|
I agree with Jayx1! (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
so who determines the threshold of acceptable impact? Obviously when you shoot someone u have a direct hand in killing them. The problem is when this is applied to 2nd party, 3rd party and 4th party causation and so on.
In dictatorships the decision lies with the dictator. And the country has to bow to his idea what is acceptable. Is this what you want? Otherwise what is the threshold? |
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/wor...s-reducing-smog
Firstly, using research in this article as a prime example, the materiality and significance of the harmful physical effects resulting from the action of consuming fossil fuels is now surely beyond doubt. These effects and consequences are just as natural, obvious and direct as the crime of committing bodily harm, which is also regulated. By definition, citizens, through the government that they have elected, have decided that the acceptable moral threshold is that a person’s actions should not harm the physical health of others. Just because people are not as aware of the real and natural effects of their actions on the health of others, and though there may be no malice behind the act, does not absolve them of their responsibility and culpability.
Secondly, who mentioned anything about dictatorships? By your flawed logic, since criminal laws in democratic countries have as their basis a threshold of acceptance for the harmful impact people can have on the health of others, we must actually be living in a dictatorship.
Just as with the current criminal laws that protect people from physical harm, in a civilised and properly functioning democratic society, it is for the people, through the ballot box, to determine what the sanctions/preventative measures should be, once the thresholds have been satisfied. As with the most obvious and widely accepted criminal laws, I would like to think that all moral people would accept that the acceptable threshold should be when the health of others is materially harmed by the irresponsible actions of individuals, such as the deaths of 18000 people referred to in the California research, not to mention the high morbidity rate from conditions such as asthma and lung damage. |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
P.S.: My wife and I decided that we won't be having kids. Sure that will come as some relief to those who have concerns that my offspring might be annoying the out of yours on TOTA in 2025. |
Hmm..
So you have decided that your life on this planet should be completely pointless??? |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
Pointless? Every single moment of my life is infused with meaning!
Since when is siring offspring the be-all and end-all of human existence? |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
Pointless? Every single moment of my life is infused with meaning!
Since when is siring offspring the be-all and end-all of human existence? |
Are you kidding??????????
If everybody did that, it WOULD BE the end-all!!!!
The ENTIRE point of the life of the human ANIMAL is procreation...
It's called the circle of life for a reason isn't it???
Look... You're a good natured, intelligent person with life experience right???
Have you no desire to even pass that knowledge onto anyone?? |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| Thanks for the kind words, but there are already more than enough children in the world to which I'm able pass on the knowledge I've acquired (and continue to do so), I certainly don't need to contribue to the overpopulation of the planet with any of my own! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Potter
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/wor...s-reducing-smog
Firstly, using research in this article as a prime example, the materiality and significance of the harmful physical effects resulting from the action of consuming fossil fuels is now surely beyond doubt. These effects and consequences are just as natural, obvious and direct as the crime of committing bodily harm, which is also regulated. By definition, citizens, through the government that they have elected, have decided that the acceptable moral threshold is that a person’s actions should not harm the physical health of others. Just because people are not as aware of the real and natural effects of their actions on the health of others, and though there may be no malice behind the act, does not absolve them of their responsibility and culpability. |
It is not surely beyond a doubt that emissions from automobiles have a direct hand in premature deaths. Air pollution comes from many many sources including but not limited to the automobile. And there is no way that you can compare driving a car to committing an act of murder. Its effect is secondary at best if not tertiary.
So what to do? based on your logic we commit crimes against humanity constantly just by living. Everything we do has an impact on something. By the way, electing a government every 5 years should not give them a blank cheque to impose such draconian restrictions. (even though that is the case, i dont agree with it).
Again i ask, what gives ANYONE the right, government or not, to determine these types of arbitrary thresholds? To determine what is acceptable based on their own ideals for the populace as a whole?
funny how in spite of all these ills and awful things, or crimes as some would call it, that supposedly technology has brought us, our average lifespan has increased by decades during that time.
| quote: | | Secondly, who mentioned anything about dictatorships? By your flawed logic, since criminal laws in democratic countries have as their basis a threshold of acceptance for the harmful impact people can have on the health of others, we must actually be living in a dictatorship. |
A dictatorship is the extreme version and end result of the anti, ban, over regulated culture that we are creating. More and more laws = more and more power given to the government and taken away from its citizens. A good example of this already occurring is the great "democracy" of Venezuela.
| quote: | | Just as with the current criminal laws that protect people from physical harm, in a civilised and properly functioning democratic society, it is for the people, through the ballot box, to determine what the sanctions/preventative measures should be, once the thresholds have been satisfied. As with the most obvious and widely accepted criminal laws, I would like to think that all moral people would accept that the acceptable threshold should be when the health of others is materially harmed by the irresponsible actions of individuals, such as the deaths of 18000 people referred to in the California research, not to mention the high morbidity rate from conditions such as asthma and lung damage. |
Election of a government should not give them free reign to take away civil liberties. And here is the crux of your "moral people" arguement. "Morality" is subjective. This is why we live in a supposedly secular state. Unfortunately we now have a new type of quasi religion being imposed with its own set of "morality" codes being imposed which is really what socialism is.
