Value of human life.

So, do you believe human life has some inherent value? It seems most people here do, but I'm not so convinced. Does the life of Jiang Zemin matter more than that of a Chinese peasant? Is it wrong to kill enemy soldiers?
Do murderers deserve the same mercy they've given to their victims?

Perhaps we do, perhaps we don't.
It really depends on our purpose. Cows and chickens die everyday by the thousands to feed us, and we kill each other and let out bodies rot on the ground and for what? Over a little oil?
There's no absolute answer to a question like this, because everyones answer will indeed be different. A child in the middle east life value may seem lower than us because the media forces us to believe that they are born solely to die protecting their country. A child in china may have a lower value in life because he's paid less than three cents an hour to make our Nike shoes. Yet American lives, even criminal ones, matter more to us than 10,000 dying African kids.
You are given life for no reason nor purpose. Do what you want with it.

I enjoy life and feel it is a shame to take away that oportunity from someone else. Still, human lives are worth very little. If anything, people need to die more.

I personally have no value for human life. From a non-biased, un-personal perspective I feel there is a different class and value on humans depending on their skills and what they contribute.

There really is no need, to concern yourself that is... Quite frankly I see World Vision as one of the biggest evils in this world, not because they steal more donations then they need, but because they're helping a people that are truly genetically not meant to survive. If a nation completely and utterly depends on another for survival, then isn't that Darwin just saying they're not meant to live?

We are massively over populated and in that case, a value can easily be given. Helping the weak in this situation is heavily adding to a catastrophic problem.

Everything alive has some value. How much value depends on you

Everything alive has some value. How much value depends on you

Yes, if you're not aware that the current birth to death ratio is about five births for every two deaths worldwide, that 2 billion people is the number Earth can "just" support, (that's if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (far less then Americans )) and that the current population is close to 7 Billion people (in 40 years an estimated 9 billion) making it over three times the planet can support.

Only the stupid have no clue as to how over populated we are and therefore think "every life has value". It doesn't. Every life has a value in the negative, it is less then zero.

I don't think that a living human being has any more "value", or signifigance, than a corpse.  I think that a human body is just chemicals, so by that ideal, rocks are on the same level as humans.  We say how intelligent we are, but intelligence is an idea made up by humans.

Quite frankly I see World Vision as one of the biggest evils in this world, not because they steal more donations then they need, but because they're helping a people that are truly genetically not meant to survive.

I don't think there are many (if any) geneticists or biologists who would say that the people who are starving to death in Ethiopia or wherever are inferior to better off people in the first world. Most of these people are victims of circumstance, born in a country that has the problems it has for no reason other than some Britons forty years ago decided to lump five or six ethnic groups together because, hell, they all look the same!

Also, if it is okay to ignore suffering nations then what do you think of American homeless people who live exactly as their third world brethren do? Are they genetically inferior, and if so how?

If a nation completely and utterly depends on another for survival, then isn't that Darwin just saying they're not meant to live?

Many people believe that one of mankind's greatest achievements was breaking free, at least partly, from nature (although some people argue that human society is an extension of nature and we don't recognize it as such because it's so new). What people mean when they say something clichéd like "I'm a person, not an animal!" is that they aren't just a collection of instincts and memories. I don't want to go any farther than that because that's philosophy, which is the province of Athenian boy-lovers and not rugged manly men like myself.

Learn to appreciate the symposia sir, they really are quite excellent.

I don't think there are many (if any) geneticists or biologists who would say that the people who are starving to death in Ethiopia or wherever are inferior to better off people in the first world.

Why would they? Sounds like bad P.R. to me...

Most of these people are victims of circumstance, born in a country that has the problems it has for no reason other than some Britons forty years ago decided to lump five or six ethnic groups together because, hell, they all look the same!

Britt's sent 'em there aye? 'Cause they where more organised? Stronger, smarter? Conquered a weaker opposition... Don't know what that sounds like.

Also, if it is okay to ignore suffering nations then what do you think of American homeless people who live exactly as their third world brethren do? Are they genetically inferior, and if so how?

Quite, success breeds success, whether through genetics, upbringing or both. The reason why they (homeless people, 3rd worlders, etc...) are not dead is because high intelligence exists outside of Natural Selection.

