|
|
|
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@BTInternet.moc> wrote:
"David Polewka" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
| "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote :
|| > Umm, it's only "merciful" if your victim agrees and actively
| > cooperates, David. Otherwise it's called "murder".
|| So if you vote against a tax increase, but it
| passes anyway, then it's theft?
|You really should take a course in logic and dissertation, Davey
boyo.
If governments decided to stop suppressing SARS and new flus,
it would not be murder. Period, end of story.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
"David James Polewka" wrote:
If governments decided to stop suppressing SARS and new flus,
it would not be murder. Period, end of story.
Government decisions require justification as much or more than an
individual's decisions, and murder through calculated neglect is no more
justifiable than murder with an axe.
|
| |
| |
"welby" <welby@REMOVETHISpcslink.com> wrote:
"David James Polewka" wrote:
Government decisions require justification as much or more than an
individual's decisions, and murder through calculated neglect is no more
justifiable than murder with an axe.
There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
"David James Polewka" wrote:
There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS
and new flus.
You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
You're right. I'd rather put off reading poorly reasoned support for
negligent homicide.
|
| |
| |
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
If governments decided to stop suppressing SARS and new flus,
it would not be murder. Period, end of story.
1) Nice to hear that governments can not only keep the ten
commandments out of courthouses, but can repeal them altogether.
Try not to mention "God" again on the net, OK, you just tossed
out all of your credibility as a practicing Christian.
2) Just FYI, the above is the diametric opposite of the first
statement you made on this topic, the one to which the objection
was raised. That you cannot read other people's words with
understanding after pickling your brain I suppose makes sense.
That you cannot read your own is fairly tragi-comic.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
"welby" <welby@REMOVETHISpcslink.com> wrote:
"David James Polewka" wrote:
You're right. I'd rather put off reading poorly reasoned support for
negligent homicide.
Putting demented geezers in rest homes to suffer
in infirmity is calculated neglect. Allowing their
lives to come to a merciful end so the young don't
have to go off to fight and die on other peoples'
turf to protect oil supplies is long-term smart
management.
--
|
| |
| |
"David Polewka" wrote:
Putting demented geezers in rest homes to
suffer in infirmity is calculated neglect.
But if any person would choose such an existence over your misanthropic
ideas, they should have the right to do so. Similarly, if someone wishes to
choose not to take any vaccines or medical care, they're welcome to do so.
They should not have to bow to David Polewka's choice for their existence.
Allowing their lives to come to a merciful
end so the young don't have to go off to
fight and die on other peoples' turf to
protect oil supplies is long-term smart
management.
Oil supplies? You want to kill off the old and infirmed to manage oil
supplies?
|
| |
| |
"welby" <welby@REMOVETHISpcslink.com> wrote:
"David Polewka" wrote:
But if any person would choose such an existence over your misanthropic
ideas, they should have the right to do so.
"Misanthropic" is your negative spin-doctoring. Keeping more
of a family's estate in the family, and limiting the suffering
of old age is not misanthropic.
Similarly, if someone wishes to
choose not to take any vaccines or medical care, they're welcome to do so.
More and more parents are questioning the value of immunization.
More and more of the elderly are saying "we're living too long."
They should not have to bow to David Polewka's choice for their existence.
O.K., Adolf, whatever you say.
It's all a question of who's in control. When people try to play God
and control things, big problems (loss of control) are the result.
If we turn more of it back over to God and Nature, then we'll have
a chance at peace and a decent environment. But, of course,
it's not an all-or-nothing deal.
Allowing their lives to come to a merciful
end so the young don't have to go off to
fight and die on other peoples' turf to
protect oil supplies is long-term smart
management.
Oil supplies? You want to kill off the old and
infirmed to manage oil supplies?
Everyone gets killed off. It's just a question of when.
Right now we're fighting wars to get resources so geezers
can rock and spit, passing their estate to doctors
and others instead of their families, thus widening the
gap between rich and poor. It's long-term dumb management.
--
|
| |
| |
David Polewka wrote:
O.K., Adolf, whatever you say.
I hereby invoke Godwin's law. This thread is
officially closed.
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@BTInternet.moc> wrote:
"David Polewka" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
| Putting demented geezers in rest homes to suffer
| in infirmity is calculated neglect. Allowing their
| lives to come to a merciful end so the young don't
| have to go off to fight and die on other peoples'
| turf to protect oil supplies is long-term smart
| management.
