Are All Men Equal? My Discussions with Olde Drunk

[Thallium]

I had a private discussion with olde drunk on this subject. My thoughts or questions are:

Are all Men equal?
Are all Men worth keeping?
Should all Men be allowed to belong to a society?
Should we bother feeding the people with lower intelligence quotient when the smarter have greater use of our resources?
Are there too many people on Earth? Should we execute and get rid of 2 billion people or more?

When you hear of hunters that shoot a certain number of animals from a species to save the sustainability of nature, do you ever think: "Why don't we shoot a certain number of humans because the number of human beings increase every day and there are allready to many of us?"

 

[fffbone]

No, not everyone is equal, you can't compare Stephen Hawking to some bum on the street, there is a definite value gap.

But in a humane point of view, "bums" should be treated equally, and be kept in a society. However, it is true to some degree that these people are like parasites to society.

Since you can't divide people into two groups, such as "Useful" and "Bums". It is better to take the humane approach for now.

 

[olde drunk]

wow!

When you ask a question, you ask a question!

Thallium:Are all Men equal?

Drunk: I believe that in the greater reality there not such judgements; we just are. As respect 'human rights'; society functions better when we acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual. Needless to say, none of us has all the talents and abilities to be considered a superman. On the practical level we are not equally endowed.
I suspect, however, that a happy contented ditch digger is more glorious than a sad, misbehaving, talented zillionaire; Glorious, not better. He is in touch with his total self and knows his place/role in the universe. The sad zillionaire is still searching.


Thallium: Are all Men worth keeping?

Drunk: Why not? who knows what their unseen contribution to the universe is worth. i refuse to serve on any such jury!(lol) Hey, equal rights time! 50% of all that are expelled must be women!


Thallium: Should all Men be allowed to belong to a society?

Drunk: A case can be made for the death penalty, BUT, has it diminished violent crimes? Incarceration has become big business in the US. Why isn't more money directed toward understanding the nature of crime and/or eliminating the need for crime?? Would people kill for a pair of Michael Jordan sneakers if they weren't marketed into believing that having a pair was important?

sidebar: have we also created a victim mindset within society?? In the US, if you are a victim, with a good lawyer, it can be like hitting the lottery.



Thallium: Should we bother feeding the people with lower intelligence quotient when the smarter have greater use of our resources?

Drunk: who the hell is going to haul away my garbage? or fix my toilet when it clogs or does any of the ****ty jobs i dislike?
seriously, we all contribute to the universe and, hopefully, human society. we just aren't aware of most contributions.


Thallium:Are there too many people on Earth? Should we execute and get rid of 2 billion people or more?

Drunk: NEVER! we are ALL here for a reason. who's to say that the greater reality isn't more crowded? we might be practicing our powers of coexistence in a microcosm. let's learn in a temporal enviornment so that we can more properly prepare for the eternal world.



good questions! I'm not sure i ever thought about these issues directly.

thanks,

 

[Thallium]

I'll post my opinions later. I'll probably be attacked by most people in here.

I am editing this message now. I do think we should get rid of a couple of billions. IUt is ironic how we are eager to put the other races on Earth down in number when these animals use much much less of the Earth's resources than we do. I am sure there are some insufficient people we can remove.

Are all Men equal? No. What is the value that is within every single human being? There is none. Should we throw away food and provisions on people too much people? No we should not. You see by this that I am definately not a communist.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Equal how? And who gets to decide?

 

[Kerrie]

when men judge who is superior and who is not, this breeds arrogance...when arrogance is allowed to rule, stupidity comes about...when stupidity comes about, all will suffer...

my conclusion:

put a woman in charge

just kidding

sincerely, a truly intelligent "superior" person will take compassion for all of humankind...

 

[member 5645]

No one is better than anyone else, but that doesn't exclude someone from being better at a specific task than someone else.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by fffbone
No, not everyone is equal, you can't compare Stephen Hawking to some bum on the street, there is a definite value gap.
.

Why not? Perhaps the bum, while not having the great mind of Hawkings, has more compassion and value for life since he lives in such a humble place.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Kerrie
when men judge who is superior and who is not, this breeds arrogance...when arrogance is allowed to rule, stupidity comes about...when stupidity comes about, all will suffer...

sincerely, a truly intelligent "superior" person will take compassion for all of humankind...

