Kenneth R.
Cináed
i am not versed enough to consider myself philosopher, not resentful enough to consider myself anarchist, though i do dislike my current government and society's values and would seek to restore- not remove. interesting comments...
Overpopulation
- Thread starter infoterror
- Start date
Demiurge, envision something for me. Envision a starving child in a festering jungle ravaged by disease, despair, and an air of hostility and pain. See him, see his skeletal body, his gaunt face, and his pleading eyes that hold more experience on the "darker" side of life than you or I or anyone can imagine. Envision this, and then ask him what he wants. Ask him if he would like you to shoot him in the head. Explain to this child, and people like him what it is you can offer them: nothing. A variable in an equation so many are trying so hard to solve. You offer them a quick relief and then a complete unknown, but of course it's ok, because for that moment in time, that one moment(or series, depending on method), they will not be in pain. You cannot promise them anything beyond that, because you don't fucking know what's beyond that, perhaps peace, or perhaps something worse. Do not think yourself able to discern any light from impenetrable dark, which is death. That doesn't speak to the negative quality of death itself, it merely states that you don't know what lies beyond.
I know what he would ask of you instead of the supposed answer you carry, but it would not be anotherform or a less gruesome way to end his life, it would be for a little food. He wouldn't be greedy, he would simply ask for enough for himself to be moderately full, and probably save scraps for his family. He would do anything you asked, he would literally do anything. But he would not ask you to shoot him, or anyone in his family, he would ask for means to live upon. Tell him and his kind about your fucking hopeless situation.
You and those who agree with you are lower than cowards. The Kevorkian ideal I see supported and endorsed in these arguments makes me sick and compels me to call you a coward but it wouldn't suffice. If you want an answer, perhaps a way to a better life, or one less painful, think of someone other than your fucking self. Think of helping someone, or reaching out, and feeling love in the stead of the cold defeatist attitude you have taken in the guise of reason. I have not personally gone through things many who end their lives have, but I have felt sorrow and the weight of it is viewed in the measurement of perception.
Who are you or any of us to judge what life could mean for us? It is a choice how we live our lives, it is true enough, but none of us possess a crystal ball or the ability to divine its secrets if we did. Logic would tell us if things get bad, change the angle from which you look at it. If it simply cannot be viewed as appealing or at the least bit tolerable, measures can be taken to change it. Odds are you will simply write off my argument, perhaps go to your former extreme and call me stupid, but I challenge you to envision what I suggest, and then tell that child that his personal experience doesn't measure up. I fucking dare you, coward.
I know what he would ask of you instead of the supposed answer you carry, but it would not be anotherform or a less gruesome way to end his life, it would be for a little food. He wouldn't be greedy, he would simply ask for enough for himself to be moderately full, and probably save scraps for his family. He would do anything you asked, he would literally do anything. But he would not ask you to shoot him, or anyone in his family, he would ask for means to live upon. Tell him and his kind about your fucking hopeless situation.
You and those who agree with you are lower than cowards. The Kevorkian ideal I see supported and endorsed in these arguments makes me sick and compels me to call you a coward but it wouldn't suffice. If you want an answer, perhaps a way to a better life, or one less painful, think of someone other than your fucking self. Think of helping someone, or reaching out, and feeling love in the stead of the cold defeatist attitude you have taken in the guise of reason. I have not personally gone through things many who end their lives have, but I have felt sorrow and the weight of it is viewed in the measurement of perception.
Who are you or any of us to judge what life could mean for us? It is a choice how we live our lives, it is true enough, but none of us possess a crystal ball or the ability to divine its secrets if we did. Logic would tell us if things get bad, change the angle from which you look at it. If it simply cannot be viewed as appealing or at the least bit tolerable, measures can be taken to change it. Odds are you will simply write off my argument, perhaps go to your former extreme and call me stupid, but I challenge you to envision what I suggest, and then tell that child that his personal experience doesn't measure up. I fucking dare you, coward.