At last I can see what this God-botherer is trying to say. The only
way to stop stupid wars is to do away with the people who start them;
the politicians; demented geezers to a man. [If any woman wants to be
included in that throng, don't let me stop you. Nor you, Maggie.]
Either you have a better idea or you don't.
Everything else is spin.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@BTInternet.moc> wrote:
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
| You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
You should have teamed up with Saddam while you had the chance.
How's your Korean? At least you'll have a local source of raw
materials.
Either you have a better idea or you don't.
Everything else is spin.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrot:
Either you have a better idea or you don't.
Yes.
We've already determined that your "idea" is the
product of a damaged mind.
We've extended that determination to the finding
that both alcohol abuse and desire to commit
patricide are involved.
Everything else is spin.
Now we are just wondering how many different
spins you can put on your lust to be a mass
murderer, which, lest any forget, was redirected
from kiddie-cide to geezer-cide when you noticed
it wasn't the kiddies standing between you and a
death tally in the billions, but some determined
geezer with a keyboard, now pluralized.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| ">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@BTInternet.moc> wrote:
|
| >"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| >
| >| There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
| >| You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
| >
| >You should have teamed up with Saddam while you had the chance.
| >How's your Korean? At least you'll have a local source of raw
| >materials.
|
| Either you have a better idea or you don't.
| Everything else is spin.
Look sweetie. In my book, anyone who writes "There's plenty of
justification for unleashing SARS and new flus" is a wannabe
terrorist.
It's easy to sit back and allow the inexorable march to
9 or 10 billion--you won't be around to deal with the
unintended consequences! The difference between you and me
is that you started with a conclusion, borrowed from others,
and you just pick out bits and pieces of reality to justify it,
whereas I rejected all the half-baked political positions,
and just looked and looked at as much of reality as I could,
for years and years, deriving the correct position therefrom, Bitch!
--
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| ">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@BTInternet.moc> wrote:
|
| >"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| >
| >| There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
| >| You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
| >
| >You should have teamed up with Saddam while you had the chance.
| >How's your Korean? At least you'll have a local source of raw
| >materials.
|
| Either you have a better idea or you don't.
| Everything else is spin.
Look sweetie. In my book, anyone who writes "There's plenty of
justification for unleashing SARS and new flus" is a wannabe
terrorist.
It's easy to sit back and allow the inexorable march to
9 or 10 billion--you won't be around to deal with the
unintended consequences! The difference between you and me
is that you started with a conclusion, borrowed from others,
and you just pick out bits and pieces of reality to justify it,
whereas I rejected all the half-baked political positions,
and just looked and looked at as much of reality as I could,
for years and years, deriving the correct position therefrom, Bitch!
--
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| ">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@BTInternet.moc> wrote:
|
| >"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| >
| >| There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
| >| You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
| >
| >You should have teamed up with Saddam while you had the chance.
| >How's your Korean? At least you'll have a local source of raw
| >materials.
|
| Either you have a better idea or you don't.
| Everything else is spin.
Look sweetie. In my book, anyone who writes "There's plenty of
justification for unleashing SARS and new flus" is a wannabe
terrorist.
It's easy to sit back and allow the inexorable march to
9 or 10 billion--you won't be around to deal with the
unintended consequences! The difference between you and me
is that you started with a conclusion, borrowed from others,
and you just pick out bits and pieces of reality to justify it,
whereas I rejected all the half-baked political positions,
and just looked and looked at as much of reality as I could,
for years and years, deriving the correct position therefrom, Bitch!
--
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| ">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@BTInternet.moc> wrote:
|
| >"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| >
| >| There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
| >| You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
| >
| >You should have teamed up with Saddam while you had the chance.
| >How's your Korean? At least you'll have a local source of raw
| >materials.
|
| Either you have a better idea or you don't.
| Everything else is spin.
Look sweetie. In my book, anyone who writes "There's plenty of
justification for unleashing SARS and new flus" is a wannabe
terrorist.
It's easy to sit back and allow the inexorable march to
9 or 10 billion--you won't be around to deal with the
unintended consequences! The difference between you and me
is that you started with a conclusion, borrowed from others,
and you just pick out bits and pieces of reality to justify it,
whereas I rejected all the half-baked political positions,
and just looked and looked at as much of reality as I could,
for years and years, deriving the correct position therefrom.
