An Argument to Legalize Murder

[Kelly Jones]

My intuition tells me that oxygen would need to be a vital component in any evolution of consciousness. This is true because multi-cellular organisms need a high quantity of oxygen to carry out their metabolic functions, and to evolve a brain requires an enormous amount of cellular work due the constant energy required, not to mention, you need an organism that can self-regulate its own body temperature, which requires even more metabolic energy. Oxygen is also vital for multi-cellular organisms because it binds to H+ ions, which is the result of cellular reactions, causing them to be less destructive to the cell as a whole.

It seems to me that with higher complexity, comes the need for oxygen due to the mechanics of how cells make their own energy. Studying the steps of ATP synthesis illustrates this necessity well. Moreover, I bet that if consciousness evolved on other planets, it must have evolved from other aerobic multi-cellular organisms. I could be wrong, but my intuition says no.

The only way I would be wrong is if Nature has totally different ways to evolve cells/life in different environments, but from what I know of chemistry, physics and biology, it seems to suggest that nature needs specific circumstances to perform complicated outcomes.

This is only mildly interesting to me. It's hardly my "biggest concern". For instance, I have a vision of entire remote galaxies of wonderfully conscious beings, fascinatedly studying the science of evolution, generation after generation after generation ad infinitum. It's the very image of a cat chasing its tail. I mean, talk about a waste of brain cells.

.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kelly,

This is only mildly interesting to me. It's hardly my "biggest concern". For instance, I have a vision of entire remote galaxies of wonderfully conscious beings, fascinatedly studying the science of evolution, generation after generation after generation ad infinitum. It's the very image of a cat chasing its tail. I mean, talk about a waste of brain cells.

What interests me are questions like - Can a cell evolve differently in a system with missing elements, new elements, compared to earth and so on? Or can a higher order brain evolve from another animals such as reptiles? and how would the psychology differ between a reptile-based brain and a mammal-based brain? On other planets, you may have a myriad of ancestral capacities, meaning the psychology of each child species may have slightly different psychological expressions. who knows...

But there are more pressing issues. However, sometimes thinking in a direction that you first thought was boring and irrelevant can lead to a novel theory or idea that proves to be invaluable.

[Tomas]

Double post.

[Tomas]

.


Anders, read this >> Ex-convict kills 80-year-old pen pal, encased body in cement and lived off the victim's savings and credit cards. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/18/261699 ... n-pal.html

Boy Scouts accused of hiding pedophiles. The case centers on a Portland man who confessed to Scout leaders that he had molested 17 Scouts but was allowed to continue joining boys in Scouting affairs. See photo of pervert >> http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ss ... ith_b.html


-Anders Schlander-
Convicted people in prisons is also likely to have people around them,

-tomas-
Yes, their roommate is a convicted killer.


-Anders-
wouldn't it be terribly wrong to say that killing them doesn't mean murder & murdered, to somebody,

-tomas-
When their appeals via the criminal justice system is up, they are put to death.


-Anders-
and thus, is just as much a crime as the first was?

-tomas-
So, under your system of justice, you just sit around and ponder endlessly?


-Anders-
Society brings people up to be so damaged that they end up killing people,

-tomas-
"Society" is your blame-the-other-guy?


-Anders-
and then the very same society kills them instead of taking responsibility.

-tomas-
Would you have the killer sharing your bedroom for the rest of your life?


-Anders-
Like beating and giving a dog mental traumas,

-tomas-
Leave your pit bull songs for the choir.


-Anders-
then followingly euthanising the dog because it bites a family member.

-tomas-
How about I cut your nose off?

.

[Tomas]

I selected the age of 27 because the human brain does not finish developing until the age of 25, but I'm arbitrarily adding 2 years to allow for slower developing brains. Murder should be strongly weighed with a clear and developed mind before completed, and underdeveloped brains may more quickly jump to the murder conclusion. Adults with less than rational minds could also jump to the murder conclusion too quickly, but such adults would soon be culled from the population. A youth with a developing mind would have more of a chance of erring due to underdevelopment rather than due to a permanent fault in development, and I want to give children a chance to develop before subjecting themselves to fatal retaliation. Children can not consider consequences as completely as an adult mind can.

