CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Let evolution run its course and the weak will die off naturally so the strong can flourish and multiply.
Trying to artificially alter the 'natural selection' process does nobody any favours, and only serves to prolong the agony of the lower orders of our species.
Three and a half billion years of natural selection have proven that natural selection is a law of nature. We cannot subvert it, so we might as well let it do its thing.
If you set up structures that makes living almost impossible for people in Africa(specifically zimbabwe, libya etc), Puerto rico, Venezuela, North Korea, etc and you call it Natural selection....or is it Artificial Manipulation; Evil??
Where did you go to school, who taught you science??
If you want what natural selection really implies in relation to the current state of the human race, coming from proper objective science not political science and twists, will make every white man suddenly feel his skin colour as the most disgusting prison he eagerly want to breakout of.
But i won't explain as i am not the stinking evil racist kind that you are.
Regarding your comment: If you set up structures that makes living almost impossible for people in Africa(specifically zimbabwe, libya etc), Puerto rico, Venezuela, North Korea, etc and you call it Natural selection....or is it Artificial Manipulation; Evil??
If you think that the origins of the conditions in the environment matter, then you are ignorant of what the term natural selection means. Whatever constraints exist in the environment are the constraints the organism must adapt to or contend against in order to survive and pass on its genes.
Only someone who does not understand the term environmentwould think that the political or economic realities are not part of the environment.
The meaning of the term almost impossible is critical in the selection process, because the more demanding the environment, the better adapted (stronger, faster, smarter, or more disease-resistant/durable, etc.) the individual organism must be to survive and pass on its genes. Faster antelopes select out for faster cheetahs, and making a faster antelopes requires faster cheetahs.
If you want what natural selection really implies...
It does not matter whether any of us want what natural selection implies. Natural selection is an absolute. There is no escaping it, avoiding it, or changing it.
We should be helping them as much as we can. Finding and teaching modern gardening that suites their climate and dietary needs. Just one building, about a block long with multiple levels can feed an entire community, and if it uses alternate methods to gather energy, such as wind/sun, it can be nearly self-sustaining. The main concern is water but in a closed system it wouldn't be as wasteful as traditional gardening methods.
Yes we should , but we're not doing enough , in the meantime kids still starve to death this is going on for hundreds of years and will continue to do so
And many kids who were starving aren't doing so now because they have the help.
Even though there is still plenty of bad, there is so much good going on as well.
In some of the more rural areas of Africa, people are still abandoning children who are seen as witches. Those poor kids are left to fend for themselves and often starve to death. But there are people who come and take them, give them love, food, shelter and teach them so that they in turn can go back out and teach others. It's a slow fight but it's still a fight that is going on and we can certainly do more.
But that does not solve the immediate problem which is as we speak children are dying with no chance of being saved we all know this is the case as the staggering statistics will confirm yearly .
So the core issue here is ...... Is it better to end the lives of those we know we cannot help or is it preferable to let them die slowly and from starvation?
Dunno, I guess I take the mindset of, if we can spend the money and time murdering them then we can spend the money and time feeding and teaching them.
Yes we should , but we're not doing enough , in the meantime kids still starve to death this is going on for hundreds of years and will continue to do so
Hundreds of years?
Try hundreds of millions of years.
How do you think humans became so efficient that obesity is even possible?
That is the result of aeons of populations of our ancestors (hominid and before) on the edge of starvation. The most efficient individuals in the populations passed on their genes, and that continues to happen as populations continue to be on the edge of starvation.
That is one of the reasons not to "humanely kill the starving in third world countries." Not all would die. Many of those who survive will pass on their genes.
I know you mean to be kind, but I think you are shortsighted, that you rely on feelings instead of thinking logically.
It is interesting that the basic assumption is that people dying is bad.
Death is inevitable, but prolonged suffering is not.
When the population of any animal species surpasses its environment, widespread suffering precedes the already inevitable deaths.
When the demands of survival surpass any individual animal's ability to survive in its environment, suffering precedes the individuals demise.
When the starvation of a human is interrupted for even a few consecutive meals over a couple of days, the individual is capable of reproduction, which generally results in more of the animal to feed in an already food poor environment.
