'Democracy' Never Meant What People Think It Means

Tools    





Originally Posted by Purandara88
It's not popular, but you have to look at things holistically. Human life at the individual level is a meaningless thing. The species matters. Cultures matter, but people individually? Not very much. When weighed against the future, what do a percentage of the lives of the present really amount to? Again, not very much.
Why? Why does "the species" matter? If you care so little for the individual, why do you think so highly of a mass of individuals? What makes the human race as a species greater than the sum of its parts, which you find eminently discardable? I see absolutely no reason why a person should care about human life in general when they do not care for it individually.

You're not going to live to see the survival or destruction of mankind, so why do you give a damn?

Originally Posted by Purandara88
Here's what I think. If you've got people dying of famine, or fighting a bloody war over water and food, or a massive pandemic, that's a message from nature, and the message is, "There are too many people living here, it's time to thin the herd." The problem of pity is structurally akin to the problem we frequently face with wildfires; misplaced altruism now frequently means the coming disaster is made worse by several orders of magnitude. Technological society can temporarily sustain far more lives than could ever be sustained in the past (and 'temporary' could be quite a long time), but entropy being what it is, all it does is delay the big die off, and ensure that it will be more catastrophic when it DOES come.
I think this is a perfect example of just how tangled someone can get in their own convoluted ideology.

As you say, thermodynamics tell us that the extinction of the human race is inevitable (from a materialist's point of view, at least). You use this to demonstrate that we must allow some people to die and suffer now. Why? To ensure the survival of a species that you admit is doomed to suffer one way or the other. You claim that, unless we discard our pity and euthanize now, the suffering will be "more catastrophic when it DOES come."

But if the minimization of suffering is the ultimate goal, advocating that the species survive in the first place is counterproductive. The only way to avoid it is to preemptively kill ourselves before the "big die off." Any argument based on the prevention of suffering is self-contradictory.

I see little more in your worldview than a mangled web of motivationless goals. Survival for its own sake, and the sacredness of the collective without any regard for an individual's humanity. A level of respect for "nature," but apparently no regard for the self-evident truths our own nature screams at us when topics like eugenics are discussed.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
I suppose it's easy to 'deflate' an argument if you 'prick' the jokes and ignore the argument.
No it was more like joking with the prick
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



Originally Posted by Yoda
Why? Why does "the species" matter? If you care so little for the individual, why do you think so highly of a mass of individuals?
Individuals are interchangeable, and extinction is a rather permanent phenomenon.

What makes the human race as a species greater than the sum of its parts, which you find eminently discardable?
The only inherent value is living itself, and, in the long run, that's a question of species not individual survival. Any individual can be replaced, they are not necessary, but life in aggregate is irreplaceable. Once it's gone, that's it.

I see absolutely no reason why a person should care about human life in general when they do not care for it individually.
It's not that I don't care about individuals, it's that I care more about the whole. The life and comfort of one individual is of no real concern when weighed against the lives and comfort of all humans to come. The humane thing to do is not to focus obsessively on the individuals alive right now, but to take the steps necessary to ensure that the most humans live the best existence for the longest time. If that means trimming the population now to avoid crises later, so be it.

You're not going to live to see the survival or destruction of mankind, so why do you give a damn?
Selflessness and nobility. I have it, most don't. It's a pity, really.


As you say, thermodynamics tell us that the extinction of the human race is inevitable (from a materialist's point of view, at least). You use this to demonstrate that we must allow some people to die and suffer now. Why? To ensure the survival of a species that you admit is doomed to suffer one way or the other. You claim that, unless we discard our pity and euthanize now, the suffering will be "more catastrophic when it DOES come."
Death is certain. Suffering is not. What is certain is that continuation of the present course will result in total death and total suffering. Why make the crises more terrible, more agonizing than it has to be?

But if the minimization of suffering is the ultimate goal, advocating that the species survive in the first place is counterproductive. The only way to avoid it is to preemptively kill ourselves before the "big die off." Any argument based on the prevention of suffering is self-contradictory.
Not at all. Some level of suffering is unavoidable, even suicide has its costs. The idea is to sustain life and minimize suffering for as long as possible. It's not infinitely sustainable, but it's better than continuing to forge a path where we create a situation that is pure misery for 10 or 12 billion people, and wreak such havoc that there is no recovery, not only for humans, but for any other life.