Much like the present form of Obama's health bill .. cover "children" in their parents' insurance coverage. But then, those sniveling crybabies really don't know much else than Big Brotherisms. (I'm referring to the parents, not the diapered kids). Keep poppin' those antidepressants kiddos .. it's "morning in america".

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Overpopulation is only a major problem because of the crude way that we creating energy, and the chemical byproducts resulting.

With better technology comes less environmental destruction.

You are looking only at the physical aspect here.

when nanotechnology makes humans able to create any product from essentially garbage, accumulating wealth will suddenly become pointless.

Yes, that is correct (though I'd substitute "if" for "when"). Here is where the non-physical aspect comes into play. We need people of a certain mental capacity and mindset in order to make such advances in nanotechnology. "Evil" people are so destructive to good mindsets that they set back those who could otherwise accomplish such things.

I'll contradict myself to the extent of acknowledging that "evil" can be useful to the strengthening of a mind, but not only not always - but in the pattern of too much evil, destruction of a good mind is increasingly common over the strengthening of one.

Evil will likely always exist - but it must be curtailed. Using more on-the-spot executions for truly unacceptable behavior, murder of those who persist in a pattern of behavior that is destructive to others (even "just" by being chronically mean, selfish, etc.), enlightenment camps to help step up the pace of reducing counterproductive people, and other methods of improving life through conscious influence would leave a result that is far preferable to letting humans continue to behave as their lowest common drives dictate.

If we don't, and we allow natural consequences to deal with our irresponsibilities, we could easily find ourselves in any of the doomsday scenarios found in the movies.

We are the adults now; we make up the rules. There are no inherent rules that we must follow, so the rules and laws are what we make them to be. We should use reason based on reality in order to make the rules and laws work - not just sentiment or optimism.

We could depopulate without killing anyone. Just reduce our consumer-impact, making ourselves tiny people.

Do you think that the American obesity epidemic is because Americans want to be fat? Your "just" is quite simplistic here.

Perhaps if medically supervised weight loss programs (including, if necessary, just locking people up in small rooms and just rolling a weight loss shake under their door every 4 hours until they achieve their right size, and keep them there until their weight stabilizes), and other methods to reduce consumer impact were implemented, it might be possible to make us smaller - physically and impact-wise.

That would be a good idea in addition to reducing the number of evil people.

murdering some people actually prevents more murders , by eliminating harmful people. Then a specific murder could actually be right, even though murder in general is wrong.

Yes, and if you consider that some things are worse than murder - such as killing or seriously wounding a person's spirit (or people's spirits) forcing them to live long physical lives despite an inner death or worse, life-long inner torture, which can spill over and poison many more people - eliminating harmful people is a blessing, not a sin.

Society brings people up to be so damaged that they end up killing people, and then the very same society kills them instead of taking responsibility. Like beating and giving a dog mental traumas, then followingly euthanising the dog because it bites a family member.

True.

Actually, suicide centers might be another good idea. When people are traumatized enough that they are in perpetual and unrelievable torture, rather than just taking matters into their own hands (which often does not turn out for the best) they could go to a center that helps them make sure that all of their loose ends are tied up, that this really is the best decision for them, and if it is, help them die painlessly.

If a handful of humans do survive such harsh period of wipe outs, perhaps it's mostly going to be our best and brightest. Maybe not our best philosophers, but probably our best scientists, technologists, innovators and seers. For those of us who like the idea of humans evolving, the promise of mass wipe outs is almost exciting. It's a cleansing of the gene pool.

Doesn't it seem more likely that the gene pool would be cleansed rather than just reduced if it were consciously cleansed rather than just nearly-randomly reduced?

legalizing murder is hardly the only way to reduce the population.

No, and by itself, it likely wouldn't be sufficient - but it's one step.

the way she keeps bringing up methods of killing people as a solution to some of humanity's problems is very strange, if not disturbing.