Good point. But how can arrogance breed stupidity?

 

[fffbone]

Why not? Perhaps the bum, while not having the great mind of Hawkings, has more compassion and value for life since he lives in such a humble place.

I was referring to their value to society. The bum probably have a negative value in his contribution to mankind. And do read my next paragraph.

Since you can't divide people into two groups, such as "Useful" and "Bums". It is better to take the humane approach for now.

 

[UltraPi1]

There is no greater threat to humans and any other life forms on Earth, than the quantity of people on this here planet. China Is one country that is trying to do something about their own stupidity. They have already pushed the limit in terms of walking flesh.

We could probably sustain 50 billion people on this planet. The question one might ask is why? One should ask - Would you rather live on a planet like ours with one billion people,and a host of other life forms, or 50 billion people with a few plants grown for the sole purpose of feeding 50 billion people?

There are still plenty of people that think the most important thing anyone can do with their life is to pump out rug rats.

I can see it as being conceivable that we multiply to the point where nuclear war could be seen as a good thing.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Perhaps the most important question, if you are going to rate people at all, which I think is folly, is not how intelligent, nor how rich, but how much joy that person can generate, both for oneself and for others?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Thallium
Good point. But how can arrogance breed stupidity?

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand
Half-sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings
Look on my works ye mighty and despair!"
Nothing beside remains; Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
There is no greater threat to humans and any other life forms on Earth, than the quantity of people on this here planet. China Is one country that is trying to do something about their own stupidity. They have already pushed the limit in terms of walking flesh.

We could probably sustain 50 billion people on this planet. The question one might ask is why? One should ask - Would you rather live on a planet like ours with one billion people,and a host of other life forms, or 50 billion people with a few plants grown for the sole purpose of feeding 50 billion people?

This very interesting. Have you noticed how politicians and researchers theorise about how we are going to feed the billions of people that will occupate this planet in the near future and ignoring the fact that it is important to stop this population-growth? It annoys me so much!

We could probably do this and probably do that. I do not trust probability. I would rather live on a planet with one billion humans and a great variety of animals!

Save the animals. We have enough of humans.

 

[fffbone]

Originally posted by Thallium
This very interesting. Have you noticed how politicians and researchers theorise about how we are going to feed the billions of people that will occupate this planet in the near future and ignoring the fact that it is important to stop this population-growth? It annoys me so much!

We could probably do this and probably do that. I do not trust probability. I would rather live on a planet with one billion humans and a great variety of animals!

Save the animals. We have enough of humans.

I completely agree, however, you cannot limit the right for someone to have at least one offspring. China has the one-child policy, they also limited the age for pregnancy (or was it marriage), it is not a perfect strategy, but it beats nothing. However, China still have a 0.4% yearly population increase (which is around 5.2 million more people every year). This just goes to show that there are more overall birth than death. And you should see the rate the Americans and Indians are reproducing.

Plus, I don't think limiting child birth will gain politicians much support in most of the world, especially USA. As for social researchers, most of them just tell the mob what they want to hear, their main purpose is to support the politicians.

 

[wasteofo2]

!

Originally posted by Thallium


Save the animals. We have enough of humans.

Brilliant, I'll start the revolution in latin america, you go to asia, we'll meet back when we've killed or prevented the birth of 1 billion people each to re-organize, huzah!

And bring bulldozers to give to the animals so they can plow down cities and plant trees while you're at it, just for a sense of irony.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Brilliant, I'll start the revolution in latin america, you go to asia, we'll meet back when we've killed or prevented the birth of 1 billion people each to re-organize, huzah!

And bring bulldozers to give to the animals so they can plow down cities and plant trees while you're at it, just for a sense of irony.

You know. With that sarcastic or ironic or whatever attitude, nothing will change. Go stick those words up your ass and use your energy on writing something more useful. And I also advice you to not respect me for what I am feeling. Or maybe you, wasteofo2, is one of those we should get rid of..

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Thallium
This very interesting. Have you noticed how politicians and researchers theorise about how we are going to feed the billions of people that will occupate this planet in the near future and ignoring the fact that it is important to stop this population-growth? It annoys me so much!