The important question is how to reduce the number of individual who suffer by starvation, or at the very least, how to keep that number from increasing.
Feeding populations of individuals who cannot feed themselves does at least one and possibly all of the following.
- 1 - Delays the inevitable suffering.
- 2 - Extends the duration of the suffering.
- 3 - Increases the number of individuals who ultimately suffer.
- 4- Enslaves the population to whatever outside group provides the so-called "relief" until the relationship breaks down and the starvation happens anyway.
I understand that your desire to fix the symptom of the population excess, FEELS LIKE compassion, but the long-term effects are unbelievably cruel.
Yes agreed Marcus points well made ; what baffles me is that we know these people will definitely die slow agonising deaths but society ( mostly ) deem people like me a monster for suggesting such a terrible option . To end a miserable life humanely is epitome of decency yet .
We live in an age labelled post truth by philosophers where emotional appeals and unquestioned assumptions dominate the media and thus inform societies opinions on the important questions
I think the moment anyone approves the deaths of others and use logic to excuse it is the moment we all need to be concerned.
Logically, we could all combine our efforts to help others who need it. It's a much better option than just shrugging our shoulders and saying "well they may die anyways so let's speed it up", but it requires us to actually do something ourselves....other than killing.
The difference between nice and kind is whether when we help others, we only think about and plan for the short term effects (nice), or think of the long-term consequences on more than just the folks whose suffering we see (kind).
I think the moment anyone approves the deaths of others and use logic to excuse it is the moment we all need to be concerned.
I think what you are ignoring is that everyone's death is guaranteed. Yours, mine, everyone's. Death from natural causes (like disease or starvation) does not have to be excused any more than a sunset has to be excused.
When you say, It's a much better option than just shrugging our shoulders and saying "well they may die anyways so let's speed it up", There is no "may" about it.
Learning this basic lesson is why it is so important for children to have goldfish or dogs.
This thread's question boils down to whether it is better (or more ethical) to kill suffering people so that suffer for a shorter time, or passively let them suffer for a long time before dying.
Would you, Mint, take on the burden of killing people to lessen the duration of their suffering? No weaseling out of the choice with better food production--the choice is kill or let die.
Would you, Mint, take on the burden of killing people to lessen the duration of their suffering? No weaseling out of the choice with better food production--the choice is kill or let die.
Neither option. It doesn't matter if you want me to choose, but if I can find a way to help I will find a way to help.
If a person is suffering because of some debilitating disease that has no cure and no chance and they want to die, then that's their choice.
If a person is hungry then you do the best you can to fix it, and make no mistake, it is fixable. It's slow going to help with world hunger but there is help and people are doing everything they can.
Help can actually help some of these places, but for most of them it just makes matters worse. That was the lesson of aid programs in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Personally, I think the most effective method of helping them is to let them work things out for themselves for a time, WITHOUT any so-called "help" from well-meaning and soft-hearted disaster mongers.
The problems in most of the Third World result from a couple combinations of factors.
- 1 - Third World governments collude with multinational corporations to continue a de facto colonialism. The current colonial economics of multinational corporations interact with deeply corrupt third world government institutions. The governments and government officials take the lion's share of payments by (and national profits from) investment by multinational economic entities. These entities invest in the third world with the intent of removing most of the value (whether in natural resources or human labor) for minimum cost.
They can do this because the domestic non-monetary capital (trained personnel, educational structures, infrastructure, etc.) are often insufficient for such enterprises to develop from within the nation. Moreover, the investment capital that comes into many of these nations (aid dollars, NGO investments, and the investments by the previously discussed multi-national corporations) are mismanaged or stolen by government officials.
As a result, people stop engaging in traditional (and successful) subsistence strategies, leaving them more vulnerable to starvation. Concurrently, foreign investment never makes any headway in making the nations able to become independently functioning economies that have profits to reinvest in locally owned enterprises. The investment and aid gets misused, and results in continuation and worsening of the economic problems.
- 2 - Many Third World countries' populace have failed to develop (among a large enough segment of the population) the cultural values and attitudes required to implement the wealth-producing structures that make Western nations wealthy. Industrial/technological wealth in the West is fueled by cultural behaviors by the populace. Prosperity (like democracy) cannot be imported like it is merely the artifacts that are produced by factories. The prosperity of Europe, the US, China, Singapore, Japan, etc. is based on widespread cultural values and behaviors that produce wealth within the nation.