Good. One of my intentions was to shake up some comfortable patterns of thought and shake the cobwebs out of some of the longer-standing poster's minds. I'm seeing posts from much of the old crew, so I think that it worked to some extent.

[Cory Duchesne]

If a handful of humans do survive such harsh period of wipe outs, perhaps it's mostly going to be our best and brightest. Maybe not our best philosophers, but probably our best scientists, technologists, innovators and seers. For those of us who like the idea of humans evolving, the promise of mass wipe outs is almost exciting. It's a cleansing of the gene pool.

Doesn't it seem more likely that the gene pool would be cleansed rather than just reduced if it were consciously cleansed rather than just nearly-randomly reduced?

I like your question, but I think it's just slightly flawed, because natural selection is definitely not random. Those best suited for surviving in the new climate are the ones that nature decides are best suited. Nothing random about that, they survive for reasons. However, you could reasonably ask, "can humans do a more efficient job than nature at thinning the herd to produce a higher quality gene pool?"

That's a tough question, as it's highly empirical. It depends on a lot of things.

Nature can throw extremely imaginative challenges at us that require skills that could be difficult to appreciate until it's too late. So, to be metaphorical, nature's imagination exceeds our own, she knows what is required to survive, because she will select those who are fit. No matter how much we prepare, nature is the final judge about what is acceptable and what is not. So we need to be somewhat loose in our criteria about who is fit and who isn't.

And by loose, I don't mean a conservative pro-life philosophy, as I do think that abortion should not even be an issue, we should be promoting that, and I think we should regard voluntary euthanasia with the most liberal attitude as possible. Eugenics and Genetic engineering I think are good too, because we're just taking traits that nature has already decided are good, and we are amplifying them.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I like your question, but I think it's just slightly flawed, because natural selection is definitely not random.

*sigh*

if it were consciously cleansed rather than just nearly-randomly reduced?

There have been some areas of the world hit by earthquakes recently, and large scale poverty played a role in preventing some of these people from creating a truly safe space, no matter how much they may have thought about it. This speaks nothing of the wisdom or potential wisdom of the victims. Disease may weed out people more susceptible to that disease, but disease does not control where (globally) that the initial waves (and therefore the less likely to have vaccines or other preventative measures) hit. Additionally, we both know that I know that nothing is truly random, but everything has a cause - yet that word "random" is convenient for expressing the nature of unconscious "behavior" of non-human nature. Sometimes circumstances outweigh any possible impact of wisdom.

Where trying to out-think non-human nature ("natural disasters") is one aspect of conscious living, my point here was in consciously reducing anti-productive overpopulation. I agree that nature will always contribute to the equation, but my proposal suggests that we should contribute more to the equation.

Personally, the ideal code of human conduct is to always be thinking of as many potential catastrophe's as possible, and physically preparing underground shelters for as many different scenarios as possible, while establishing life support systems in space.

I don't believe that you mean you're promoting paranoia, but always thinking of the worst case scenario and protecting against it might not be the path to the highest level of human achievement. Although it could be argued that scientific advancements would necessarily occur as a result of solving the next biggest possible problem until all problems are solved, like you suggest in the following quote, I'm also not confident that the "awfulizing" mindset is the most functional for most people.

Well, my point is that even when you have these people who think of nothing but survival in extreme states, you still need more optimistic surface dwellers who do whatever they want, because you never know who is going to come up with something really valuable to future generations. Even a very, very genetically flawed person could inspire some incredibly useful memes that will endure and play a valuable role.

this place is going down the crapper pretty fast it seems. I'd rather us perish in a dystopian future of our own creation, rather than perish doing nothing.

Agreed. There are some people trying to fix this mess, and it seems that the wiser they are and the more they try to do, the quicker they get kicked. That would be the reason that I suggested legalizing murder rather than just turning a blind eye to it - to give the wise a heads up to run for cover. Alas, even as we fight for our last inch of soil to stand on - such a measure would never pass. Society would crumble before that, and lawlessness would be the rule of the land.

Nature will take care of things before it gets that far, though some lawless pockets (like in the aftermath of Katrina) will also happen. Funny to note the similarities and differences in the kinds of lawlessness in the aftermath of Katrina, which happened in America, and in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. These are the harbingers of the great disaster.