I see little more in your worldview than a mangled web of motivationless goals.
All goals are 'motivationless' in the sense that there is no larger meaning than existence itself. That doesn't mean we can't provide our own meaning and motivation.

Survival for its own sake, and the sacredness of the collective without any regard for an individual's humanity.
'Humanity' is nothing special or sacred, it is life and nothing more. Why should I value a human life more than any other life? If a human lives and a million other creatures die so he can have suitable plastic baubles to fill his emptiness, why should I celebrate that?

A level of respect for "nature," but apparently no regard for the self-evident truths our own nature screams at us when topics like eugenics are discussed.
Perhaps your nature is so weak that it 'screams' when faced with the hard choices, but my constitution isn't so limited. Necessity must trump emotion. Otherwise, we will fail those who follow us.

----

Of course, the reality is that nothing will be done and the best we can really hope for is less than total disaster and the possibility of salvaging a future from the ruins.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
Individuals are interchangeable, and extinction is a rather permanent phenomenon.
This does not even remotely answer my question. Neither does this...

Originally Posted by Purandara88
The only inherent value is living itself, and, in the long run, that's a question of species not individual survival. Any individual can be replaced, they are not necessary, but life in aggregate is irreplaceable. Once it's gone, that's it.
...or this...

Originally Posted by Purandara88
It's not that I don't care about individuals, it's that I care more about the whole. The life and comfort of one individual is of no real concern when weighed against the lives and comfort of all humans to come. The humane thing to do is not to focus obsessively on the individuals alive right now, but to take the steps necessary to ensure that the most humans live the best existence for the longest time. If that means trimming the population now to avoid crises later, so be it.
...or this...

Originally Posted by Purandara88
Not at all. Some level of suffering is unavoidable, even suicide has its costs. The idea is to sustain life and minimize suffering for as long as possible. It's not infinitely sustainable, but it's better than continuing to forge a path where we create a situation that is pure misery for 10 or 12 billion people, and wreak such havoc that there is no recovery, not only for humans, but for any other life.
WHY? You continue to avoid the larger question of why, in an empty, purely material world, life itself is a good thing. Why is it good to exist? Simply because you desire to? Give me a reason, devoid of emotion or instinct, why the existence of intelligent life (or any life, for that matter) is "good." Better yet, explain to me what your standard of "good" is, given that you do not believe in right and wrong. Good to whom? Some humans over others?


Originally Posted by Purandara88
Selflessness and nobility. I have it, most don't. It's a pity, really.
It would only be selfless and noble if you deemed yourself one of those who ought to die. Advocating the destruction of large swaths of people you've deemed useless does not involve any sacrifice on your part, and therefore is not selfless or noble.


Originally Posted by Purandara88
All goals are 'motivationless' in the sense that there is no larger meaning than existence itself. That doesn't mean we can't provide our own meaning and motivation.
If "existence itself" is a sensible goal, then from what grounds can you criticize people who wish to continue existing? You continually ascribe some mystical value to future life as if it is inherently superior to the lives being lived today. All this talk of "the species" ignores the fact that "the species" is comprised of individuals. What reason do you have for valuing a human life 5000 years from now over one today?


Originally Posted by Purandara88
'Humanity' is nothing special or sacred, it is life and nothing more. Why should I value a human life more than any other life? If a human lives and a million other creatures die so he can have suitable plastic baubles to fill his emptiness, why should I celebrate that?
If you find it entertaining, and truly believe the Universe is merely "emptiness," then why shouldn't you? You're trying to project morality in a very selective way, and it doesn't make sense.

You advocate an emotionless, rigidly logical approach when deciding how to handle humanity's problems (current or future), but you seem completely unaware of the fact that your rationale is just as emotional as the "pity" you deride. What logical reason do you have for wanting to prevent human suffering after you've died? I can see none.


Originally Posted by Purandara88
Perhaps your nature is so weak that it 'screams' when faced with the hard choices, but my constitution isn't so limited. Necessity must trump emotion. Otherwise, we will fail those who follow us.
But you are not trumping your emotions. You're merely choosing one instinct (and one generation) over another. You've yet to explain why it is "weak" to value those who live today, but "selfless and noble" to value those who do not yet exist.



