GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Neil, if you decided to dedicate your entire life into farming to ensure the survival of your community, but you woke up to discover that an entire season’s work had been stolen from you in one night, and that your community was probably going to starve as a result, how would that make you feel?

A failure.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Do you think the species could survive if everybody behaved like that?

Yes. The stronger ones who successful stole my whole season would survive and us who failed would starve to death.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Do you understand why guys like you have been systematically eliminated from the genepool by larger communities?

Because guys like me make guys like you nervous?

Neil,

Because guys like me make guys like you nervous?

No, because guys like me think guys like you are dingleberrys - and what do you do with a dingleberry when its itching at your anus? you grab a piece of toilet paper, capture it, and flush the bastard.

you just can’t steal people’s food that they worked hard to grow themselves, its immoral. And it makes society less secure, efficient and productive.

Yes. The stronger ones who successful stole my whole season would survive and us who failed would starve to death.

But its not survival of the strongest, its survival of the weakest. The genepool would get weaker because we would only have a society of psychopaths. And eventually all the psychopaths would starve to death because how can you steal from another psychopath who has nothing, and is trying to steal from you too?

Society can only function with a small number of psychopaths because they are dingleberries by nature.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:you just can’t steal people’s food that they worked hard to grow themselves, its immoral.

Thank you for getting right to the point of your argument. "It makes me feel emotionally icky when someone steals from others! It's immoral and therefore thou shalt not!"

Ryan Rudolph wrote:And it makes society less secure, efficient and productive.

Good. We are overpopulated, so lowering security is a good thing. We are already near maximum efficiency and the rest of planet earth is paying the price for it, we can cut way down on the industrialization and perhaps not destroy our planet. :thumbsup:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:But its not survival of the strongest, its survival of the weakest. The genepool would get weaker because we would only have a society of psychopaths. And eventually all the psychopaths would starve to death because how can you steal from another psychopath who has nothing, and is trying to steal from you too?

Ridiculous argument that isn't worth the time to address.

Neil,

Good. We are overpopulated, so lowering security is a good thing. We are already near maximum efficiency and the rest of planet earth is paying the price for it, we can cut way down on the industrialization and perhaps not destroy our planet. :thumbsup

That sounds like a moral argument to me, stop being so icky Neil, you hypocrite. You can’t deny my moral arguments, while using your own. Do you see the inconsistencies in your thinking?

Interesting. it seems Neil is perfectly happy to accept mushy emotive arguments in favor of protecting the Earth, while contemptuously rejecting, as far too mushy and emotive, the far less mushy and emotive arguments in favor of protecting people.

My experience of psychopaths is that they are not prototypical, at least, not to the common stereotype. While the common stereotype is that they are highly intelligent and do not suffer for their actions, this is mostly bunkum. They are mostly throwbacks, neanderthal-minded, self-possessed types, sometimes with a modern wit.

They are hateful and destructive, because they are sub-average reasoners. They use force and guile, which are cheap tactics, due to their lack of ability elsewhere. They try to avoid suffering by employing illogical justifications and suppression. The illogic destroys their mind similarly to their drug taking. Since suppression also reduces consciousness, their life is very small.

They can't handle delayed gratification, desires rule their mind, so they look for what is immediate. Not sowing seeds for their future, they rarely gain the material rewards they so desperately desire. They focus in on individuals, buttering them up sometimes, playing on the feminine 'poor me' to get rewards from people's good natures, then move on to the next. No enduring friendships. They tend to burn out.

They think they are smarter than average because they spend a lot of time working out how to prey on people and sometimes succeed, whereas most other's are used to being mostly co-operative and are not familiar with the psychopath's tactics. It's like a drag racer beating you off at the lights when you weren't even in a race, or sometimes even if you were aware of it you didn't care about winning. Yes, often the psychopath is rewarded out of pity. If only people knew how much damage is done by feeding the psychopath.

I'm not a psychopath, I'm a reasoner who rejects morality and hence falls into the psychopath definition, not having empathy or a conscience, both of which stem from morality.