--
|
| |
| |
"David Polewka" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
for years and years, deriving the correct position therefrom.
And we note that as usual your behavior is based on superstition
and a _mis_understanding of reality, as when you make the same
posting four times, leaving off the last word the last time in
case that (as opposed to your abject stupidity) is why you are
not getting instant gratification from your posting software (a
well known behavior with anyone with your longevity on Usenet
should long ago have learned to take into account).
So the datum that _you_ consider your solution the _only_
_feasible_ _answer_ is a bit besmirched by the other datum
that you only arrive at it by discarding what sane people
consider a much kinder and more moral alternative, government
distribution of inexpensive-to-free contraception available to
all for the trouble of asking.
xanthian.
[I got to listen, on National Public Radio, to some Bush admin HHS
droid explaining why it was a _huge_ mistake to tell eleven year
olds about condoms. Since I had a teacher many years ago relate to
me the story of one of his students who was pregnant before menarch,
at age 12, I'm a bit skeptical of "abstinence only" as a teaching
regulation, especially when government imposed.]
[It was also a bit telling that Dubya's admin hasn't audited a single
abstinence only program for violating federal funding rules about not
mixing religion into state sponsored education, but has seen the need
to audit the books on a single group promoting full disclosure of sex
education information to middle schoolers three times in eight months!
Can you spell "Government by Harassment"? I thought you could.]
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
David Polewka wrote:
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
[...] I rejected all the half-baked political positions,
and just looked and looked at as much of reality as I could,
for years and years, deriving the correct position therefrom, Bitch!
Since it's clear this discussion refuses to fade away gracefully,
and instead persists on lingering past its prime of life and
usefulness (ironically, much like DJP would have us believe our old
folks do), here's why I think both sides are full of crap :)
I'll arbitrarily divide everyone into "humanitarians" and
"utilitarians." The utilitarians (and AFAIK, only DJP is arguing
in this camp) believe that 1). there are limited resources to
go around, 2). technology has resulted in the artificial extension
of life past the point of usefulness, 3). if this trend continues
there will be more and more people with a correspondingly
smaller piece of the pie for everyone until all die, Oh the
embarrassment. This much is basically the classic Malthusian
argument. That DJP concludes that we should kill everyone
right now and avoid the Christmas rush is a mere (psychotic)
detail.
The humanitarians, on the other hand, seem to be reacting from
three separate positions: 1). It's wrong to believe that some should
suffer and die so that others can have an improved standard of
life. The greatest good for the greatest number of people
should not be at the cost of suffering on the part of the few
(the classic argument against Bethamite Utilitarianism and John
Stuart Mill) 2). I have no desire to die myself, so I refuse
to support any system or belief that would take away my choice
to live or die, 3). Polewka has #@($ for brains, so anything
that comes out of the hole in the front of his face must be
crap.
If it were true that there are a fixed amount of resources
and a growing number of people, then there would inevitably
be less and less for each person. No amount of arguing
would change that fact, starting from those assumptions.
None of the humanitarians have addressed this issue, and they
have instead focused on the fact that DJP's "solution" to
the problem is evil. The argument has basically been:
U: a implies b, c solves b.
H: c is evil.
U: yes, but c solves b. Tell me something else that solves b.
H: only a deranged mind would even consider c. Besides,
you have a vested interest in believing that c solves b.
U: yes, but c solves b and you haven't told me anything else
that solves b.
<lather, rinse, repeat>
Here's a direct answer to the utilitarian argument: I choose
to believe that A is untrue. Therefore, B does not follow.
Therefore, C is not need to solve B. In English, I choose to
believe that there is an _expanding_ pool of resources and
that that pool of resources has expanded and will continue to
expand faster than the number of people that will share those
resources. Ironically, it is the very same technology that
the utilitarians blame for allowing the population to grow
that has allowed and will allow the pool of resources to increase.
Here are some possible alternate solutions: 1). use genetic
engineering to breed or modify people so that they need less
food to live or can consume materials not currenly considered to
be food. 2). move out into space and make use of resources
off planet. 3). make better use of the oceans on Earth. 4).
build CHON food factories. 5). educate people so that they
have fewer babies. 6). use even newer technologies that no
one can even think of yet. 7). do all of the above.