WHY? You continue to avoid the larger question of why, in an empty, purely material world, life itself is a good thing. Why is it good to exist? Simply because you desire to? Give me a reason, devoid of emotion or instinct, why the existence of intelligent life (or any life, for that matter) is "good." Better yet, explain to me what your standard of "good" is, given that you do not believe in right and wrong. Good to whom? Some humans over others?
Life explains its own value. We live an existence devoid of meaning except existence itself. The will to survive is built in, an inherent part of that existence.

It would only be selfless and noble if you deemed yourself one of those who ought to die. Advocating the destruction of large swaths of people you've deemed useless does not involve any sacrifice on your part, and therefore is not selfless or noble.
Sure it does. It is far easier to simply avoid the hard questions, and sacrifice to step up and embrace them, despite personal or emotional costs. No one will ever thank you for it, and it is an enormous burden. That is always the cost of leading.



You advocate an emotionless, rigidly logical approach when deciding how to handle humanity's problems (current or future), but you seem completely unaware of the fact that your rationale is just as emotional as the "pity" you deride. What logical reason do you have for wanting to prevent human suffering after you've died? I can see none.
As I've already indicated, life itself is logic enough, we are compelled by nature to value existence, therefore, existence has value independent of moral judgment. I only follow the internal logic of evolution, no emotion required.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
Life explains its own value. We live an existence devoid of meaning except existence itself. The will to survive is built in, an inherent part of that existence.
You're describing instinct, not logic or nobility. You instinctually feel that the human race surviving is a good thing. This does not set you apart in any way, shape, or form, from those who feel that their existence explains its own value. Your choice remains arbitrary, and the justification you've offered above is blatantly circular.

Originally Posted by Purandara88
Sure it does. It is far easier to simply avoid the hard questions, and sacrifice to step up and embrace them, despite personal or emotional costs. No one will ever thank you for it, and it is an enormous burden. That is always the cost of leading.
No, it doesn't. You are not sacrificing in any tangible, observable way. If you want to make the claim that simply admitting that people need to die (even if you're not one of them) is somehow "noble" and entails an unverifiable psychological sacrifice, than the internal nature of your claim makes it impossible to disprove. It also sounds intensely silly to declare your own psychological discomfort noble in the face of those who would actually have to suffer and perish for your admittedly meaningless goal.



You're describing instinct, not logic or nobility. You instinctually feel that the human race surviving is a good thing. This does not set you apart in any way, shape, or form, from those who feel that their existence explains its own value. Your choice remains arbitrary, and the justification you've offered above is blatantly circular
Instinct is reality. Morality, on the other hand, is invented and reinvented by every generation. There's nothing 'arbitrary' about reference to manifest reality.

Will and desire are likewise inherent to being, and thus of inherent value. Morality is not.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
As I've already indicated, life itself is logic enough, we are compelled by nature to value existence, therefore, existence has value independent of moral judgment. I only follow the internal logic of evolution, no emotion required.
Nature compels the people you'd like to extinguish to continue existing, yet you think it necessary to override that compulsion.

Clearly, then, you believe that in some instances, logic can and should override our natural impulses. How, then, can you pretend that simply holding the impulses you do is reason enough to listen to them?



No, it doesn't. You are not sacrificing in any tangible, observable way. If you want to make the claim that simply admitting that people need to die (even if you're not one of them) is somehow "noble" and entails an unverifiable psychological sacrifice, than the internal nature of your claim makes it impossible to disprove.
The willingness to make those choices is inherently self-sacrificial. Just by declaring that willingness, I sacrifice the approval of many people. I have scorn heaped on my head (as this thread proves) I could avoid the questions entirely and retain that esteem and good will, but I choose to be honest instead. That is self-sacrifice in the purest sense.

It also sounds intensely silly to declare your own psychological discomfort noble in the face of those who would actually have to suffer and perish for your admittedly meaningless goal.
They'd perish anyway, and probably suffer. I could easily avoid the scorn of the short-sighted, but I choose the path of nobility instead.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
Instinct is reality. Morality, on the other hand, is invented and reinvented by every generation. There's nothing 'arbitrary' about reference to manifest reality.
"Instinct is reality" is vague and meaningless at best, and nonsensical at worst. People override their instincts in reality, as well, and I'll bet we can pinpoint any number of instincts you don't think so highly of. Thus, instinct is not its own justification.