[Cory Duchesne]

if it were consciously cleansed rather than just nearly-randomly reduced?

I don't like saying consciously cleansed, because unconscious natural selection, in important ways, sees more than we do. Whereas, a conscious attempt at cleansing is utterly blind to things that nature already has in store.

And I was aware of what you said, and should have quoted you precisely, but my point is natural selection is not even nearly random. It's very un-random. That's why we see such relatively drastic accelerations in evolution. You know, punctuated equilibrium. Catastrophes and climate swings put a lot of pressure on populations and orderly, reasoned changes happen relatively quickly.

When we look at humanity, higher quality gene pools are going to create richer economies who will be more liable to survive catastrophe, and so while there is going to be unjust randomness, overall, it is not a nearly random process. And any extra randomness that swallows up advantageous genes will be contrasted, not only with a surplus of similar genes to the ones lost, but the benefit of allowing nature to select. And I explained what that benefit is: nature has a perspective man always lacks, and she ultimately knows exactly what is needed to survive and improve. No one else does for certain. Of course, we should also take the best guesses we can and prepare ourselves the best we can, as it's also true to say that man too has a perspective that nature lacks. The point here is to know what we don't know and give nature enough room to do her thing, or else we specialize ourselves into doom.

Where trying to out-think non-human nature ("natural disasters") is one aspect of conscious living, my point here was in consciously reducing anti-productive overpopulation.

I think legalizing murder for the sake of political assassination, aside from being relatively impossible, will do nothing but make the population frightened, with the occasional amplification of avarice, and having everyone scared and aggressive all the time will completely degrade the overall intellectual performance of the population, leaving excess paranoia, hysteria, arms racing, and new organizations paid to protect peoples interest.

The average Joe doesn't like the idea he could be gunned down because his competitor wants a monopoly. New organizations that represent new laws will replace the old in no time. And in the end, everything will be even worse than it was before the murders.

One of Humanity's key problems is that it behaves like it has mild PTSD, and legalizing murder will only amplify this characteristic. The challenge here is to find a way to calm people down and get them thinking clearly, something people generally have much difficulty with.

I agree that nature will always contribute to the equation, but my proposal suggests that we should contribute more to the equation.

Sure, how about we start by promoting something simple like abortion and voluntary euthanasia? You do realize the contradiction you are in, Ms. Isabelle. You seem to imply the problem is with rulers who aren't open to unconventional laws and policies, yet here you are trying to advocate one of the most unconventional and extreme propositions I've heard in recent time.

Personally, the ideal code of human conduct is to always be thinking of as many potential catastrophe's as possible, and physically preparing underground shelters for as many different scenarios as possible, while establishing life support systems in space.

I don't believe that you mean you're promoting paranoia, but always thinking of the worst case scenario and protecting against it might not be the path to the highest level of human achievement.

It's a valuable job that some people should be doing, much like we have that doomsday seed vault. Someone should be doing it to compliment the optimists who are doing whatever they want.

Although it could be argued that scientific advancements would necessarily occur as a result of solving the next biggest possible problem until all problems are solved, like you suggest in the following quote, I'm also not confident that the "awfulizing" mindset is the most functional for most people.

It's perfectly natural for some people, judging by the the number of people I've found who have made fallout shelters, and the funded seed vaults. That kind of stuff comes natural to some. They are relatively more paranoid than the rest. A mostly healthy and reasoned paranoia, I think.

Well, my point is that even when you have these people who think of nothing but survival in extreme states, you still need more optimistic surface dwellers who do whatever they want, because you never know who is going to come up with something really valuable to future generations. Even a very, very genetically flawed person could inspire some incredibly useful memes that will endure and play a valuable role.

this place is going down the crapper pretty fast it seems. I'd rather us perish in a dystopian future of our own creation, rather than perish doing nothing.

Agreed. There are some people trying to fix this mess, and it seems that the wiser they are and the more they try to do, the quicker they get kicked. That would be the reason that I suggested legalizing murder rather than just turning a blind eye to it - to give the wise a heads up to run for cover.