We could probably do this and probably do that. I do not trust probability. I would rather live on a planet with one billion humans and a great variety of animals!

Save the animals. We have enough of humans.

Thallium, before you go off the deep end, google on 'demographic transition'. This is the observed fact that where women have been given freedom from paternalistic societies, the birth rates have fallen dramatically. Some European countries are actually seeing a population decline. So one tactic for preventing overpopulation is to force all those paternalistic societies to free their women!

But even absent that, the UN agency responsible for population predictions has cut its numbers twice and they now think trend of population will level out after the middle of this century.

 

[Kal-Elvis]

In the U.S. at least, the Hispanic population is the fastest growing while the White population is the slowest growing. Many parts of Europe have experienced declining birth rates as well; I believe the Scandanavian countries have seen this more than elsewhere.

On the flipside, the countries experiencing gargantuan population growth are traditional third-world countries that are only relatively recently benefitting from Western medicine and technology.

I've never seen it written anywhere, but my impression is that people who enjoy high standards of living and education populate at lower rates than those in lower standards of living and without education. If that is the case, it follows that concerted efforts toward reducing social problems and increasing education on a global scale will result in lower population growth without imposing draconian laws on human reproduction.

 

[fffbone]

Originally posted by Kal-Elvis
In the U.S. at least, the Hispanic population is the fastest growing while the White population is the slowest growing. Many parts of Europe have experienced declining birth rates as well; I believe the Scandanavian countries have seen this more than elsewhere.

On the flipside, the countries experiencing gargantuan population growth are traditional third-world countries that are only relatively recently benefitting from Western medicine and technology.

I've never seen it written anywhere, but my impression is that people who enjoy high standards of living and education populate at lower rates than those in lower standards of living and without education. If that is the case, it follows that concerted efforts toward reducing social problems and increasing education on a global scale will result in lower population growth without imposing draconian laws on human reproduction.

Then perhaps you would explain why U.S. still has such a high rate of population increment (keep in mind the total Hispanic and Latino population is only about 12.5%, while the "high-class-and-well-educated white people" you were referring to takes up 77.1%)? And would you also explain to me why the population increase in the world is still sky-rocketing? And of course you won't mind explaining to me why a third-world nation like China (which only relatively recently benefitted from Western medicine and technology) would have a lower population growth than U.S? Oh, just one more question, are you one of those white people who think they are put on this world to save all the lower people?

P.S: Some European countries are experiencing population decline because the high level of distress and anxiety and other psychological problems in the population.

 

[nix]

No, not everyone is equal, you can't compare Stephen Hawking to some bum on the street, there is a definite value gap.

When could you ever possibly judge that...( i know you said you can't put people into two groups..and we shouldnt)I agree, its impossible to judge if a person will become a useful member of society or say, a criminal...if someone is born with a diability can you say..ok this person goes into the unproductive category and murder them..of course not!..look at your example..stephen hawking (although i don't think he was born with his condition)..the individual we are killing could just end up being the solution to a major proplem..like overpopulation


also we don't have the right to judge who should die (by the way..i also don't believe in the death penalty)...we should instead think about population control by enforcing laws everywhere and educating individuals everywhere (not just in 3rd world countries) on why poeple should try to prevent themselves from having large families..although i doubt this would take very well

or we could spend more money in seeking out another planet that human kind can move to, once our population reaches a max level

 

[Kal-Elvis]

Originally posted by fffbone
Then perhaps you would explain why U.S. still has such a high rate of population increment (keep in mind the total Hispanic and Latino population is only about 12.5%, while the "high-class-and-well-educated white people" you were referring to takes up 77.1%)?

Perhaps this has to do with the extreme disparity of wealth in this country. Also, please don't use quotes to put words in my mouth.

And would you also explain to me why the population increase in the world is still sky-rocketing?

I don't know. I suspect the largest contributor would be the proliferation of technology and especially medicine to third-world nations, effectively lowering the natality and mortality rates, while the people in these countries still reproduce at the same rate as when every other child born never made it to adulthood.

And of course you won't mind explaining to me why a third-world nation like China (which only relatively recently benefitted from Western medicine and technology) would have a lower population growth than U.S?