Without ALL the necessary values, just dumping money, technology, medicine, and food into the countries makes their problems worse. These interferences cause population increase, and separation from traditional subsistence strategies without adding to the ability to support the growing populations.
One of the most problematic causes of starvation is the importation of medical technology that reduces infant mortality rates, and extends lifespan WITHOUT mitigating the cultural value of large families. The result was a population boom starting in the mid 20th century that was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in LOCAL food production.
Foreign aid to many of these places is just fuel in a starvation machine.
I appreciate that you are actually addressing a difficult problem without pretending there are pretty solutions to it. All the realistic solutions are undeniably ugly.
-
You wrote, "No , very few think like me as I'm a visionary
I know I'm great .... thank you "
History pretty clearly demonstrates that being a visionary is not automatically a good thing. I am not just talking about the Hitlers and Chairmans Mao, but also of the visionaries who really screwed things up.
For example, one of the biggest ecological disasters of the twentieth century was the eradication of smallpox in the wild. This was done by well intentioned visionaries who did not consider the importance of forces like predators and starvation to ensure the herd fits the environment. As a result, humans lost one of the most effective natural predators, the world population ballooned over the past 50 years, and conversations like this became reasonable and necessary.
The problem this discussion is addressing is in large part the result of misguided good intentions by people who do not want to look at human suffering anymore.
That is why I would recommend not humanely killing starving populations, nor do I recommend sending aid.
Let the natural processes play out without inserting some visionary to make matters even worse.
We solve the same problem by having a deer hunting season instead of leaving tons of corn out to feed the excess population of deer. (Yes I know there are idiot "hunters" who leave corn out to attract deer to the spot right in front of their blinds. That is not just stupid, but also lazy.)
I do not advocate going out and actively killing starving populations, but it is unspeakably cruel and shortsighted to keep feeding them, ensuring their problem continues to worsen.
As far as I know, Nazis are the only people who believe in pruning society.. Why do you like murder sooo much??
Actually the Nazi's were not the only ones. Many people, including Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) also believed in eugenics ("pruning".)
It was not until uneducated people started acting like the race-based (Nazi) model of eugenics was the only possible meaning of the word eugenics that the concept of pointedly trimming the size of the human herd became taboo by simple virtue of the fact that Nazis did it.
(Can you imagine what the 1960s would have looked like if nobody had driven a VW Beetle simply because Nazis had driven them?)
What I am suggesting here is not pruning, at all. It is simply abstention from fertilizing (in the gardening sense.) While actively killing starving individuals in starving populations would be kinder, it makes more sense to let natural selection do its thing.
So, when people begin to starve right here in the good ole US of A, we should let natural selection do its thing??
Really?? DUDE!
Dude. Really.
Why does it make sense to encourage the continued growth of a species that has already overrun most of the planet?
Why does it make sense to pretend all these environmental problems and population problems are ONLY in third world countries?
In terms of the US of A, specifically, pick one:
-1- Starvation or forced sterilization, and prohibition of all immigration to the US.
OR
-2- Urban sprawl over the entirety of the Olympic Peninsula, the North Cascades, and Mount Rainier up to the timberline. And then mass starvation.
-
I understand that you reject the proposition that we not encourage the reproduction of the least capable genes, but think about why that is. I bet it is because the actual solutions to our problems, and to the planet's problems, are ugly solutions.
I certainly don't like the inevitable solutions, but I don't hide from them. Neither of us likes any of these realities.
- We don't want starvation.
- We don't want fatal disease.
- We don't want high infant mortality rates.
- We don't want the average human life span to go back to 50 years.
- We don't want people to be born with genetic-based health issues.
- We don't want to have to deal personally with unintelligent people getting in our ways.
- We don't want to deal with traffic.
- We don't want to deal with long lies.
- We don't want to actually invite homeless guys to stay in our own personal houses and eat out of our own refrigerators.
- We don't want all our natural lands to be overrun and paved over.