Demiurge
This user has no title
Sorry, guy, but you've got me laughing pretty good. What a maudlin argument! Maybe you don't know me very well, but you can't appeal my pity and shame me into agreeing with you. Once again, very funny.Envisioned, check. What does this have to do with the argument? I don't want to shoot some kid in a third world country in the back of the head, nor do I particularly care what he wants. What I'm arguing is that one ought to kill himself when is life is not deemed worth living by him. If the kid wants to die, fine. If not, that's all right by me, too.
Like I said, on the one hand there is certain misery on the other...not. Personally, I think there's probably nothing beyond. If I'm lying on my death bed in agony, I'll take my chances, whatever the case may be.
How dense can you get? If you want to keep living, go ahead. If you think you have a chance, feel free to take it. This isn't complicated.
There's hardly anything to address here, despite there being a paragraph before me.
I can't parse that question, boy. I'm not even going to guess what it's supposed to be communicating to me.
It's hard to change your perspective adequately enough to overcome the most hopeless depths. Lets have you envision something: you're lying in your bed, ridden with cancer. The pain is excruciating. You're too far gone for medicine to heal you. Change your perspective, be happy! Yeah, right...how naive can you get?
Oh please, not the stupid kid again. I dealt with this already. If he doesn't want to die, I won't make him.
Once again, the matter is one of personal decision. If you can bring about change leading to a high enough quality of life for you to want to persist, very well. If not, one can choose to die. The condition of some kid in Africa who doesn't want to die is utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I only respond to double dog dares, sorry.
I thought this was a philosophy forum If you want to appeal to emotion, go elsewhere.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
what of the philosophy of emotions? you can't dismiss emotion completely from debate. it has its usesDemiurge said:
WarHammer said:
To use children to argue your case is quite unfair: children are innocent warhammer, just wait until they hit adulthood. Haha.
Just what is your point anyway? You dont know what is beyond death, but think it is negative. You apparently are a fan of suffering. This is all fine and dandy, but just what the hell is your argument? That we lower animals that are obsessed with such basic matters as getting food, shouldn't commit suicide, because--well what is the because.
Fuck, I just dont get people here. If some poor miserable wretch wants to commit suicide they are going to do it. For many, this offers the best future.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Silent Song said:
Exactly.
Since I dont believe in christian or muslim fairytales, I can safely say death would be a peaceful alternative to those who have no future. At least I have nihilism, the Buddhism, the Greeks and ROmans, etc, views of afterlife on my side.
Barking Pumpkin
Member
- Aug 31, 2004
- 2,942
- 3
- 36
- 34
I read David Brower's book 'Let The Mountains Talk, Let The Rivers Run' (I think that's the title) last year. One of the chapters is about overpopulation, and he touched on estimates scientists have given on the number of people the Earth can sustain indefinitely. I think the largest predicted number for this was five hundred million. As you can see, with these kind of numbers, a "one child per person" policy wouldn't do shit, to put it bluntly.........we're obviously eventually going to run into a point where our population is going to drop very drastically and we'll be back down to a lower number again.
Barking Pumpkin said:
We're at seven billion, and we'd need to cut down to a half-billion. Well, that's coherent with my estimates, at least, since for people to really have no impact on the environment there needs to be a lot of untouched land, and if we do have impact on the environment, we inevitably set off a chain reaction like global warming.
Barking Pumpkin
Member
- Aug 31, 2004
- 2,942
- 3
- 36
- 34
So when thinking about stuff like that........it makes you reconsider diseases like AIDs popping up........is this unusual, or possibly some kind of natural method of coping with overpopulation?
Kenneth R.
Cináed
global warming is yet to be verified. some data now suggests the opposite may be true. it could be that we are setting ourselves up for an ice age, after which will trigger global warming...
From what I've seen, global warming is verified - the globe is getting warmer. Whether that's because of human intervention, natural cycles, or both in concert may still be under debate.
IMHO, the evidence is pretty goddamn clear, but it takes putting it into perspective. I've been lucky enough in life to travel the world and see a lot more than most are privileged to see. It made up my mind.
IMHO, the evidence is pretty goddamn clear, but it takes putting it into perspective. I've been lucky enough in life to travel the world and see a lot more than most are privileged to see. It made up my mind.