Many people believe that one of mankind's greatest achievements was breaking free, at least partly, from nature (although some people argue that human society is an extension of nature and we don't recognize it as such because it's so new). What people mean when they say something clichéd like "I'm a person, not an animal!" is that they aren't just a collection of instincts and memories. I don't want to go any farther than that because that's philosophy, which is the province of Athenian boy-lovers and not rugged manly men like myself.

High intelligence is not needed for nature to survive, it may not even be wanted. Natural selection can't take place in our society; the poor fuck the poor, the ugly fuck the ugly and even the mentally handicap manage to have children, if anything high-intelligence is an affront to evolution.

Natural selection doesn't take place because it's been halted, by many things. People need to die, and if not only the strong survive then flaws start entering our genetics. We are meant to be purified and in a continues state of positive evolution, we are not. In nature, a poorly mutated animal simply dies without breeding, stopping the corrupted genetics from spreading. In our society because everyone is given an easy option to reproduce the gene is passed on corrupting us as a whole. Our entire culture is in a state of "corrupted selection".

Helping those who can't survive is another reason why we are so genetically tainted.

Wow, this must be my first ID post. XD Stupid virus scan made me this bored.

Yes, if you're not aware that the current birth to death ratio is about five births for every two deaths worldwide, that 2 billion people is the number Earth can "just" support, (that's if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (far less then Americans )) and that the current population is close to 7 Billion people (in 40 years an estimated 9 billion) making it over three times the planet can support.

Only the stupid have no clue as to how over populated we are and therefore think "every life has value". It doesn't. Every life has a value in the negative, it is less then zero.

If we are over populated, that doesn't mean we are negative, we are just a fraction of our regular value. If the planet can support 3 billion and we have 7 billion, we are 3/7 of our regular value!

Also, value can be thought of different things. You have your view of values as DS sees it:
How much the planet can support, how much stay alive, etc.
You also have those who think about the qualities of the person and their contributions to society.
The value of human life, like Rodney said, does depend upon you and your definition of the word.

Why would they? Sounds like bad P.R. to me...

That and the fact that they aren't. This post shows me that your intelligence was naught but a facade.

Britt's sent 'em there aye? 'Cause they where more organised? Stronger, smarter? Conquered a weaker opposition... Don't know what that sounds like.

Britain had the advantage of trade, contact, and development for the past thousand years whilst Ethiopia was cut off from civilisation. I could go on for a long history lesson on why Ethiopia was fucked, but suffice it to say that this is NOT due to any sort of genetic inferiority as you call it so much as merely being assraped by history, location, and circumstance.

Quite, success breeds success, whether through genetics, upbringing or both. The reason why they (homeless people, 3rd worlders, etc...) are not dead is because high intelligence exists outside of Natural Selection.

. . .

High intelligence is not needed for nature to survive, it may not even be wanted. Natural selection can't take place in our society; the poor fuck the poor, the ugly fuck the ugly and even the mentally handicap manage to have children, if anything high-intelligence is an affront to evolution.

Natural selection doesn't take place because it's been halted, by many things. People need to die, and if not only the strong survive then flaws start entering our genetics. We are meant to be purified and in a continues state of positive evolution, we are not. In nature, a poorly mutated animal simply dies without breeding, stopping the corrupted genetics from spreading. In our society because everyone is given an easy option to reproduce the gene is passed on corrupting us as a whole. Our entire culture is in a state of "corrupted selection".

That... makes no sense.

If we are over populated, that doesn't mean we are negative, we are just a fraction of our regular value. If the planet can support 3 billion and we have 7 billion, we are 3/7 of our regular value!

heh

Also, value can be thought of different things. You have your view of values as DS sees it:
How much the planet can support, how much stay alive, etc.
You also have those who think about the qualities of the person and their contributions to society.
The value of human life, like Rodney said, does depend upon you and your definition of the word.

Ah, this is true. I meant as in, these humans and their contribution to society and the fact that they're living beings and fellows of our species.

edit: In before Godwin's Law.

all living things have no value, everything comes back in a cycle absolutely everything in the universe does everything has no end

That... makes no sense.

