Who do you save?
- Thread starter bhsup
- Start date
Once you know about the Bystander Effect, you're less likely to fall for it 
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
So because hunter-gatherers have a survival rate comparable to that of wild animals, human life is not more valuable than animal life. Sorry, but your conclusions do not logically flow from your arguments.
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
You didn't understand me at all.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Right...
Starting anew...you said this. That these are laws that apply to both humans and animals.
I asked for an explanation, and you said this:
So, wait. Why should we care if we violate those "laws of nature" (which apparently involves general, vague principles of life that are applicable to anything and hold as much meaning as saying "a thrown rock eventually falls to the ground")?
Starting anew...you said this. That these are laws that apply to both humans and animals.
I asked for an explanation, and you said this:
So, wait. Why should we care if we violate those "laws of nature" (which apparently involves general, vague principles of life that are applicable to anything and hold as much meaning as saying "a thrown rock eventually falls to the ground")?
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
1. Because humans pretend they are highly consciousness and intelligent.
2. You can violate, but not escape. And the final negative effect will be proportional to your violation.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Uh-huh, fascinating...
I'm sorry, but that is not nearly as deep as you think it is.
Not really.
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
Why should I give any argument at all? I've just expressed an alternative view to one without any arguments.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
Directly to my point.
The are far more people now the planet and its biosphere can sustain. Rules that prioritize human life and material welfare among all other things, and especially nature, contribute to worsening of the situation.
Here is a video to firm my words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY (there are 8 parts).
There is no fundamental difference between human being and an animal. Strong sense of division between humans and other animals is the instinct based on principle of friend or foe. So this sense is natural and animal.
Views saying that there are fundamental or serious difference between human and animal can be considered as kind of xenophobia. And they are (and that is a fact) foothold of all real racist and xenophobic theories and doctrines. Be it of political, scientific or religious origin.
Now, those laws, which I've mentioned.
Everything dies: people, civilizations, species. You can argue that species and cultures evolve, but it doesn't matter - human aging and death can be viewed as evolution of a system.
You can't take without giving. To do anything at all you have to move. To eat you have to work, or to hunt, or whatever, spending those energy and health that you have gained from eating before. If you choose not to move, to became motionless, then your body will degradate and die.
Death itself is an event of giving back what you have taken when came to life. This is well-known philosophical and religious concept.
Life is a motion. And one of the characteristics of a life system is metabolism, which is really a process of giving and taking. It is applicable to macro systems too. Gaya hypothesis is not without a basis. Organisms altogether do the same thing - they take from the environment, and they give to it.
Another characteristic of life system is homeostasis. That is, in the process of giving and taking smaller life systems maintain a constant state of larger life system which they are part of. And this is exactly an example of natural balance or equality.
The larger the group you belong to the weaker are you. It's literally. Small society, an aborigine village for example, depends more deeply on every men they have than huge society, e.g. megalopolis. In huge society you have tools, you have specialist and luxuries that allow you to be motionless, and so degradate your body. You don't have to walk, if you have a car or moving staircase.
Also the larger is a group the faster it dies. Because you can't take without giving, and large groups take a lot. The more cockroaches on the kitchen the faster they annoy the householder to the level he'll call exterminator. When locusts eat every blade of grass they'll have to move or all of them will die. Where will humanity move in similar situation?
See theories on how ancient Maya, Khmer civilization and Easter Island population banished as examples.
Your life depends on creatures some of which you've never met. And that is not those poor cows. It is about ecological chain. You probably know about the Great sparrow campaign. That is a perfect example here.
Some picture:
You or your group can't always be a winner.
For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force. If you constantly win, sooner or later it will violate one of the previous laws, and you'll loose anyway. There are examples in history too: Rome vs China. Roughly speaking, Rome was constant winner, and China was constant looser. But Rome have collapsed, and China is still there. And why Rome collapsed?.. Largely because of Great Migration. And because of whom it happened? And when and where are Huns had came to Europe? - From Mongolian Steppe after Chinese built first parts of the Great Wall...
So. If Rome had not exterminate every power in its neighborhood, it would have enemies during its late history and so a motion or muscle stimuli, it would also have allies when Huns and Vandals come. If Nomad tribes of Central Asia had not oppress China so hardly, Chinese never unite and build their walls...
PS: Which cells in human body do not die, take without giving, grow to a larger and larger group and damage other tissue?
The are far more people now the planet and its biosphere can sustain. Rules that prioritize human life and material welfare among all other things, and especially nature, contribute to worsening of the situation.
Here is a video to firm my words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY (there are 8 parts).
There is no fundamental difference between human being and an animal. Strong sense of division between humans and other animals is the instinct based on principle of friend or foe. So this sense is natural and animal.