DJP might be right that there won't be enough to go around.
Personally, I'm with Edward G. Robinson's character "Sol Roth"
in Soylent Green: if things get to that point, life isn't
worth living. That, in itself, will reduce the population
pressure. So, as with many beliefs, I believe that technology
is the solution not the problem because I wouldn't want to
live in a world where the opposite was true.
|
| |
| |
| ">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
|| > Look sweetie. In my book, anyone who writes "There's plenty of
| > justification for unleashing SARS and new flus" is a wannabe
| > terrorist.
|| It's easy to sit back
Bugger me! You think I'm lazy? It's you who are the lazy blighter,
posting the same crap thrice in the vain hope that neither I, nor
others will notice. Well, this is the third time I've replied. Each
time expanding on a different aspect of your failure to understand,
and your failure to communicate your ideas clearly.
| <...>
| whereas I rejected all the half-baked political positions,
| and just looked and looked at as much of reality as I could,
| for years and years, deriving the correct position therefrom,
Bitch!
I'm sure you believe it to be correct. Unfortunately, your thought
processes do not allow you to process information apropriately in
order to arrive at a sound conclusion. Some would call it insanity.
I'll just call it bigotry.
--
)>==froZEN(> Parr
|
| |
| |
"Marc Goodman" wrote:
I hereby invoke Godwin's law. This thread
is officially closed.
It's a dreadful shame that the thread is closed, since we've made so much
conversational progress. This is, I believe, the first time I've ever been
compared to Hitler. I should have suspected it was coming, seeing as how I
defended the right of people to choose their own destiny. Curse ME!!!!
welby - "the right-to-choose nazi"
|
| |
| |
| David Polewka wrote:
| > ">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
| >>"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
|| Since it's clear this discussion refuses to fade away gracefully,
<...>
|| I'll arbitrarily divide everyone into "humanitarians" and
| "utilitarians." The utilitarians (and AFAIK, only DJP is arguing
| in this camp) <...>
|Clearly I have not come across clearly, but more as a raving lunatic
in the true traditions of t.b.
I am too a utilitarian of the Darwinian persuasion. But allowing
disease to spread across the world unchecked will only cost in the
long run. Mankind will built up resistance to the bugs and then
again grow to countless billions.
Time after time, new bugs will evolve and the human petri dish will
fur over. Each time there will be survivors, until one day, due to
the massive population which has accumulated to gainsay the confident
predictions of DP, several different new disease variants will spring
up and between them gain, for viri and bacteria, the ascendancy which
they will have so long been denied.
All die! O the embarrassment!
--
)>==soothSAYER(> Parr
|
| |
| |
"Kent Paul Doltan" <flounder@flounder.com> wrote:
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
Umm, it's only "merciful" if your victim agrees and actively
cooperates, David. Otherwise it's called "murder".
If you allow people to drink, deaths will certainly result.
Therefore, allowing people to drink makes you a murderer.
If you don't allow people to drink, deaths will result from
the black market trade. Therefore, not allowing people
to drink makes you a murderer.
If you allow people to drive, deaths will certainly result.
Therefore, allowing people to drive makes you a murderer.
If you don't allow people to drive, deaths will result from
people unable to get to work. Therefore, not allowing people
to drive makes you a murderer.
If you allow people to go to war, deaths will certainly result.
Therefore, allowing people to go to war makes you a murderer.
If you don't allow people to go to war, deaths will result from
people unable to defend themselves. Therefore, not allowing people
to go to war makes you a murderer.
Doltan's Law #1: "No matter what you do, you're a murderer."
In Texas, "he needed killing" is often a sufficient defense
against a charge of homocide. I recommend you avoid the
whole state of Texas, for starters, your reputation may
precede you there, and a hail of gunfire greet you at the
border. Sometimes bullets _are_ ballots, and I wouldn't
expect you to win such a vote.
If you allow people to own guns, deaths will certainly result.
Therefore, allowing people to own guns makes you a murderer.
If you don't allow people to own guns, deaths will result from
people unable to get to defend themselves. Therefore, not allowing people
to own guns makes you a murderer.
Doltan's Law #1: "No matter what you do, you're a murderer."