I may have been up for 50 hours when I wrote that, but the point on Natural Selection not working on humans stands quite fine... It's a basic workings of the theory brought on by Darwin himself I believe...

If natural selection relies on the strong breeding and the weak dying to bring positive change (no?) then a place where that could not happen would bring negative results. Humans don't follow the "Survival of the fittest" regime, people with flaws (genetically, personality wise or situational (family) wise) still manage to breed, meaning they pass on their flaws when in a natural environment they would have died or not bred.

It's a basic happening from the theory. Humans currently can't evolve for the better (naturally) because the weak aren't dying (or because they still breed). If not, please explain how our children are becoming genetically superior with our current "everybody mates" system, an increase in intelligence is a cultural thing, not a genetic one. 

Britain had the advantage of trade, contact, and development for the past thousand years whilst Ethiopia was cut off from civilisation. I could go on for a long history lesson on why Ethiopia was fucked, but suffice it to say that this is NOT due to any sort of genetic inferiority as you call it so much as merely being assraped by history, location, and circumstance.

So then if we have a large animal killing a smaller one it's not because it's a superior creature killing a lesser, it's because the lesser animal hasn't had the chance to evolve enough to become an equal? The lesser animal was just in bad circumstance..? Survival of the fittest brings in more then just genetically flaws to the table, whether they where genetically flawed or not, they still where not strong enough to defeat their enemy. And while I was just using "genetically not meant to survive" as more of a play with words to set the mood, I still stick with it being survival of the fittest (even if it's on a cultural level). They couldn't adapt to a new situation. 

They may have had the chance to become a cultured equal to the Brits if they the English did not interfere with a lesser culture, but it still happened because they (the Brits) where not aware that you don't mess with a lesser culture (as we apparently still are not; i.e. missionaries... >_>). They may have been handed a raw deal, but I say it came because of animalistic behavior of the British, it was a natural instinct, not a humanistic one making it (due to the lack of understanding of the Brits) a natural occurrence.

That and the fact that they aren't. This post shows me that your intelligence was naught but a facade.

I was making a joke in response because I wasn't using "genetically inferior" as a literal stance in the post he was responding to. It was a metaphorical statement on the similarity to natural selection in my first post. I was using Darwin as a (joke) to justify the acceptance of genocide... How could they be genetically flawed when we all have basically the same DNA? (They're still flawed non-the less...). All signs where pointing that to be less then serious ("I see World Vision as one of the biggest evils in this world, not because they steal more donations then they need" did I miss the on that one?). It's not my fault (or perhaps it is...) that he didn't pick up that it wasn't a literal stance...


The idea on survival may have been reproducing and making every life valuable in the past, but doing that now is killing ourselves. Unless you feel like terraforming a planet sometime soon...

When all is said and done, we are equal to nothing, nothing but dust, water, and the physical form of our bodies.  I, however, think this is also unimportant, "when you become more than a person, when you become an ideal, you become unstoppable"  That is a paraphrased quote, I think from half life 2. 

If natural selection relies on the strong breeding and the weak dying to bring positive change (no?)

As a Frenchie once told me, '"Survival of the strong" is the simplification necessary for people who get their main biology facts from Tarzan.'

It's a basic happening from the theory. Humans currently can't evolve for the better (naturally) because the weak aren't dying (or because they still breed). If not, please explain how our children are becoming genetically superior with our current "everybody mates" system, an increase in intelligence is a cultural thing, not a genetic one.

You should write a thesis on eugenics, it'd be oh so fascinating.

So then if we have a large animal killing a smaller one it's not because it's a superior creature killing a lesser, it's because the lesser animal hasn't had the chance to evolve enough to become an equal?

Stop equating biological processes to historical events and social changes; it's quite obvious you're trying to use evolution to justify your ideas of race (of course you were kidding when you called genetic inferiority!) and imperialism.

They may have had the chance to become a cultured equal to the Brits if they the English did not interfere with a lesser culture, but it still happened because they (the Brits) where not aware that you don't mess with a lesser culture (as we apparently still are not; i.e. missionaries... >_>).

See, cultures are supposed to interact. This is part of the flow of ideas and allows for the ideas of different people to come together! This allows technological innovation, more efficient governments and trade. This is how Britain came to be the great power rather than Ethiopia anyways.