- We don't want to deal with the environmental side effects of technological advancement.
- We don't want to admit that technological advancements cannot fix all our problems.
- We don't want to admit that there is no free lunch, and that there is a cost to EVERYTHING.
Face it, what we really don't want is to have to make any hard decisions, and then stare the results of our choices in the face.
Do you really think 3 billion years of natural selection will be derailed because we don't want to look at ugly things?
Face it, what we really don't want is to have to make any hard decisions, and then stare the results of our choices in the face.
Hello again, m:
I'm just not into culling the herd.. We have MORE than enough food to feed everybody, and I don't think it'll put a dent in our lifestyle.. What's lacking, is the WILL to get it done..
Therefore, DECIDING not to do it is tantamount to genocide..
So what do you think about environmental impact of accelerating population increase?
I am not one of the people who believes that humans are a cause of climate change. (Climate change is a constant geologically driven process.)
However, I do think our global population explosion is having a horrible impact on water quality, air quality, availability/accessibility of unspoiled natural spaces.
You live in the middle of some gorgeous landscape ( I used to live in the Pacific Northwest, too) and there are places where I used to hike in unspoiled forest that are now covered in urban sprawl, including in Snohomish and on Whidbey Island.
How much of Mount Rainier should have buildings on it before we should start letting people die, or start enforced sterilization?
Ah, another science denier. How refreshing. Why are you goofballs always on the right?
Ah, another logic denier. How refreshing. Why are you goofballs always on the left? :)
I DO NOT deny climate change. I sure as hell do not deny science. The scientific evidence is that climate constantly changes, and always has. Because of that, it looks like regardless of whether there are people, the constantly changing geology of the planet would drive climate change.
If you actually think humans are a major contributor to climate change, the obvious logical solution is to radically and immediately reduce the human population.
Yet here you are arguing against that.
You just keep avoiding the ugly reality that there are no happy solutions to the problem of human population impact.
I understand why. You are a basically nice guy who would rather use feelings to reach your conclusions than logic, because the logic leads only to the ugliness of having to stop being nice, and instead make the hard decisions that constitute being truly kind in the long run.
It is all about Utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number of people, including people who have not yet been born.
Lol. Right. Because rejecting decades of scientific study is logical.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
If you actually think humans are a major contributor to climate change, the obvious logical solution is to radically and immediately reduce the human population.
Hello again, m:
Obvious to you, maybe.. What's obvious to me, is that we FIX the problem of man made climate change.. That too, wouldn't put a dent in our lifestyle.. In fact, if we LEAD, like we always have, we'll enhance our lifestyle 10fold.
Even without climate change, we're gonna need a new source of energy.. After all, oil IS finite. Shouldn't we get on the bandwagon BEFORE it runs out?
Fusion energy too, is right at our fingertips.. We need a Manhattan style project to put us over the top.. What?? You don't think we can do it??? DUDE.. ANYTHING the universe can do, we can DUPLICATE it..
Either of those things would put America on top for generations.. That would be how I'd handle it..
You'd rather let the oil run out, retreat from the world and let it STARVE in the name of some bogus overpopulation myth.. That's not very American of you..
excon
PS> Somebody else called you goofballs and science deniers... He does have a point, however..
Lol. He's barking mad. It's Hitler logic. Jews are a major contributor to the strangulation of the German economy, so the obvious logical solution is to gas all the Jews. This is what it's like trying to argue with the American right wing. Impossible.
@marcusmoon. "The scientific evidence is that climate constantly changes, and always has. Because of that, it looks like regardless of whether there are people, the constantly changing geology of the planet would drive climate change."
That is such an elementary statement that clearly needs further elaboration. Yes, the climate changes with time (e.g. the climate 100 million years ago was very different than our current climate). Climate Scientists are studying HOW the climate changes with time, the history of the Climate on Earth, what are factors in changes of the climate and make PROJECTIONS into the future. All of these areas need to be studied at some length (and have been and continue to be studied in detail), to just say "the scientific evidence is that climate constantly changes, and always has" is just asserting an obvious truth and then claiming this somehow explains everything that needs to be said in your favor. Would you say that for Geology for instance, "Well, the scientific evidence suggests that geological structures constantly change, and always has". While that is not wrong, that hardly even begins to scratch the surface of what else there is to say about the topic and you are asserting it confidently as though that is your "trump card" in the debate (I am glad we can agree upon something at least though).