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
Marc Goodman <marc.goodman@comcast.net> wrote:
David Polewka wrote:
| >| There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
| >| You would rather procrastinate than look at it.
[...] I choose to believe that there is an _expanding_ pool of resources
and that that pool of resources has expanded and will continue to
expand faster than the number of people that will share those resources.
Yes, it's expanding, and it's becoming more concentrated in the
rich, as more money goes to buy expensive drugs for worn-out bodies,
because people trying to play God won't let Nature operate as
designed, pushing more of the middle class down the ladder.
Maybe the doctors should be required to kick some of the kickbacks
they get from drug companies back to the patients.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
Marc Goodman <marc.goodman@comcast.net> wrote:
David Polewka wrote:
| >| There's plenty of justification for unleashing SARS and new flus.
I'll arbitrarily divide everyone into "humanitarians" and
"utilitarians." The utilitarians (and AFAIK, only DJP is arguing
in this camp) believe that 1). there are limited resources to
go around,
Atlanta has put a moratorium on new road building. Why?
Wetlands along the Louisiana coast are disappearing rapidly. Why?
Salt water is encroaching aquifers in Florida. Why?
2). technology has resulted in the artificial extension
of life past the point of usefulness,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22after+a+long+illness%22
Searched the web for "after a long illness". Results 1 - 100 of about 59,400. Search took 0.62 seconds
3). if this trend continues
there will be more and more people with a correspondingly
smaller piece of the pie for everyone until all die,
No, if this trend continues, the gap between rich and poor will widen.
The humanitarians, on the other hand, seem to be reacting from
three separate positions: 1). It's wrong to believe that some should
suffer and die so that others can have an improved standard of
life. The greatest good for the greatest number of people
should not be at the cost of suffering on the part of the few
(the classic argument against Bethamite Utilitarianism and John
Stuart Mill)
We send our troops off to fight and die, so that others may live.
2). I have no desire to die myself, so I refuse
to support any system or belief that would take away my choice
to live or die,
How many years of life are you entitled to? How many do you deserve?
When are you going to die?
3). Polewka has #@($ for brains, so anything that comes out of the
hole in the front of his face must be crap.
Doltan's Law #2: "If you can't say something nice, say something
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
"Marc Goodman" <marc.goodman@comcast.net> wrote in message
|| I'll arbitrarily divide everyone into "humanitarians" and
| "utilitarians." The utilitarians (and AFAIK, only DJP is arguing
| in this camp) <...>
|Clearly I have not come across clearly, but more as a raving lunatic
in the true traditions of t.b.
I am too a utilitarian of the Darwinian persuasion. But allowing
disease to spread across the world unchecked will only cost in the
long run. Mankind will built up resistance to the bugs and then
again grow to countless billions.
Would you like to perform an experiment to verify that, or are
just supposed to take your word for it? As I recall, the Renaissance
followed on the heels of the Black Death.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
| ">parr\(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote:
|| >I am too a utilitarian of the Darwinian persuasion. But allowing
| >disease to spread across the world unchecked will only cost in the
| >long run. Mankind will built up resistance to the bugs and then
| >again grow to countless billions.
|| Would you like to perform an experiment to verify that, or are
| just supposed to take your word for it?
Stupid, stupid question. The experiment has already been performed;
many, many times. You and I are outcomes of the experiment.
Sure, it's just like Doltan's Law #1....no matter what we do, the result is the same.
| As I recall, the Renaissance followed on the heels of the Black Death.
|To reply in coinage which you may, or may not, value.
The Great Fire of London followed on the heels of The Great Plague.
The Inquisition followed on the heels of the open beliefs of 12th century Europe.
Mumps followed on the heels of white invaders of Hawaii.
Bush followed on the heels of Clinton.
http://artzia.com/History/BlackDeath/
Evolution
It is not entirely clear where the major epidemic of the 14th century started, but it was probably somewhere around the
northern parts of India. It then spread west to the Middle East. The plague was imported to Europe by the way of the Crimea,
where the Genoese colony Kaffa (Feodosiya) was besieged by the Mongols. History says that the Mongols catapulted infected
cadavers into the city. The refugees from Kaffa then took the plague along to Messina, Genoa and Venice, around the turn of
1347/1348. Some ships didn't have anyone alive when they reached their port. From Italy the disease spread clockwise around
Europe, hitting France, Spain, England (in June 1348) and Britain, Germany, Scandinavia and finally north-western Russia
around 1351.