First of all, China isn't a third-world nation. The terms first-, second-, and third-world were invented in the Cold War to describe the U.S. and its NATO allies (first-world), communist nations (second-world), and everybody else (third-world). Secondly, China has long-standing draconian laws limiting human reproduction to one child per family, two in farming families. When I said "traditional third-world," I was thinking of places like India and especially Africa.

Oh, just one more question, are you one of those white people who think they are put on this world to save all the lower people?

I'm at a loss. For whatever condescending tone you thought you read in my original post, you are happily rude and condescending in yours. It's one thing to disagree; it's another to disrespect.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Thallium, before you go off the deep end, google on 'demographic transition'. This is the observed fact that where women have been given freedom from paternalistic societies, the birth rates have fallen dramatically. Some European countries are actually seeing a population decline. So one tactic for preventing overpopulation is to force all those paternalistic societies to free their women!

Pardon my french but I do not know what 'paternalistic' means.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Thallium
Pardon my french but I do not know what 'paternalistic' means.

Paternalistic comes from the latin word pater meaning father and it means that a man has a father-like authority over either his workers (as in a paternalistic employer who doesn't want the workers to form unions because "We're all like family here") or his women. The very syntax of "his women" tells you all you need to know about such societies.

Islam and sub-Sahara Africa are the largest supporters of paternalism toward women, and they are the fastest increasing populations in the World.

 

[Kakorot]

No, we are not all equal, but that is not for us humans to judge. Because, unless you completely know an entire person's life and all they have done and been through, you cannot truly judge them.

 

[NUKEELT]

I am personally very neo-malthusian. I don't believe that someone that can't survive on their own should. For example, if someone gets cancer then they should die. I'm not too hip on messing with nature's grand scheme. If the people that are too unhealthy, too stupid or too undesirable were left to die off as nature intended then we'd be definitely on our way to a return to a healthy natural population as well as an increased quality of life for future generations.

 

[Njection]

Are all Men equal?

No.

Are all Men worth keeping?

No.

Should all Men be allowed to belong to a society?

LOL, no.

Should we bother feeding the people with lower intelligence quotient when the smarter have greater use of our resources?

This depends. The 'smarter' is not necessarily always the 'friend'.

Are there too many people on Earth?

I would say so.

Should we execute and get rid of 2 billion people or more?

That would be a good start. ;)

 

[null]

Originally posted by Thallium
I had a private discussion with olde drunk on this subject. My thoughts or questions are:
-----------------------------------------

Are all Men equal?
-Yes. None of use are qualified to rate how worthy a human being is. If you want to make judgments based on intelligence/wealth/talent etc. any person is welcome to catagorize men accordingly. But I believe that the actual worth of every human is equal.

Are all Men worth keeping?
-Depends what you mean by keeping or not keeping them

Should all Men be allowed to belong to a society?
-Those that have not been proven to be a danger to the individuals of that society, yes.

Should we bother feeding the people with lower intelligence quotient when the smarter have greater use of our resources?
-Absolutely Yes. I'm going back to the fact that I believe all humans are of equal worth regardless of intelligence. Having said that I do recognize the reality that smarter people will be able to contribute more to a society, financially, technologically and just provide overall advancment of the standard of living not only for themselves but others. I just could not come to turms with not providing necessary resources for those of lesser intelligence. Being highly evolved we have an obligation to follow our conciounce.

Are there too many people on Earth? Should we execute and get rid of 2 billion people or more?
-No I believe that systems as with natural or even economic systems will always naturally equalize eventually.

When you hear of hunters that shoot a certain number of animals from a species to save the sustainability of nature, do you ever think: "Why don't we shoot a certain number of humans because the number of human beings increase every day and there are allready to many of us?
-No because these shootings of animals are usually to save a species from going extinct and many times they later discover that the populations are naturually regulating and so they just did damage sp no good seems to come from playing God. Also we are not going extinct so how could you possiblly justify this. And who would you choose to be shot? And could you pull the trigger?

Good Questions Thallium!

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by null

-----------------------------------------

Are all Men equal?
-Yes. None of use are qualified to rate how worthy a human being is. If you want to make judgments based on intelligence/wealth/talent etc. any person is welcome to catagorize men accordingly. But I believe that the actual worth of every human is equal.