Neil wrote:

I'm not a psychopath, I'm a reasoner who rejects morality and hence falls into the psychopath definition, not having empathy or a conscience, both of which stem from morality.

But you take moral stances when it suites you, As Victor stated, I find it quite odd that you believe the protection of the earth is more important than the well-being of the individual, do you realize that it is only individuals who are free from ego induced suffering that are able to appreciate the planet? Do you realize that the earth is just a mental picture and nothing more? Do you realize that the earth has no concrete existence in the absence of minds?

It is the only the mind that can create a mental image of the earth in the first place. So why do you support a philosophy that rejects the healthy maturity of that mind through wisdom, through absolute morality?

You see if I'm addicted to drugs, bad food, women, working a job I hate, and my mind is a total mess, I never even look up at the skies, I never actually see anything... So for that guy, there is no earth, there is only drudgery and suffering, so any sane philosopher would want to see more individuals step out of that self-induced cycle of suffering, thus becoming more conscious of the earth, and more protective of the earth...

And it is usually only a minimalist philosopher that is truly respectful of the earth because he respects his own body. Generally, a man that cannot even respect his own body will not care very much about the protection of the earth.

So these things are all tied together... The wellbeing of the individual and the wellbeing of the planet, and morality is necessary to achieve this end...

You fall under the definition of a psychopath, but you are not a psychopath?

You humans... fascinating.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:But you take moral stances when it suites you,

Please define "moral stance". Is any stance not a moral stance? When I talk about morality I usually am talking about the Christian morality.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:As Victor stated, I find it quite odd that you believe the protection of the earth is more important than the well-being of the individual, do you realize that it is only individuals who are free from ego induced suffering that are able to appreciate the planet?

Not if there is no planet, in which case there would be no individuals either, neither myself or my children.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Do you realize that the earth is just a mental picture and nothing more? Do you realize that the earth has no concrete existence in the absence of minds?

The earth is my home. Without it I would presumably not exist. Whether it has "concrete existence" I know not, since I don't know what "concrete existence" is.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It is the only the mind that can create a mental image of the earth in the first place. So why do you support a philosophy that rejects the healthy maturity of that mind through wisdom, through absolute morality?

You are like 10x more out of it than QRS. Is creating mental images of planet earth intrinsically valuable? How do you know which mental image is 'healthier"? What is wisdom? Perhaps you are the deluded one. What is "absolute morality"? LoL. What God enforces this "absolute morality"?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:You see if I'm addicted to drugs, bad food, women, working a job I hate, and my mind is a total mess, I never even look up at the skies, I never actually see anything... So for that guy, there is no earth, there is only drudgery and suffering, so any sane philosopher would want to see more individuals step out of that self-induced cycle of suffering, thus becoming more conscious of the earth, and more protective of the earth...

Maybe looking up at the sky too much is a sign that you don't fit in on planet earth and need to fantasize about how bad everyone else is suffering and how great you are to feel good.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:And it is usually only a minimalist philosopher that is truly respectful of the earth because he respects his own body. Generally, a man that cannot even respect his own body will not care very much about the protection of the earth.

I respect my body.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:So these things are all tied together... The wellbeing of the individual and the wellbeing of the planet, and morality is necessary to achieve this end...

Bulllllllshittttttttt.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Not if there is no planet, in which case there would be no individuals either, neither myself or my children.

But we can't make it so that there's no planet. On planetary scale, there's nothing we can do to harm the earth. What we can do is harm ourselves; but Earth needs no protection. Nothing we can do will result in as massive a cataclysm as, for example, the dinosaur extinction, or even the extinction of south american marsupials.

You are off in la-la-kand if you think we pose the sort of danger to the earth which would cause it to cease existing. Earth before had been hot enough to have tropical trees grow near the poles, and cold enough to have only a slim belt around the equator be free of ice. nothing we do can approach such changes.

Neil,

What God enforces this "absolute morality"?

Have you noticed that the causal world exhibits a sort of dualistic nature – pain, pleasure, summer/winter, love/hate, joy/depression, but when one realizes that these are not two separate movements that have no relationship, but merely one interconnected movement where both forces cause the other, then the mind of god is understood.