Can you give me an example of some targets you think should be killed, and then explain how that's not going to create a vacuum that's filled by people who are even worse?

Conservatives have been known to carry out assassinations of those representing positive change without violent provocation. Imagine if you start dinging people off who belong to the conservative base - how do you think conservatives will react? They already have an inclination toward violence to begin with. They are arguably better at it. The application of your idea, or even the threat of it's implementation, will bring nothing but the amplification of the current stupidity and social chaos.

Not to mention, and as I already said, unconventional laws are hard if not impossible to pass. If people aren't going to legalize abortion and voluntary euthanasia, they obviously aren't going to allow legalization of murder.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth,

Cory is right. Genetic Engineering is a slower, more gentle way to filter out undesirable traits, and it will happen without a lot of disruption to the order within society, which is good for intellectuals. And genetic engineering will not sweep the globe, leaving a variety and diversity of gene expressions. He makes a decent point when he suggests that we shouldn't be trying to murder out the undesirables because many of them may have necessary skills and behaviors that are needed to keep the society functioning at this point in time. Think of all the labour jobs that intellectuals are incapable of doing. A society of intellectuals could only survive in a highly automated society, where 'brain power' and basic mechanical motion is all that is required.

This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. You haven't honestly considered all the ramifications of adopting this policy, and therefore, failed to realize that the idea is in fact a tad insane. Its messy, crude, and even though the end result is humane, how you get there is inhumane. The species is not that important to resort to such drastic violent action. Remember, this planet is a spec of nothing. We might as well keep our sanity and our values even if the species extinguishes itself, and the earth goes down the crapper. Why should we care so much to resort to barbarity? I think it takes more courage to calmly go down with the ship, rather then trying to push off other sailors in one last effort to keep it afloat.

[Cory Duchesne]

Its messy, crude, and even though the end result is humane, how you get there is inhumane.

It's pretty debatable what the end result would be. I think you'll find it takes a population that already behaves like it has mild PTSD, and simply makes that condition even worse. Not humane at all.

But I think you might have meant that the intention behind Elizabeths' idea is humane, and yes, it probably is (I can't know for sure her motivations).

But we both know the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

The species is not that important to resort to such drastic violent action. Remember, this planet is a spec of nothing. We might as well keep our sanity and our values even if the species extinguishes itself, and the earth goes down the crapper. Why should we care so much to resort to barbarity? I think it takes more courage to calmly go down with the ship, rather then trying to push off other sailors in one last effort to keep it afloat.

Yes, that's right - not caring one way or the other, despite one's behavior is guided by logical values.

[Tomas]

.

-earlier tomas rant-
1st start with the convicted murderers

-kelly-
Perhaps it would be more ethical for the executioner to be hooked up intravenously to the same
neurotoxin as his client, such that pressing the "murder" button might kill him instead.

-tomas-
Sounds good to me, where do I sign up?


-Kelly-
He has to be willing to kill himself as soon as he is convinced of the rightness of murder.

-tomas-
Okay, we'll shack up at your home and see to it that you die first..


-Kelly-
That would be logical, wouldn't it?

-tomas-
Heck, crazy ideas come and go on Genius Forums.

PS - We'll be at your home about 7pm. What's for dinner?


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

unconscious natural selection, in important ways, sees more than we do.

Agreed.

Whereas, a conscious attempt at cleansing is utterly blind to things that nature already has in store.

That would depend on

a. how enlightened the cleansers are

b. how much participation in overall cleansing by the whole of humanity. Meaning, we are a part of Nature, too. (Again, I refer to The Wisdom of Crowds which illustrates through scientific studies how a large enough crowd of inexperienced, undereducated, under-informed people tends to come up with just as accurate of an answer - or more accurate answer - than a well trained individual).

my point is natural selection is not even nearly random. It's very un-random.

Honestly Cory, I think that we agree on the concept and are just quibbling over the definition of "random." I'm going to let that one go because I think that we agree on the important part - the concept.