Are all Men worth keeping?
-Depends what you mean by keeping or not keeping them

Should all Men be allowed to belong to a society?
-Those that have not been proven to be a danger to the individuals of that society, yes.

Should we bother feeding the people with lower intelligence quotient when the smarter have greater use of our resources?
-Absolutely Yes. I'm going back to the fact that I believe all humans are of equal worth regardless of intelligence. Having said that I do recognize the reality that smarter people will be able to contribute more to a society, financially, technologically and just provide overall advancment of the standard of living not only for themselves but others. I just could not come to turms with not providing necessary resources for those of lesser intelligence. Being highly evolved we have an obligation to follow our conciounce.

Are there too many people on Earth? Should we execute and get rid of 2 billion people or more?
-No I believe that systems as with natural or even economic systems will always naturally equalize eventually.

When you hear of hunters that shoot a certain number of animals from a species to save the sustainability of nature, do you ever think: "Why don't we shoot a certain number of humans because the number of human beings increase every day and there are allready to many of us?
-No because these shootings of animals are usually to save a species from going extinct and many times they later discover that the populations are naturually regulating and so they just did damage sp no good seems to come from playing God. Also we are not going extinct so how could you possiblly justify this. And who would you choose to be shot? And could you pull the trigger?

Good Questions Thallium!

Thanks for reviving this thread Null! You have some interesting ideas here!

What I wonder is when we talk of worth and value, what is the actualy worth, as you put it, of an individual person? What makes us obligated by our conciounce to take care of all people and share our resources equally?

And a comment to my question if we should shoot humans instead of animals(an absurd thought indeed, but why not?). You ingore the fact that tigers, lions, snakes, butterflies, gepards and many many many other species are soon extinct. I know very little about actions and successful demonstrations against this, but the number of these animal species decrease gradually. There are 200 Siberian Tigers left in the wild and 200 in captivity(zoo etc,.).

Humans take too much place. If there were less humans, we might gain the balance back because now it is out of control.

 

[THANOS]

It's not just all men that are equal. It is all life.

 

[lamar]

It's a noble idea to think that all men are equal but we are animals plain and simple, and in the animal kingdom the sick and those not able to contribute to their own well being are quickly eliminated from the gene pool by death in one of it's many forms. I'll use the example of people who have lived their entire lives on welfare. Should they be allowed to have children? I suggested to a group of people at a party one time that anybody on social assistance should have to have a manditory birth control injection or their money would be cut off. You can't do that they cried! It's not right! Really? If you can't support yourself is it fair to have children and cause further burden on society by having them supported as well? Some people break the cycle and do something with their lives, others don't. Some people make excuses for failure in life, others put their head down and try harder until they get to where they want to be. I don't buy into socio-economic excuses which are so prevelant these days because I came from a poor family and got to where I am today by hard work and persistance. Old people and cripples...physically can't contribute much, ok. Are they worthless? Not at all! There are many who have great minds have contributed much in the past and continue to do so. I seriously believe that in order to survive on this planet we need to separate the wheat from the waste. I believe in capital punishment...what purpose is there in keeping a serial killer alive in a jail cell for the rest of his life? He is a burden on society, eliminate him. My views may be seen as extreme but that's ok. In order to have positive results one must take positive action.

 

[Thallium]

Those views might be extreme, yes, for some, but not for me. I appreciated your message, lamar and I am just about to print it out! ;)

Cheers

 

[THANOS]

Now i understand why you would believe in such punishments. But to me killing a killer is like a drunk parent telling his/her child to never drink. To force birth control on the "poor" is also wrong. Sure they might grow a hard life but it is also hard lives that create strong people. Great change will take time, it took time for us to go this bad in this world. It will take time to cure.

 

[leto]

Men are not equal in the sense that they have differing qualities and abilities. However, these qualities do not place a value on a person’s life, which can be compared and contrasted to another. Our idea that the value of one person is greater than another are all very selfish; we are rating them based on their ability to make our lives better. This could be justified if not for the fact that people are all very different. Thus, the qualities found desirable to one person are different than those found desirable to another. Utilitarians have good intentions, but they often forget why they came to the viewpoints they did.