They may have been handed a raw deal, but I say it came because of animalistic behavior of the British, it was a natural instinct, not a humanistic one making it (due to the lack of understanding of the Brits) a natural occurrence.

See, here's you defending imperialism by saying it's merely 'animalistic behavior'. Imperialism is a purely humanistic idea.

I was making a joke in response because I wasn't using "genetically inferior" as a literal stance in the post he was responding to. It was a metaphorical statement on the similarity to natural selection in my first post. I was using Darwin as a (joke) to justify the acceptance of genocide...

Mm hmm, sure.

The idea on survival may have been reproducing and making every life valuable in the past, but doing that now is killing ourselves. Unless you feel like terraforming a planet sometime soon...

...

When all is said and done, we are equal to nothing, nothing but dust, water, and the physical form of our bodies.  I, however, think this is also unimportant, "when you become more than a person, when you become an ideal, you become unstoppable"  That is a paraphrased quote, I think from half life 2.

Wow, that was like totally deep man.

Stop treating me like a hippy!  Also, another great quote, "One starts a circle beggining anywhere."  Charles Fort, you are teh awsome.

Fucking pseudo-nihilist. You're just talking like a 13 year old kid trying to look smart and philosophical. Hey guess what, you're failing.

As a Frenchie once told me, '"Survival of the strong" is the simplification necessary for people who get their main biology facts from Tarzan.'

Referring to positive changes, not negative ones. Please refer to what people are talking about.

You should write a thesis on eugenics, it'd be oh so fascinating.

The ideas behind eugenics are brought on directly by Natural Selection, dismissing it as a joke or of it being unfounded is saying you don't believe in the processes of Natural Selection and possibly evolution in a whole as evolution derives from positive change whether NS is correct or not!

That's of course if eugenics is referring to manipulation of human breeding (or DNA) to bring positive results as we do with dogs. The idea in itself may be flawed, but what it's based on is not. It's technically what happens to animals in the wild through NS but on a forced level to humans.

Stop equating biological processes to historical events and social changes; it's quite obvious you're trying to use evolution to justify your ideas of race (of course you were kidding when you called genetic inferiority!) and imperialism.

I say cultural advancement fits in with all of the other traits belonging to survival of the fittest when referring to humans. As Saladin said; "although some people argue that human society is an extension of nature and we don't recognize it as such because it's so new". Are you really saying you take the judgment call on these definitions only by comparing humans to the defined natures of basic animals..? We are different to animals yet you wish to use the same definitions we use on them to compare us! Are you positive you want to make this call..?

See, cultures are supposed to interact. This is part of the flow of ideas and allows for the ideas of different people to come together! This allows technological innovation, more efficient governments and trade. This is how Britain came to be the great power rather than Ethiopia anyways.

Cultures on a similar if not equal level. Go back in time 2000 years and give a group of people living a nuclear device with instructions, see what happens. Interfering with a heavily less-developed culture normally ends with negative results. What you where implying is only referring to a fraction of the whole, yet you used it as a definition to describe all situations? Was something else implied I didn't see?

See, here's you defending imperialism by saying it's merely 'animalistic behavior'. Imperialism is a purely humanistic idea.

You can separate what makes us human and see the rest is identical to what a dog has (not literally). It's basically an instinctual based line of thinking rather then a conscious thought processing, it's relying on emotions and lust. I say human shares a very close link to what we once where and it can not be counted as a whole of the "human ideal" because it's simply an animal trait behavior not a direct one relating to what the defining "human" definition of us refers to. I was saying it was caused by heavy influence by an animalistic part of us humans due to a lack of their current knowledge.

Put them in our time, would they do the same thing?

I was making a joke in response because I wasn't using "genetically inferior" as a literal stance in the post he was responding to. It was a metaphorical statement on the similarity to natural selection in my first post. I was using Darwin as a (joke) to justify the acceptance of genocide...

Mm hmm, sure.

(of course you were kidding when you called genetic inferiority!)

Which is it?

The idea on survival may have been reproducing and making every life valuable in the past, but doing that now is killing ourselves. Unless you feel like terraforming a planet sometime soon...

...