I think legalizing murder for the sake of political assassination, aside from being relatively impossible, will do nothing but make the population frightened,

Actually I was thinking of just average people. Political figures, stars, major CEOs, etc. would be so protected by bodyguards and other security forces that anyone even looking suspicious in their general vicinity basically just committed suicide.

The average Joe doesn't like the idea he could be gunned down because his competitor wants a monopoly.

My unprovable supposition is that greedy people would be exactly the kind of targets that people would (and should) go after. We may lose a few Joes up front, but then the heroes would come along and get rid of the greedy people. The bigger companies would be smart enough to not start one of those wars with another big company (just like larger countries have evolved out of going to war with each other), and they would probably be wise enough to not knock of the little guys because even their body guards should turn on them for that. The body guards would not necessarily lose their jobs because the person that takes over the position, if an honest and good person, would want to keep the guards that offed the evil boss.

One of Humanity's key problems is that it behaves like it has mild PTSD, and legalizing murder will only amplify this characteristic. The challenge here is to find a way to calm people down and get them thinking clearly, something people generally have much difficulty with.

I wonder if PTSD might not be an adaptive mechanism. The problem is that it leaves people on high alert status all the time even if there isn't an emergency - but if life in this age actually is one chronic emergency, then it can help people react fast enough or severely enough to actually meet the problem. Furthermore, if we all had PTSD, we would all understand each other a whole lot better.

People can think clearly and most appropriately on chronic high alert if the situation really is that much of an emergency. If people are not on high alert and are calm, but the situation calls for high-alert, the calm people will under-react. If the situation is actually non-alert, the PTSD people will over-react while the calm people will have the most appropriate response.

The core issue is to figure out if we really are in a high-alert situation or not. That is why I cited the videos by the mathematician at the beginning of this thread. Mathematics is not prone to different judgments based on different mindsets. It only responds to numbers. Granted, the highest mathematics requires that all variables be found before they can be accounted for.

how about we start by promoting something simple like abortion and voluntary euthanasia?

Voluntary euthanasia - sure - but I didn't make a thread about that because that is too easy and uncontroversial to support a thread. I'm not sure what you mean by promoting abortion, but legal access to abortion should be protected where forcing abortions would cross the line into damage to the diversity of the gene pool and excessive stress placed on individuals ("excessive" meaning "likely to cause psychological damage").

You do realize the contradiction you are in, Ms. Isabelle. You seem to imply the problem is with rulers who aren't open to unconventional laws and policies, yet here you are trying to advocate one of the most unconventional and extreme propositions I've heard in recent time.

No, I don't realize any contradiction. Actually, it seems consistent to imply that rulers are not open to unconventional ideas and then me (not a ruler) proposes an unconventional idea.

It's a valuable job that some people should be doing, much like we have that doomsday seed vault. Someone should be doing it to compliment the optimists who are doing whatever they want.

Agreed.

It's perfectly natural for some people, judging by the the number of people I've found who have made fallout shelters, and the funded seed vaults. That kind of stuff comes natural to some. They are relatively more paranoid than the rest. A mostly healthy and reasoned paranoia, I think.

Can you give me an example of some targets you think should be killed

No, legally I can not - at least not without probably ending up in legal trouble and sent to a mental institution. I already listed some general characteristics. That has to be sufficient.

and then explain how that's not going to create a vacuum that's filled by people who are even worse?

If someone worse takes its place, that person should be killed, too.

Conservatives have been known to carry out assassinations of those representing positive change without violent provocation. Imagine if you start dinging people off who belong to the conservative base - how do you think conservatives will react? They already have an inclination toward violence to begin with. They are arguably better at it. The application of your idea, or even the threat of it's implementation, will bring nothing but the amplification of the current stupidity and social chaos.

Actually I think that it might even up the odds. Some liberals are so opposed to violence that they would likely just allow themselves to be executed, and that is unfortunate, but I think there would be enough heroes to clean out the obstinate violent types.

Not to mention, and as I already said, unconventional laws are hard if not impossible to pass. If people aren't going to legalize abortion and voluntary euthanasia, they obviously aren't going to allow legalization of murder.