Lamar: The fact that we are animals does not entail behaving like other animals we observe. I wouldn't personally have a problem with capital punishment if our justice system weren’t a joke.

 

[Haelfix]

If Einstein, you and Hitler were on a boat. Let's say you knew you were too weak to survive, but had the key to a lifeboat that could save precisely one of the remaining two people. Who would you pick? Or would you flip a coin?

The idea that men are all equivalent in some mysterious cosmic sense strikes me as absurd when viewed in this light.

Some qualities are more important (not just for society), but in general.

Its complicated and somewhat arbitrary to assign values to traits and potentials, but in the simple case where you have two men who are say sprinters (all else is 100% equivalent.. for all intents and purposes other than running they are the same human being), the one who sprints faster than the other should be considered superior as a human being logically? Or not?

 

[leto]

If Einstein, you and Hitler were on a boat. Let's say you knew you were too weak to survive, but had the key to a lifeboat that could save precisely one of the remaining two people. Who would you pick? Or would you flip a coin?

I would pick myself because I would never give up. Presuming I knew I was going to die regardless, I would choose Einstein because I would expect that choice to make the world a better place for people I cared for. I would not do this because I felt that either life was superior, but because I want to act in my best interests as an empathetic human.

The idea that men are all equivalent in some mysterious cosmic sense strikes me as absurd when viewed in this light.

The idea that different lives have a different value in some greater scheme strikes me as absurd. Our existence is mysterious. The scales we use to measure someone are always based on our self-interest. They are especially useful when we wish to rationalize killing.

for all intents and purposes other than running they are the same human being), the one who sprints faster than the other should be considered superior as a human being logically? Or not?

He would be a faster runner. You could only say that he is a superior human being if you believe running fast is a trait of a superior human being. Someone else could believe the slower human being was superior if he believed that running slowly was a superior trait. While this probably seems absurd to you, wouldn't it be feasible to suggest the slower runner was able to observe more detail before he moved on? Where is it, exactly, that the faster runner needs to get to so fast?

 

[Loren Booda]

For all men to be equal, they must first recognize that they all are.

 

[FZ+]

If Einstein, you and Hitler were on a boat. Let's say you knew you were too weak to survive, but had the key to a lifeboat that could save precisely one of the remaining two people. Who would you pick? Or would you flip a coin?

But that is cheating, isn't it? You are chosing based on what they have done. They are equal, but their actions are not. Hence, we have "equality before the law". If you had baby Hitler and baby Einstein on the boat, and you did not know what they would do, you cannot make a clear choice.

I agree though - superiority is a subjective concept. If you were a neo-nazi, you would make an altogether different choice...

Should we bother feeding the people with lower intelligence quotient when the smarter have greater use of our resources?

Yes, because they also harvest the food. And if all the smart people and all the dumb people fought, the dumb will probably actually win. And the conflict will far outweigh any dubious advantages - society functions on trust, and conflict undermines trust. In the modern world, intelligence quotients are far from a limiting factor on human success.

Killing a serial killer may eliminate an economic burden from society, but to many people, it simply adds a moral burden to the general population. Human society is not solely determined by food, space and money.

Are there too many people on Earth? Should we execute and get rid of 2 billion people or more?

There are not too many people on Earth. In many cases, we have not enough people.

 

[Loren Booda]

Equality is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[leto]

So is inequality - If I'm following you right, which I think I am.

 

[THANOS]

If Einstein, you and Hitler were on a boat. Let's say you knew you were too weak to survive, but had the key to a lifeboat that could save precisely one of the remaining two people. Who would you pick? Or would you flip a coin?

What would happen if i sacrificed myself so tht both can survive. You can not really tell the outcome of the future after that action. Perhaps Einstein and Hitler have a long talk after being stuck on a boat for awhile and Hitler changes his outlook on what he was doing because of the talk and the fact that some stranger gave up his seat for his survival. Or maybe he decides to kill Einstein and increase his chances for survival. Or maybe He convinces Einstein to help Hitler and he wins the war. Or maybe Einstein gets water related ideas and doesn't come up with his theories of relativity.