Yes, another joke made due to the recent outbreak on "terraforming" in the RMRK debate section.

Referring to positive changes, not negative ones. Please refer to what people are talking about.

I say cultural advancement fits in with all of the other traits belonging to survival of the fittest when referring to humans. As Saladin said; "although some people argue that human society is an extension of nature and we don't recognize it as such because it's so new". Are you really saying you take the judgment call on these definitions only by comparing humans to the defined natures of basic animals..? We are different to animals yet you wish to use the same definitions we use on them to compare us! Are you positive you want to make this call..?

What?

The ideas behind eugenics are brought on directly by Natural Selection, dismissing it as a joke or of it being unfounded is saying you don't believe in the processes of Natural Selection and possibly evolution in a whole as evolution derives from positive change whether NS is correct or not!

I didn't dismiss evolution or natural selection, I dismissed your idiotic claims.

That's of course if eugenics is referring to manipulation of human breeding (or DNA) to bring positive results as we do with dogs. The idea in itself may be flawed, but what it's based on is not. It's technically what happens to animals in the wild through NS but on a forced level to humans.

Haha. Yes, let's breed humans to perfection. It'll work perfectly.

Cultures on a similar if not equal level. Go back in time 2000 years and give a group of people living a nuclear device with instructions, see what happens. Interfering with a heavily less-developed culture normally ends with negative results. What you where implying is only referring to a fraction of the whole, yet you used it as a definition to describe all situations? Was something else implied I didn't see?

Ah, but it's different. Britain fucked Ethiopia up, yes, but it and the other civilised powers of the world have done better. In fact, they're the reason the world is the way it is- they introduced civilisation and 'high' culture to lesser developed peoples, often rather forcibly. It depends again on circumstance and the way the more developed culture approaches this that determines the outcome.

You can separate what makes us human and see the rest is identical to what a dog has (not literally). It's basically an instinctual based line of thinking rather then a conscious thought processing, it's relying on emotions and lust. I say human shares a very close link to what we once where and it can not be counted as a whole of the "human ideal" because it's simply an animal trait behavior not a direct one relating to what the defining "human" definition of us refers to. I was saying it was caused by heavy influence by an animalistic part of us humans due to a lack of their current knowledge.

Put them in our time, would they do the same thing?

Eugh, thanks. This shit's given me a headache. In fact, it's so stupid as to not even deserve any rebuttal. Get back to saying things that make sense.

I was making a joke in response because I wasn't using "genetically inferior" as a literal stance in the post he was responding to. It was a metaphorical statement on the similarity to natural selection in my first post. I was using Darwin as a (joke) to justify the acceptance of genocide...

Mm hmm, sure.

(of course you were kidding when you called genetic inferiority!)

Which is it?

The second quote is sarcasm dear.

Referring to positive changes, not negative ones. Please refer to what people are talking about.

I say cultural advancement fits in with all of the other traits belonging to survival of the fittest when referring to humans. As Saladin said; "although some people argue that human society is an extension of nature and we don't recognize it as such because it's so new". Are you really saying you take the judgment call on these definitions only by comparing humans to the defined natures of basic animals..? We are different to animals yet you wish to use the same definitions we use on them to compare us! Are you positive you want to make this call..?

What?

You only addressed that positive changes aren't needed, which is a an idea I have not stated on either way. My point was referring to negitive changes not being cut off, you addressed positive changes alone.

I didn't dismiss evolution or natural selection, I dismissed your idiotic claims.

What claims? If you're referring to eugenics, I actually stated the idea is flawed, my opinions would be it wouldn't work (edit: it wouldn't work in a realistic situation), I simply stated that what it was based on is Natural Selection and is an idea that can easily be found.

If you're referring to the theory that evolution doesn't correctly work with our current society, I suggest you do more then say "YOU'RE WRONG!", answer the questions, refute and research, if you do the latter, you will see this idea is brought on by Darwin himself and is the only occurrence to the NS theory when introduced to how we humans work as a society. This shows that you're knowledge on NS is nothing more then textbook associated and you're incapable of actually working out the effects in your mind, this idea is grasped by many including the father of the theory's cause!