Views saying that there are fundamental or serious difference between human and animal can be considered as kind of xenophobia. And they are (and that is a fact) foothold of all real racist and xenophobic theories and doctrines. Be it of political, scientific or religious origin.
Now, those laws, which I've mentioned.
Everything dies: people, civilizations, species. You can argue that species and cultures evolve, but it doesn't matter - human aging and death can be viewed as evolution of a system.
You can't take without giving. To do anything at all you have to move. To eat you have to work, or to hunt, or whatever, spending those energy and health that you have gained from eating before. If you choose not to move, to became motionless, then your body will degradate and die.
Death itself is an event of giving back what you have taken when came to life. This is well-known philosophical and religious concept.
Life is a motion. And one of the characteristics of a life system is metabolism, which is really a process of giving and taking. It is applicable to macro systems too. Gaya hypothesis is not without a basis. Organisms altogether do the same thing - they take from the environment, and they give to it.
Another characteristic of life system is homeostasis. That is, in the process of giving and taking smaller life systems maintain a constant state of larger life system which they are part of. And this is exactly an example of natural balance or equality.
The larger the group you belong to the weaker are you. It's literally. Small society, an aborigine village for example, depends more deeply on every men they have than huge society, e.g. megalopolis. In huge society you have tools, you have specialist and luxuries that allow you to be motionless, and so degradate your body. You don't have to walk, if you have a car or moving staircase.
Also the larger is a group the faster it dies. Because you can't take without giving, and large groups take a lot. The more cockroaches on the kitchen the faster they annoy the householder to the level he'll call exterminator. When locusts eat every blade of grass they'll have to move or all of them will die. Where will humanity move in similar situation?
See theories on how ancient Maya, Khmer civilization and Easter Island population banished as examples.
Your life depends on creatures some of which you've never met. And that is not those poor cows. It is about ecological chain. You probably know about the Great sparrow campaign. That is a perfect example here.
Some picture:
You or your group can't always be a winner.
For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force. If you constantly win, sooner or later it will violate one of the previous laws, and you'll loose anyway. There are examples in history too: Rome vs China. Roughly speaking, Rome was constant winner, and China was constant looser. But Rome have collapsed, and China is still there. And why Rome collapsed?.. Largely because of Great Migration. And because of whom it happened? And when and where are Huns had came to Europe? - From Mongolian Steppe after Chinese built first parts of the Great Wall...
So. If Rome had not exterminate every power in its neighborhood, it would have enemies during its late history and so a motion or muscle stimuli, it would also have allies when Huns and Vandals come. If Nomad tribes of Central Asia had not oppress China so hardly, Chinese never unite and build their walls...
PS: Which cells in human body do not die, take without giving, grow to a larger and larger group and damage other tissue?
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
I'm blown away that anyone voted for their pet. Pets have relatively fleeting lifespans. Wouldn't you feel like a complete monster after a few years when your beloved pooch keels over anyway? Not to mention the fact that many of those elevating their pets to human levels of significance regularly consume animals with at least comparable levels of cognition.
This post is pure awesome. A hundred regular people working for a hundred days couldn't come up with anything as batty.
This post is pure awesome. A hundred regular people working for a hundred days couldn't come up with anything as batty.
TheAlamo
Prince
The Khmer civilization still exists, it's called the Kingdom of Cambodia.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No, it was too irrelevant for me considering the OP. What you're arguing and what I'm trying to explain are two different things. I do not feel like defending mine, or attacking your decision, because it requires placing a value upon the emotional connection, which I feel is impossible. The question you asked: "How many persons would you be willing not to save in order to save you pet (or how many other kids would you be willing not to save in order to save your own) is an impossible question.
If number of persons is X and the emotional connection is Y, we already determined that: X + Y > 2X (You'd rather save your own, then two unknown (rhymes!)). Likewise, if Z is a pet (rhymes again!) for me Z + Y > X. Both decisions are irrational, both have unquantifiable values attached. The argument as far as I'm concerned is not: which is the better decision? Since I was merely asking you so you can understand the process.
The question you did not answer was: is it the right decision to save your own kid and let two die. Because I think you're aware it isn't. Just like it's not the right decision to save my pet instead of a person
If the question in the OP had been, who do you rather save? A person or a pet, it would be an easy choice. Just like rescuing a kid or two kids is an easy choice to make when there are no emotional connections.
I hope that clears it up
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
The two decisions arent equal however. My kid may grow up to save lives. Your cat never will.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Your kid could grow up to be a murderer. His cat never will. (note: I pretty much agree with you, I'm just saying is all).
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
While true, the odds of her actually saving someone as opposed to being a murderer are a little better dont you think?
And cats can sometimes kill people as well via things like rabies cant they? But the odd of that are about as slim as my kid turning out to be a murderer.
Similar threads
- Poll