The causal world is a map to find the mind of god. Most human worldly pursuits are based on an ignorance of this fundamental cosmic law, and so they suffer and remain confused…

so you cannot talk about morality, without first understanding duality….

you reject morality because you believe in happiness, but the dark side of happiness is despair. So basically, you are denying the mind of god so that you can pursue a more worldly existence, which is fine. However, don't fool yourself into thinking that you are the stronger one here for pursuing happiness because this is what the entire human race is presently doing, and look at the world! People's value of happiness is the cause of their misery.

vicdan,
True.
But we could wipe out higher life forms. Wouldn't that be cool to set evolution back to bacteria and small invertebrates?

Ryan,

The causal world is a map to find the mind of god. Most human worldly pursuits are based on an ignorance of this fundamental cosmic law, and so they suffer and remain confused…

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Most deluded inferior homo sapiens are in ignorance as to the fundamental cosmic duality laws laid out by God.

you reject morality because you believe in happiness, but the dark side of happiness is despair.

Despair is required for happiness. I see no reason to deny everything and live in non-dualistic nothingness, aka the "mind of god".

"You get a small amount of food by slaving away with the farmer, or 10x the food plus pretty much anything else you have that he wants by stealing it." Neil

Killing a man for your own intended benefit is a bad idea in the best of times. But in this post-apocalyptic scenario, it would be about the worst of times.
There are moral reasons against it. There are practical reasons against it. They include:

What do you do with the corpse? Leave it to rot? Bury it?

And how do you explain your sudden windfall of his crops?
Unless you've got a truck, you'll at best be packing it back to your home / sanctuary (unless you're keeping his) with animal drawn cart. Accomplishing this with enough plunder to fuss with would be difficult to do without witnesses.

And in an anarchic system, you'd be likely to die as you killed. "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

And what about next year?
If you kill him, that's one less person to plunder from next harvest.

We can get to the reasons not to plunder at all, later; if it's not already obvious.

"Honor means sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others.
Dishonor means sacrificing others for the benefit of yourself." Lanny Davis, Special Counsel to President Clinton

Neil,

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Most deluded inferior homo sapiens are in ignorance as to the fundamental cosmic duality laws laid out by God.

You don’t understand what I mean by god. Its not how it’s typically defined by religions, its not a belief in some sort of higher power, we are that higher power. The universe is constructed in such a way to guide spiritual thinkers to find the mind of god, but there is no god other than the conscious entities that exist before our very eyes in this world.

Basically, the universe is slowly becoming conscious of itself, and the human brain is the vehicle for this planet…

Neil Melnyk wrote:But we could wipe out higher life forms.

Oh? propose a single plausible apocalyptic scenario which would entail the extinction of all vertebrates. or how about one which would entail the extinction of all mammals even?

Dinosaurs couldn't survive the temperature drop, apparently. Mammals can. What could possibly wipe out the warm-blooded species as a whole? i am curious how your 'reasoning' goes here.

Just FYI, the greatest realistic danger is the flooding of the coastal regions due to catastrophic ice-cap melt. It's unlikely to happen very fast, but it is plausible. Such an event would put a serious wrench in the gears of our civilization. It would not even destroy human civilization though, much less homo sapiens as a species, to say nothing of all vertebrates.

vicdan wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:But we could wipe out higher life forms.

Oh? propose a single plausible apocalyptic scenario which would entail the extinction of all vertebrates. or how about one which would entail the extinction of all mammals even?

Depletion of oxygen.

vicdan wrote:Dinosaurs couldn't survive the temperature drop, apparently. Mammals can. What could possibly wipe out the warm-blooded species as a whole? i am curious how your 'reasoning' goes here.

We can't survive a temperature drop below zero. (without having energy to keep ourselves heated) And we couldn't survive a temperature rise above 50C without having some way to cool ourselves down. Very few vertebrates can handle these extremes.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

vicdan wrote:Oh? propose a single plausible apocalyptic scenario which would entail the extinction of all vertebrates. or how about one which would entail the extinction of all mammals even?