That's of course if eugenics is referring to manipulation of human breeding (or DNA) to bring positive results as we do with dogs. The idea in itself may be flawed, but what it's based on is not. It's technically what happens to animals in the wild through NS but on a forced level to humans.

Haha. Yes, let's breed humans to perfection. It'll work perfectly.

Hohoho! I highly suggest reading what is put down and not jumping to conclusions. You're so heavily aimed at defeating me you don't bother to understand what was put down. Read again, did I any where imply directly my opinion on eugenics? If you read some parts I imply it's flawed without going into it as my opinion on the matter has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Ah, but it's different. Britain fucked Ethiopia up, yes, but it and the other civilised powers of the world have done better. In fact, they're the reason the world is the way it is- they introduced civilisation and 'high' culture to lesser developed peoples, often rather forcibly. It depends again on circumstance and the way the more developed culture approaches this that determines the outcome.

Just because the outcome was in a whole, positive it doesn't make it the correct choice. What you're saying is it's ok for a highly developed culture to play god with a lesser developed one if they know the outcome..?? Please answer...

You can separate what makes us human and see the rest is identical to what a dog has (not literally). It's basically an instinctual based line of thinking rather then a conscious thought processing, it's relying on emotions and lust. I say human shares a very close link to what we once where and it can not be counted as a whole of the "human ideal" because it's simply an animal trait behavior not a direct one relating to what the defining "human" definition of us refers to. I was saying it was caused by heavy influence by an animalistic part of us humans due to a lack of their current knowledge.

Put them in our time, would they do the same thing?

Eugh, thanks. This shit's given me a headache. In fact, it's so stupid as to not even deserve any rebuttal. Get back to saying things that make sense.

Oh, so you're in the habit of replying to things that you don't understand? You made a statement on how you felt about what was put down without actually knowing what was implied..? You're doing what the creationists do; "I have absolutely no idea on evolution, I haven't studied it at all, yet I will say as a fact that the theory is incorrect and heavily flawed!". Bad debating anyone?

The correct response to something you don't understand is, "Would you please explain that better?", not "I DUNT UNDERSTAND IT, SO IT'S STUPID, STUPID".

The second quote is sarcasm dear.

Mm hmm, sure. ()

I am truly astonished you fell for that, you do realise you're now in a position that can't be proved because you showed no direct evidence of sarcasm (as I showed no direct evidence for a joke), you just accused me of doing something wrong and then proceed to do it! LOL

You can't prove anymore that is was sarcasm in that post then I could that it was a joke in my first post, yet you continue to say it? Why? Expecting me to take you're word that it was sarcasm when you wouldn't take mine..? Or is it complete and utter error? I'm trying to think of a word that would be delicious enough for the situation, but I suppose this will just have to do within itself... 

My view. (Sorry if this alarms people)

It depends on what context human life is viewed in... A human life in contrast to many is very little for example:-

The litle Girl from England that's gone missing in Portugal... People have been offering Millions for her return...

I think in War damage is expected, but random acts of evil towards human life seem to shake it much more.

I think if some one kills some one else and equation should be done to see how much  life has been lost from the victim and the same should be taken from the killer.

For example:-

You kill a 60 year old, the average life expantacey is 80 so you get 20 years

You kill a 4 year old you get 76 years#

You walk into a school and kill loads you get the death penalty...

Infact I think should any sentence push your release over 80 years you should be put t death... So if your 40 and kill a 42 year old your release would be when your 82, you should be put to death...

Wow, he can tell just from my posts that I am a pseudo nihilist.  I am impressed.

I'd buy the Queen of England's life for $2.99 along with a bottle of coke.

I mean, she's rich and all but she's going to die sooner than me right?

~Winged

 

Most people in here are saying "hey the world is over populated, so human life has no value"
... does that mean you don't value your own life? If the world is so damn over populated (I know it is) then just go kill yourself. Human life has no value.

If we all just killed ourselves then there, fixed. Who gets to decide who dies, and who lives (I know cliché) but it's true... when was it decided, that you had value and somebody else didn't?

So, here is my solution, not more deaths... but less births.

BIRTH CONTROL GOD DAMMIT!  It's like half the god damn world has not heard of this stuff.

-This is the result of Boe, posting in ID...  a jumble of bad grammar and crappy use of the English language