Already agreed - but the Chinese have a one-child law that not only legalizes abortion, but forces it on some - a measure that I considered too harsh. If it can happen in one part of the world, it (or similarly drastic measures) can happen elsewhere.

Genetic Engineering is a slower, more gentle way to filter out undesirable traits, and it will happen without a lot of disruption to the order within society, which is good for intellectuals.

Agreed, but as the videos showed us - we don't have time for a slow, gentle approach anymore.

Think of all the labour jobs that intellectuals are incapable of doing.

Some intellectuals are capable of doing labor jobs, and the smarter someone is, the better they will do any job. Actually, some labor jobs require someone with some intelligence. Years ago, a friend and her boyfriend were going to help me pick air potatoes out of my back yard, but he (not an intellectual) was not able to spot the air potatoes on the ground. He knew which vines were the right ones to pull and got those, but somehow he just couldn't differentiate the air potatoes on the ground from the dirt, roots, and other normal stuff in the yard. It seemed like a mindless job to me, but a mind was actually required to do the work.

An intellectual can treat labor as a meditative exercise, if it is that mindless and the intellectual can multitask, he can think of other things while working, and even then, the more intelligent a person, the less likely accidents will happen.

therefore, failed to realize that the idea is in fact a tad insane.

I made no such failure. I simply recognized the level of insanity of the problem and proposed a matching solution. Sometimes insane problems can be solved by sane solutions - but sometimes we muxt think outside the box.

Remember, this planet is a spec of nothing. We might as well keep our sanity and our values even if the species extinguishes itself, and the earth goes down the crapper. Why should we care so much to resort to barbarity? I think it takes more courage to calmly go down with the ship, rather then trying to push off other sailors in one last effort to keep it afloat.

So you think that we should all just die rather than making judgments about what we value and attempting to preserve that - and you think that my idea is a tad insane?

Yes, that's right - not caring one way or the other, despite one's behavior is guided by logical values.

There is a difference between not caring as in Buddhist non-attachment and not giving a rat's ass about humanity and letting it all go to hell. The latter is not behavior guided by logical values.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth,

Agreed, but as the videos showed us - we don't have time for a slow, gentle approach anymore.

That's debatable. No one knows how much abuse the planet can take, and how much it can regenerate. You know, there is also the possibility that much of this activity is caused by instability within the sun, or that a hot house period is inevitable anyway. If so, humans are just a minor catalyst in the heating of the earth. If this view is correct, who cares. The earth is hostile and nasty, so all these violent ideas would only increase the disorder with no positive outcome.

So you think that we should all just die rather than making judgments about what we value and attempting to preserve that - and you think that my idea is a tad insane?

Then put your idea into practice and start killing people, and you will soon realize how insane your idea is. Btw, do you think you are the first one to come up with the idea to kill off a large amount of the population to solve all the world's problems? Study the cause of world war II, and every major genocide. Man's hatred of his fellow man is very common, and these types of fantasies are not novel, they are actually very ordinary and common. They are common to the stream of unconsciousness of humanity.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

No one knows how much abuse the planet can take, and how much it can regenerate.

Where it's true that we don't know exactly where the line is, the cost of crossing that line is, at present, irrevocable.

You know, there is also the possibility that much of this activity is caused by instability within the sun, or that a hot house period is inevitable anyway. If so, humans are just a minor catalyst in the heating of the earth.

This isn't just about global warming. I'm talking about overall resources. At present, we don't have the capacity to farm in space or over the ocean on short notice, at least not enough to feed vast quantities of people, and there is a finite quantity of living space. Cory was right that it would be better to that end if we crowd people together as much as possible for living space, but crowded living conditions have proven to increase violent behavior.

Then put your idea into practice and start killing people, and you will soon realize how insane your idea is.

The idea was to make it legal to start killing people. I do not have the authority to make such a law. If I were to start killing people while it's illegal to do so, all I'd prove is that doing illegal activities does not tend to work out so well (actually, that has already been proven by others).

Btw, do you think you are the first one to come up with the idea to kill off a large amount of the population to solve all the world's problems?