Depletion of oxygen.

hahaha. By what? Do you have any fscking idea what you are talking about? Do you understand anything about the ecology, the life cycle, the carbon/oxygen/energy flow?..

Worrying about oxygen depletion, of all things, is about as rational as worrying about Zog the Intergalactic Sorcerer deciding to magically transmute us all into newts.

We can't survive a temperature drop below zero. (without having energy to keep ourselves heated) And we couldn't survive a temperature rise above 50C without having some way to cool ourselves down. Very few vertebrates can handle these extremes.

And what makes you think either extreme would be remotely likely to occur (such a drastic temperature rise worldwide, or such a drastic temperature drop simultaneously with a loss of all energy sources)?

vicdan wrote:hahaha. By what?

Uhh I don't know since there is so much oxygen in the atmosphere lol. Some type of air poisoning is more plausible. Or maybe simply resource depletion will get us. Who knows? Or population grows and we are using more and more energy. We have already used up most of our clean million year old fuels (natural gas, oil), back to coal soon. :) We have already cut and burned a large amount of our forests causing unstable weather, decreased carbon fixation, and increased carbon release through the combustion, and all this is only on the rise as our population increases and the quality of life that we think every human being has a "right" to increases. Industrialization adds toxins to the atmosphere and spreads them through the food chain. I wouldn't call our situation sustainable, but we are determined to increase longevity in humans and maximize population.

vicdan wrote:Do you understand anything about the ecology, the life cycle, the carbon/oxygen/energy flow?..

Yesss. And I understand that humans are pushing the equilibrium way off balance.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

vicdan wrote:hahaha. By what?

Uhh I don't know since there is so much oxygen in the atmosphere lol. Some type of air poisoning is more plausible.

You remind me of the famous business plan...

1) Eat cheetos
2) ???
3) Profit!

Rent a clue.

Or maybe simply resource depletion will get us. Who knows? Or population grows and we are using more and more energy. We have already used up most of our clean million year old fuels (natural gas, oil), back to coal soon. :)

There's enough coal for centuries worth of energy, uranium is abundant, and even if it weren't, breeder reactors allow you to reprocess spent nuclear fuel into plutonium. plus, fusion reactors will probably go commercial in something like two to five decades -- ITER fusion reactor has gone net-positive recently.

Rent a fucking clue. Be prepared to pay usurious insurance premiums.

Industrialization adds toxins to the atmosphere and spreads them through the food chain. I wouldn't call our situation sustainable, but we are determined to increase longevity in humans and maximize population.

Bringing about global warming is quite a bit different from your idiotic 'extinction of all vertebrates' scenario.

victor wrote:Do you understand anything about the ecology, the life cycle, the carbon/oxygen/energy flow?..

Yesss.

No, you don't, kiddo -- if you did, you would never propose depletion of oxygen as an apocalyptic scenario. You are a clueless git. Now get to googling!

vicdan,

Burning coal releases CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere, which is pollution.
Uranium fission leaves us with radioactive waste.

Both are usually surface mined.

So what are we doing?

We need energy. We don't have enough energy coming into our system, so we tap into the supplies stored away over billions of years. Smart eh? Sustainable -- no. When we use these resources we get a temporary energy fix but we release toxins into the environment and destroy more of the environment to harvest the resources in the first place. All we are doing is degrading our environment for the sake of some temporary usable energy.

In theory we could burn all plants and animals on earth and harvest energy. We could push the amount of energy we harvest to the limit. However in pushing this equilibrium to one side we are offsetting the natural cycles that constantly shift carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc, and are essential to life. If we pushed this equilibrium too far it would snap and we would have a nice little Easter Island the second on a much larger scale.

This may not be highly realistic, depending on how good the environment is at countering our attempts. However this is, nonetheless, where Ryan's ideal would lead, and the common ideal in society of maximizing population, maximizing living conditions, etc. Most people don't want to be part of a natural cycle, instead they want to break the cycle and achieve 'non-suffering', 'peace', 'Utopia', whatever.