The thing is we can not choose who's life is more valuable then who's just because of there actions. Believe it or not it is also the "bad" actions that shape the way our world turns out.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by THANOS
What would happen if i sacrificed myself so tht both can survive. You can not really tell the outcome of the future after that action. Perhaps Einstein and Hitler have a long talk after being stuck on a boat for awhile and Hitler changes his outlook on what he was doing because of the talk and the fact that some stranger gave up his seat for his survival. Or maybe he decides to kill Einstein and increase his chances for survival. Or maybe He convinces Einstein to help Hitler and he wins the war. Or maybe Einstein gets water related ideas and doesn't come up with his theories of relativity.

The thing is we can not choose who's life is more valuable then who's just because of there actions. Believe it or not it is also the "bad" actions that shape the way our world turns out.

The problem with such options that were given here is that the writer of this idea that you had to pick one among these three or flip a coin, and in any similar examples, you must choose ONE. There is always ONE answer to a question it seems. And there is not! and that breaks down the whole point with that example no matter how relevant the options are - or the example. Now that is out of the world!

Let's get on with something clear!

 

[The Green Giant]

If we kill the people at the bottem of the spectrum, there is no longer a bottem. There would have to totla equality, or we could kill all but a select few. But some people should be put some where for special purposes. Possibly selected at birth or shortly after, it would put the lower people with the higher5 people, the middle being working class, the lower people would havew the influence ogf the higher

 

[Loren Booda]

We consider the intersection of questions more than their answers.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

All men should be equal in person. If not for God's or ethic's sake then for logic's sake.

Societies that hold all individuals to be equal in person, regardless of capability or wealth, are healthier. They suffer less internal turmoil, its citizens are more productive (thus, the society/civilization)and are generally more content. In other words, there is more peace, happiness and prosperity.

There is a difference between equality of person and equality of things. Commonly, people will associate equality with material items or capability. But we know that on that level, true human equality is unobtainable. To think so is folly. History has shown such assumptions (i.e. communist theory) does not work and science and common sense, proves there are physical inequalities.

Thusly, equality of person is the only thing that remains. It is also the only feasible concept of equality. Its applications are both humane and practical, towards the mental and physical health of individuals and society. Therefore, men should be treated as equals in person.

As for humans being created equal, untrue if you discount God and the soul. No individual is born equal, neither materially or physically.

Yet bear in mind, we are basically the same. We breath and eat, we bleed, we have feelings. Every culture has a concept for good and evil, love and hate. Equality of person is a fact.

Edit:

There are things I hold as true about humanity. There will always be an upper echelon and a lower one. Always will there be heroes and villains, evil and good. The only thing we can do is influence the severity of these negative and positive things.

Trying to socially engineer humanity and make it in an unrealistic image is futile and can only result in disaster.

 

[THANOS]

there are two extreme examples that one can use to explain each view of better humans and equal humans. One is based on standard perfection. one with less imperefctions is better then one without. one with more better then one without. so and so. Or equal meaning we all share the same force and all things are equal an example is atoms are a part of us all.

ack, good night

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

^^^^

Man is not equal in things or ability. Yet we are basically the same. We breath and eat, we bleed, we have feelings. Every culture has a concept for good and evil, love and hate. Equality of person is a fact.

However, there is no other form of quantifiable equality I can think of. Unless, of course, you count similar abilities or wealth among certain individuals or groups. Then you have equality of things or money. Id est, technology, abundance of material things like food and mutual happiness, etc.

I do know that, in a communism, the majority are all equally destitute. There's a thought :)

 

[physicsisphirst]

it is important to stop this population-growth? It annoys me so much!

i think this is a very important point you make!
what is the logic in eliminating or even curbing natural predators (specifically disease), if you are not going to compensate at the production end?

is it not foolish to think the population can grow to our hearts content unchecked and without consequences?

and by doing so are we not robbing our progeny of quality in their lives?

in friendship,
prad

 

[olde drunk]

every time i revist this thread i keep thinking 'mother nature knows how to take care of our world. have faith'. this time i posted my thought.

while i do not subsribe to a master plan, i do believe that all of us wouldn't be here if there wasn't cosmic consent or purpose. the challenge is to learn to live together in harmony and thrive.

peace,