Originally Posted by Purandara88
Will and desire are likewise inherent to being, and thus of inherent value. Morality is not.
And why is everything "inherent to being" necessarily of value? You're just giving me "it's turtles all the way down" responses.



Originally Posted by Yoda
Nature compels the people you'd like to extinguish to continue existing, yet you think it necessary to override that compulsion.
No, our nature compels us toward the survival of the species, which is why we have an altruistic element in our personalities at all.



And why is everything "inherent to being" necessarily of value?
Simple, that which is inherent to being is fundamental to existence itself. In a purely material world, only the material facts of existence have 'value' (that is, a mechanical importance, value as a 'spiritual' concept is rendered meaningless in this context).



Originally Posted by Purandara88
The willingness to make those choices is inherently self-sacrificial. Just by declaring that willingness, I sacrifice the approval of many people. I have scorn heaped on my head (as this thread proves) I could avoid the questions entirely and retain that esteem and good will, but I choose to be honest instead. That is self-sacrifice in the purest sense.
This scorn is easily offset by the self-indulgence you tolerate in yourself in return. Scorn is not quite the sacrifice you claim it to be, for the same reason death is not so large a sacrifice for someone who thinks themselves a martyr. When you take pride in "making the hard choices," you've setup a scenario wherein the scorn you receive only multiplies your pride. The fact that you've gone so far out of your way to describe your sacrifice supports this. It's quite a little loop you've set up there.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
No, our nature compels us toward the survival of the species, which is why we have an altruistic element in our personalities at all.
And you wish to override that altruistic element (which exists next to, and not instead of, our desire for self-preservation, which is undeniable). Thus, my question (which you ignored) still applies:
"Clearly, then, you believe that in some instances, logic can and should override our natural impulses. How, then, can you pretend that simply holding the impulses you do is reason enough to listen to them?"



Originally Posted by Yoda
This scorn is easily offset by the self-indulgence you tolerate in yourself in return. Scorn is not quite the sacrifice you claim it to be, for the same reason death is not so large a sacrifice for someone who thinks themselves a martyr. When you take pride in "making the hard choices," you've setup a scenario wherein the scorn you receive only multiplies your pride. The fact that you've gone so far out of your way to describe your sacrifice supports this. It's quite a little loop you've set up there.
I feel no particular pride, only sadness that many can't seem to get beyond the simplistic "But we have to love everyone" phase.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
Simple, that which is inherent to being is fundamental to existence itself. In a purely material world, only the material facts of existence have 'value' (that is, a mechanical importance, value as a 'spiritual' concept is rendered meaningless in this context).
Again with the turtles. I asked you why existence is valuable, and you told me it's because it is inherent to being. So I asked you why something inherent to being is valuable, and you say it's because it's fundamental to existence. It's demonstrably circular.



And you wish to override that altruistic element
Not at all, I merely wish to broaden the horizons of altruism by looking beyond the emotions of the moment.



Originally Posted by Yoda
Again with the turtles. I asked you why existence is valuable, and you told me it's because it is inherent to being. So I asked you why something inherent to being is valuable, and you say it's because it's fundamental to existence. It's demonstrably circular.
No, I didn't. I pointed out that your concept of 'value' has no place in a purely material universe. The 'value' of instinct is purely mechanical - it preserves existence, which is why it is a part of existence in the first place.

The internal logic of a closed system (like the universe) is always going to be 'circular' in the sense that it is ultimately self-referrential.



Originally Posted by Purandara88
Not at all, I merely wish to broaden the horizons of altruism by looking beyond the emotions of the moment.
You're sidestepping the issue again. We have many instincts, one of them is self-preservation. You have claimed that, logically, we should override this instinct to satisfy another: the preservation of the species. Thus, I repeat my question for the third time:
"Clearly, then, you believe that in some instances, logic can and should override our natural impulses. How, then, can you pretend that simply holding the impulses you do is reason enough to listen to them?"