The irony is that of course the more we push this equilibrium the harder we need to push against things like "natural disasters" that we are causing in the first place. How far can we push -- that is the question. Humans are turning out very capable. Most animals' population would have broken long ago but we are holding out quite well finding ever new energy sources for food and ways to counter attempts by the environment to cut down our population. Natural "disasters", viruses, sickness, starvation, etc, etc -- all ways that the environment tries to limit a population.

We could go into more detail but by the sounds of it you understand this so there is no need.

Perhaps my initial comment was dumb. We have TONS of oxygen in the atmosphere, oxygen depletion is probably the last way we would die out, I just wasn't thinking properly.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Burning coal releases CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere, which is pollution.

Pollution question is not the same as 'running out of energy' question. You are just trying to save face now.

Uranium fission leaves us with radioactive waste.

Breeder reactors leave less waste by an order of magnitude.

We need energy. We don't have enough energy coming into our system, so we tap into the supplies stored away over billions of years. Smart eh? Sustainable -- no.

it doesn't have to be. It only needs to last us long enough to get fusion power to go on-line.

In theory we could burn all plants and animals on earth and harvest energy. We could push the amount of energy we harvest to the limit. However in pushing this equilibrium to one side we are offsetting the natural cycles that constantly shift carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc, and are essential to life. If we pushed this equilibrium too far it would snap and we would have a nice little Easter Island the second on a much larger scale.

Again, do you have any evidence for this?

Emitting extra CO2, if anything, will actually benefit plant life, by both providing plants with extra carbon extractable from the atmosphere, and by shifting the plant growth regions northward. Your catastrophic Easter island scenario is nowhere near being supported by any evidence. Realistic Global Warming scenarios point at damage to human civilization, not at the collapse of the biosphere.

Natural "disasters", viruses, sickness, starvation, etc, etc -- all ways that the environment tries to limit a population.

Environment tries? Wow, you ascribe intentionality to the ecosystem. Have you tried chatting with the environment over tea and some crumpets? You might be able to settle it amicably...

Perhaps my initial comment was dumb. We have TONS of oxygen in the atmosphere, oxygen depletion is probably the last way we would die out, I just wasn't thinking properly.

No, you weren't. Your thinking now is better, but only marginally so. You are still looking at imaginary dangers, and not dealign with reality.

Neil wrote:

This may not be highly realistic, depending on how good the environment is at countering our attempts. However this is, nonetheless, where Ryan's ideal would lead, and the common ideal in society of maximizing population, maximizing living conditions, etc. Most people don't want to be part of a natural cycle, instead they want to break the cycle and achieve 'non-suffering', 'peace', 'Utopia', whatever.

You misintrepret my ideals Neil. I agree that we should be concerned with high population levels, and governments should take the necessary steps to lower rates such as one child policies, higher taxes for larger families, readily available birth control for young teenagers, incentives for criminals to be get vasectomies.

And I also agree with the underground eugenics movement in Africa, where western aid agencies are entering overpopulated areas and giving children shots with a sterilizing hormone to make them incapable of reproducing. We don’t hear about this sort of thing because the world would be screaming RACISM. However, I agree with it because these people are born into an environment that cannot support them, so something needs to be done in the most humane way possible to stabilize their living environments.

So I agree with you in many ways, however, I disagree with your methods. Namely that violence is the only answer. There are much more humane ways to lower population levels without inflicting suffering on people.

I wonder how long it will be before fusion power becomes viable.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:And I also agree with the underground eugenics movement in Africa, where western aid agencies are entering overpopulated areas and giving children shots with a sterilizing hormone to make them incapable of reproducing.

Oh? Got any evidence for it?

Furthermore, i have never heard of such 'sterilizing hormone', and I have heard quite a bit. Even 'chemical castration', which is pretty harsh, wears out after a while. If a 'sterilizing hormone' existed which could work with a shot or a couple of shots, we would be using it instead of vasectomy. The only chemical way to induce infertility, that I know of, is via an ongoing treatment. There is no 'fire and forget' infertility drug AFAIK. please feel free to demonstrate otherwise.