Consequences
The information about the death toll varies widely from source to source, but it is estimated that about a third of the
population of Europe died from the outbreak in the mid-1300s. Approximately 25 million deaths occurred in Europe alone with
many others occurring in Africa and Asia. Some villages were deserted with the few survivors fleeing and spreading the
disease further.
The great population loss brought economic changes based on increased social mobility as depopulation eroded peasant
obligations (already weakened) to remain on their traditional holdings. The sudden scarcity of cheap labor provided an
incentive for innovation that broke the stagnation of the Dark Ages and, some argue, CAUSED THE RENAISSANCE [my caps],
despite the Renaissance occurring in some areas (such as Italy) before others . Because of the depopulation, though, the
surviving Europeans became the biggest consumers of meat for a civilization before industrial agriculture.
The popular legend that the Black Death inspired one of the most enduring nursery rhymes in the English language, Ring around
a rosie, a pocket full of posies, / Ashes, ashes, we all fall down. (or a-tishoo, a-tishoo, we all fall down) turns out on
closer examination to be false. However it did lead to the displacement of French with English.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
|
| |
| |
Marc Goodman <marc.goodman@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<XZPQb.118473$nt4.490298@attbi_s51>...
David Polewka wrote:
Since it's clear this discussion refuses to fade away gracefully,
and instead persists on lingering past its prime of life and
usefulness (ironically, much like DJP would have us believe our old
folks do), here's why I think both sides are full of crap :)
I'll arbitrarily divide everyone into "humanitarians" and
"utilitarians." The utilitarians (and AFAIK, only DJP is arguing
in this camp) believe that 1). there are limited resources to
go around, 2). technology has resulted in the artificial extension
of life past the point of usefulness, 3). if this trend continues
there will be more and more people with a correspondingly
smaller piece of the pie for everyone until all die, Oh the
embarrassment. This much is basically the classic Malthusian
argument. That DJP concludes that we should kill everyone
right now and avoid the Christmas rush is a mere (psychotic)
detail.
The humanitarians, on the other hand, seem to be reacting from
three separate positions: 1). It's wrong to believe that some should
suffer and die so that others can have an improved standard of
life. The greatest good for the greatest number of people
should not be at the cost of suffering on the part of the few
(the classic argument against Bethamite Utilitarianism and John
Stuart Mill) 2). I have no desire to die myself, so I refuse
to support any system or belief that would take away my choice
to live or die, 3). Polewka has #@($ for brains, so anything
that comes out of the hole in the front of his face must be
crap.
If it were true that there are a fixed amount of resources
and a growing number of people, then there would inevitably
be less and less for each person. No amount of arguing
would change that fact, starting from those assumptions.
None of the humanitarians have addressed this issue, and they
have instead focused on the fact that DJP's "solution" to
the problem is evil. The argument has basically been:
U: a implies b, c solves b.
H: c is evil.
U: yes, but c solves b. Tell me something else that solves b.
H: only a deranged mind would even consider c. Besides,
you have a vested interest in believing that c solves b.
U: yes, but c solves b and you haven't told me anything else
that solves b.
<lather, rinse, repeat>
Here's a direct answer to the utilitarian argument: I choose
to believe that A is untrue. Therefore, B does not follow.
Therefore, C is not need to solve B. In English, I choose to
believe that there is an _expanding_ pool of resources and
that that pool of resources has expanded and will continue to
expand faster than the number of people that will share those
resources. Ironically, it is the very same technology that
the utilitarians blame for allowing the population to grow
that has allowed and will allow the pool of resources to increase.
Here are some possible alternate solutions: 1). use genetic
engineering to breed or modify people so that they need less
food to live or can consume materials not currenly considered to
be food. 2). move out into space and make use of resources
off planet. 3). make better use of the oceans on Earth. 4).
build CHON food factories. 5). educate people so that they
have fewer babies. 6). use even newer technologies that no
one can even think of yet. 7). do all of the above.
DJP might be right that there won't be enough to go around.
Personally, I'm with Edward G. Robinson's character "Sol Roth"
in Soylent Green: if things get to that point, life isn't
worth living. That, in itself, will reduce the population
pressure. So, as with many beliefs, I believe that technology
is the solution not the problem because I wouldn't want to
live in a world where the opposite was true.
