal a lot these days. Why is it in our interest as a species to allow offspring with birth defects to be born? It isn't in our interest. The reasons for allowing it are humanitarian in nature.

    Our expertise in genetics is bound to increase exponentially, and the more capable we become, the more responsibility we have. Have some vision - man. If we still let short-sighted, cancer-prone, low-intelligence, hobbled and hunchbacked, genetically-stifled persons be born, when we'd have the technical knowhow to prevent it, we'd be giant fucking selfish assholes.

    Whether other people decide to give birth to children at all, let alone what kind of child they choose to have, is none of your business.

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    You wouldn't need to make it compulsory to abort if a disease or abnormality was detected. It would be much easier to remove the stigma of abortion and let parents make their own choice.

  • Options
    -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    Persons born short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback are valuable and contribute to the world, and nobody has a right to deny their existence except the person who has to carry them inside their body.

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    Persons born short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback are valuable and contribute to the world, and nobody has a right to deny their existence except the person who has to carry them inside their body.
    They don't exist yet, so their existence can't be denied. They're just potential at that point and their non-existence isn't a problem. Eg: I don't miss my older sister, because I never had one, she doesn't exist.

  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    You don't know what the fuck an "unhealthy" gene or genetic "baggage" is. A single gene can affect 5000 different things and those things may be advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous depending on the current environment, which is always changing. Populations stay adaptable by having a large, varied gene pool so that alleles can change frequency based on what is currently advantageous to survival and reproduction. You've been talking a lot about human hubris but now you're advocating the biggest hubris, which is thinking we can outdesign billions of years of evolution with our extremely limited knowledge of how genetics and epigenetics works.

    Sickle-cell anemia is probably the most obvious example of how seemingly unhealthy genetic factors can be beneficial: people with it have a significantly higher chance of stroke and related disease, but also have a significantly higher resistance to malaria. Screening for and eliminating a genetic factor that has directly adverse effects on a person's health might not be a net benefit to the individual, let alone the species, in the long run.

  • Options
    ProlegomenaProlegomena Frictionless Spinning The VoidRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    -Tal wrote: »
    Persons born short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback are valuable and contribute to the world, and nobody has a right to deny their existence except the person who has to carry them inside their body.
    They don't exist yet, so their existence can't be denied. They're just potential at that point and their non-existence isn't a problem. Eg: I don't miss my older sister, because I never had one, she doesn't exist.
    That would imply that it wouldn't be a problem if we fixed it as of right now that no further people or animals were born (let's say conceived to be exact). So I think you can't be right.

    e. Also you can still have some attitudes towards your non-existent older sister, i.e. you might regret that you didn't have one.

    Prolegomena on
  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    -Tal wrote: »
    Persons born short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback are valuable and contribute to the world, and nobody has a right to deny their existence except the person who has to carry them inside their body.
    They don't exist yet, so their existence can't be denied. They're just potential at that point and their non-existence isn't a problem. Eg: I don't miss my older sister, because I never had one, she doesn't exist.
    That would imply that it wouldn't be a problem if we fixed it as of right now that no further people or animals were born (let's say conceived to be exact). So I think you can't be right.

    e. Also you can still have some attitudes towards your non-existent older sister, i.e. you might regret that you didn't have one.
    I'm not sure what you're saying, or if you're replying to me? What is 'it'? I think some conversational wires are getting crossed.

    Gvzbgul on
This discussion has been closed.