Nope, but I thought I could get a thoughtful debate out of GFers on the topic. Looks like I just found the first person to become overcome with emotionality about the topic.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Can you give me an example of some targets you think should be killed


No, legally I can not - at least not without probably ending up in legal trouble and sent to a mental institution. I already listed some general characteristics. That has to be sufficient.

Now I can. Just a few days ago, a lady who worked in a local grocery store [sorry I have to cite offline sources, but I'm sure you can find some articles by googling "Publix" (the grocery store) and "Arunya Rouch" (the shooter)] who worked there for 5 years, was a trainer and in charge of the seafood department, and was teased and bullied at work relentlessly, shot one of the bullies who worked in the meat department. She'd tried to get a transfer but was denied, and people just kept picking on her. It seems that she was demanding of those she was training, and he was even considered by his friends to be a redneck. The final straw was that he said that he was going to tell on her for working off the clock, which is against Publix rules (what could she have been doing? Did a customer ask her a question and she answered? Did she straighten up something that knocked over on her way out? I doubt she decided to ring out a line of customers after she clocked out or something like that...). Tattling on her is, granted, a little thing and maybe not deserving of being killed on its own, but anyone who has been mentally attacked by bullies on an ongoing basis over a period of time can understand how any one little thing after a whole pile of little things can be too much. People are crushed by avalanches even though avalanches are only made up of tiny little snowflakes.

That man's children have now learned that if you pick on someone too much, they just might eventually shoot you. I think that those kids might think twice about picking on other children.

What I say here is - good shot Arunya.



edit to add the following link: link

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth,

Nope, but I thought I could get a thoughtful debate out of GFers on the topic. Looks like I just found the first person to become overcome with emotionality about the topic.

its not emotionality, I'm merely pointing out that you're entire argument is rooted in hypothetical circumstances, the acceptance of violence in order to get a result that you cannot guarantee, which is insane, plus you're trying to predict the future with certainty. Everything about your argument screams bad thinking and giving into feeling emotionally overwhelmed to the point where you feel violence needs to be resorted to. Typically, violence is the refuge of the confused.

If the earth cannot sustain our population, it will decrease. No need to go on a slaughtering spree. Plus, I suspect that nanotechnology will make us able to create existing and new elements at will from other elements. When our technology is advanced enough, we will be able to make metals and other necessary gases like lego blocks, so chill out.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sorry for the truly extensive delay. As I mentioned, I did not have internet access at the time - and I suppose I must have forgotten about this thread until a similar thread opened on another board.

If the earth cannot sustain our population, it will decrease. No need to go on a slaughtering spree.

True, if Earth can not sustain our population the population will decrease - but who will it decrease by? How many? All of us perhaps. Or perhaps only a single tribe of people living in a jungle somewhere who have never learned about math or shown an interest in space travel (and therefore unlikely to save humanity by migrating into space colonies or to another planet by the time Sol reaches the end of its life cycle and kills humanity left on Earth).

No Ryan, there is no need to go on a slaughtering spree. We can all just sit back and get slaughtered by Nature. Don't bother to turn that wheel - just let the speeding car go off the cliff, so to speak.

[Jamesh]

Me: [It would take a revolution to take power out of the hands of the wealthy, but the above is something at least 80% of the worlds population would support, therefore it is possible]

Nice to see I was on the right track as we now have the Occupy Movement (not that it is likely to be successful, still it is a start, so who knows).

Also nice to see that foundation of the Occupy movement has an Australian link.
http://www.politicsofwellbeing.com/2011 ... rs-on.html

So both Assange and this fellow both spent their formative years in Australia. Sadly, I can't really see the current generation of Aussies having the same rebellious streaks in 20 or 30 years time - capitalists are killing the sense of a fair go. Come back home fellows and take on the current set of conservative, economic liberalism pollies!

Yes, I know this post is childishly egotistical:)

[eyekwah]

The solution presents itself. Just produce a product with the words "DO NOT USE.. WILL KILL YOU!" in bold letters and then market it across the world. Oh wait, it already exists..

Will write more later, but I agree entirely with what Ryan said. There must be a better solution to overpopulation.