Governments love to pretend that they take power away from its populace "for its own good". This is how they coerce societies time and time again to do so voluntarily. This is how none totalitarianism occurs.
Remember that guys like Hugo Chavez, Adolf Hitler, and Agusto Pinochet were elected as well. And we all know what happened there. |
|
|
| VDub |
Not the point...
We're born...
We procreate...
We die....
That's the point...
And if you choose not to fullfill your basic duty to the species, then you've wasted your space on the planet...
But nevermind this topic... |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
The only way to lower the human population is to control who lives and who dies. It may seem harsh but if we really want to save the earth we need to control the population.
Here is just a small list of people who should be elimated from the earth.
1. Anyone over 70 years of age
2. Anyone who has a terminal or permanent illness
3. Anyone who cannot support themselves or is a drain on society |
This is such a pile of BS and totally not what I had in mind with my original point re: human population levels. The suggested solutions are also completely illogical in that they do not actually solve the causes of the issue at hand (population levels rising), rather they attempt to address them from a completely incorrect viewpoint.
First of all, to control who should be allowed to live and die and when is completely morally and ethically wrong. It is just plain incorrect. I'm sure we don't need to discuss this point further.
On top of of that, the suggested "solution" actually does not solve the problem of human overpopulation, even though to simpler minds it might appear to be so. Old/senior people (and I imagine most of terminally ill people) cannot and do not reproduce anymore. Perhaps seventy-year old men can still father biological children (with younger women), but I don't think that in this country and in the mainstream Western culture generally that they still do at that age... I don't have any official statistic to back this up, but I'd venture to say that the percentage of men who have children so late in life is rather small (at least here in North America, and also in Europe and certain developed Asian countries such as Japan). So the mandated killing of seniors and ill people (as you suggest) will not do anything to stop human population levels from rising in the future. It's young people who have reproductive potential, not seniors; this is where we need to place our efforts and emphasis.
I don't think the solution lies with people not having ANY children at all either; especially here in North America, where reproductive levels are falling below the norm recently. Rather, I think that there should be some type of global limit as to how many children people can have, and this should be followed up with better health care and contraceptive aids, to promote family planning and to ensure that the infant and child mortality rate is as low as possible, so that people in poorer countries will have assurance that their children will have a high chance of surviving until adulthood. This way, people in those countries will not need to have many children to ensure that at least a few survive until adulthood.
Now, these are just suggestions, and I don't know and I'm not intending to come up with specific plans as to how these should be enforced... this is just a theoretical solution on my part. But one way that I see is to educate people globally about the environmental impact of overpopulation, about sustainability and all that, sort of in a holistic package where you would not only promote the so-called "green living" but also initiatives about how to make one's lifestyle better, i.e. rise out of poverty, become self-sufficient and self-sustaining, improve their environment, promote education, etc. Sort of raise people's social and emotional awareness culturally. I am of course very well aware that there are limitations to this method and that the desired effects may not come about immediately.
Well, that's it from me, thanks for reading, and I hope I haven't offended anybody with my comments, cause I feel that with this topic I'm starting to get sort of on a "slanted level" as we say back home (i.e. controversial). |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
|
you are right...it doesn't solve the problem of people reproducing but you need to start somewhere. The human population has to be cut in half before you can even start controlling the population. Not only would this lower the population dramatically it would also free up money to help solve other problems society has. It may not be ethical or morally correct but so what...drastic times call for drastic measures....and these are drastic times.
How is it morally or ethically correct to tell people they can only have "x" amount of children? I'm all for this but don't say its ethically and morally wrong on one hand but then ignore your same concern on the other.
How would you suggest we cut the population in half? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I lol'ed at this massive pile of fail. Just to recap, PivotTechno:
1. Based his entire argument on motorists being the minority, when they are in fact the majority here (newsflash: Canada is not China or India).
2. Based the remainder of his argument on a strawman, expressing "agreement" with Jay that the government should restrict the rights of minorities, when everyone with two functioning brain cells knows that Jay is a hardcore libertarian and is against restricting the rights of anyone.
3. Blames an accident (an oil spill) on each and every individual motor vehicle and driver, but not buses, trucks, naval fleets and aerial vehicles. Presumably it does include diesel engines though. The clue meter is reading zero.
PivotTechno, you are hereby nominated for Biggest Douche in the Universe. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I PivotTechno, you are hereby nominated for Biggest Douche in the Universe. |
I was working so hard for that title. |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I was working so hard for that title. |
Pfft...
He gave me that title like 2 yrs ago...
I guess I've been de-throned... |
|
|
|
|