If you can do #5, then what is the point of any of the others?
In fact, if you can genetically engineer people to eat silica or
something like that (#1), you can simply engineer them to have a
population-density-dependent fertility which will stabilize the
population at some level.
While you've done a good job of describing the debate, you haven't
offered a coherent alternative. The parts of your answer that involve
continuously increasing resources are unrealistic, and they don't
answer the question of why it would be worth doing even if you could.
So you don't have to deal with the problem? That puts you clearly in
the camp of the humanitarians.
-tg
|
| |
| |
tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) wrote:
Marc Goodman <marc.goodman@comcast.net> wrote:
If you can do #5, then what is the point of any of the others?
In fact, if you can genetically engineer people to eat silica or
something like that (#1), you can simply engineer them to have a
population-density-dependent fertility which will stabilize the
population at some level.
While you've done a good job of describing the debate, you haven't
offered a coherent alternative. The parts of your answer that involve
continuously increasing resources are unrealistic, and they don't
answer the question of why it would be worth doing even if you could.
So you don't have to deal with the problem? That puts you clearly in
the camp of the humanitarians.
You mean "the procrastinators," aka "the lazyass, chicken#@($ windbags."
--
|
| |
| |
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) wrote in message news:<44133c84.0401300025.689cdd75@posting.google.com>...
tgdenning@earthlink.net (tg) wrote:
You mean "the procrastinators," aka "the lazyass, chicken#@($ windbags."
--
I think people's typical response to this issue is more related to
problems of identity and self-worth.
If they accept that the world could get along just fine---with all our
modern amenities---if, say, 9 out of 10 people were not here, then
they must deal with the extent of their personal redundancy. I suspect
that even thoughtful people have trouble with this, so they practice
avoidance.
-tg
|
| |
| |
tg wrote:
If you can do #5, then what is the point of any of the others?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was being obscure.
The point was that there are a number of alternatives
for expanding the resource base in a way that exceeds expansion
of the population.
In fact, if you can genetically engineer people to eat silica or
something like that (#1), you can simply engineer them to have a
population-density-dependent fertility which will stabilize the
population at some level.
Or, alternatively, reduce population density by moving out
into space. Or just breed little tiny people that can live
in shoeboxes.
While you've done a good job of describing the debate, you haven't
offered a coherent alternative. The parts of your answer that involve
continuously increasing resources are unrealistic, and they don't
answer the question of why it would be worth doing even if you could.
I'm sorry, I must have been obscure again. If two people are
arguing about whether Zeus could beat Mars at armwrestling,
the correct answer would be, "Zeus and Mars are mythical
constructs, this argument is based on false premises." You seem
to be disappointed that I'm not arguing about the size of
Zeus' biceps.
This argument is based on the false premise that population
is expanding faster than resources due to the medical treatment
of disease and the artificial extension of life. As for it
being unrealistic that resources can expand continuously, I
agree. Eventually, the universe will be filled with little tiny
Von Neumann machines, and at that point resources will run out.
But, I'm prepared to table this discussion until then.
So you don't have to deal with the problem? That puts you clearly in
the camp of the humanitarians.
I don't believe there is a problem in the first place, and
you have failed to offer any concrete proof that medical treatment
of disease and extension of life is causing the population to
grow faster than resources are expanding, or that the second
derivative is such that population growth will eventually
catch resource growth and surpass it.
In fact, the only concrete argument of any form that you've
offered is:
I think people's typical response to this issue is more related to
problems of identity and self-worth.
If they accept that the world could get along just fine---with all our
modern amenities---if, say, 9 out of 10 people were not here, then
they must deal with the extent of their personal redundancy. I suspect
that even thoughtful people have trouble with this, so they practice
avoidance.
For those of you keeping score at home, this is known as an
"ad hominem" attack. I think those are fun as well. Here's one:
You view yourself as an independent, clear-thinking rationalist
who is not afraid to make the "hard" decisions even if they are
unpopular. You never cease to be shocked and amazed at just
how sheep-like most people are, and how they let themselves be
led by the media, politicians, even the church. You think of
yourself as a rebel, a lone-wolf, the dark mysterious intellect
who is unfathomable to the | | |