You are correct that it is a much more complex issue than the paranoids insist.
Don't just look at what "Climate Scientists" ("climatologists") project. Look at the Geologists, too. They almost universally disagree with the climatologists' proposition that climate change is definitely (or even probably) anthropogenic.
(That is why they are generally not invited to the climate summits, and not included in the mythical "98%" of scientists who agree that humans are the cause.)
Consider that Methane has more impact on heat retention than does CO2. One mnoderate volcanic eruption releases more methane than all human activity has ever produced.
I know there is a psychological drive to see the world as anthropocentric, but it is hardly justified.
Moreover, we can tell that the people who are yelling the loudest about it don't actually believe it because they are using fossil fuels to globetrot and are pushing every (profitable) green technology, but not birth control and sterilization because they are not particularly profitable.
It's amusing an academic recently said , every debate has at least one person who has not a decent point to make introducing the term Nazi which is not even an argument
Was King Saul justified in obeying "YHWH's command" to commit the genocide of the Amelekites? No. He was just another historical Hitler.
Sure, King Saul did not just watch babies starve, but had them killed. should he have let them starve slowly? Should he have ignored YHWH's command?
What about the Israeli embargo against modern Palestinians and the shortages of building materials to replace homes destroyed by the Israeli government?
Face it, the Nazis were not particularly original or unusual. There have always been, and still are self-righteous people intentionally causing pain on grand scales.
The new thing is the self-righteous people increasing the pain by trying to help. The net effect of aid programs by well-meaning self-righteous people over the past half-century has merely been an increase in the size of suffering populations. Don't let a half million people starve, when you can feed them, let them reproduce, and in a generation or two have millions of starving people. These well-meaning fools make Hitler look like a teddy bear.
Here is the results of the slippery slope of abortion. We have inhuman people now talking about humanely killing starving people.
Kind of like killing even viable unborn babies for possibly having a hard life. Sound familiar?
This is where it leads when we cheapen life. Just as Conservatives have been saying, when the money starts running out, the inhuman people will start talking about letting old people die rather than spending money on their healthcare.
This is mankind's value system. If they become burdens, KILL THEM FOR THEIR OWN GOOD!
One question is how do they feel about it? Do they WANT people from another country to just drive by and "humanely" kill them on the spot so that THOSE people don't have to watch THEM suffer and die? Exactly how is it humane to decide the ending of lives for these people? The only reason people would want to go there to lay these people down "humanely" is so they wouldn't have to deal with the presence of people suffering, because it's an moral eyesore and headache. Because they don't want to keep "feeling bad" for those poor people starving. If these people are suffering so much that they would rather die they would just go ahead and suicide, they don't need your help.
This is reality. Yes it is sad that they are starving. If you can't help these people then you simply can't help them, deal with it. If their situation distresses you so much that you would vote to kill them all "humanely" (which is what by the way? morphine overdose?), don't dress it up like it's a humanitarian act.
Its not about us not having to watch them die slowly it's about them dying with dignity as opposed to dying like wretches a slow lingering painful death .
What a fucked up world if one seeing a dog die of starvation the unfortunate creature would be put out of its misery if food could not be provided to it , yet a human should die a slow lingering death because ?
It's not about me " feeling bad " it's about me being humane your version is .... " we OUGHT to be doing more but hey that's life better off letting them die slowly until we work it out "
The point is, we don't know if they want to live to fight another day, or if they would rather die now. We also don't know if they believe having someone administer their death for them to be maintaining dignity. People may be suffering, but we don't know if they feel despair. What if they feel hope? What if they have dreams and plans? If everyone laid down to die, people would die within days/weeks and we would not have this problem. The fact is that people are living and starving, they are not just kids they are adults too, which means they have been suffering for some time and are finding some means to keep living from day to day somehow. They still have families, cultures, values, maybe a god (or thought of afterlife), everything that makes up human life. I believe when it comes to the time of death, they find their own dignity someway, perhaps in the arms of their loved ones.
You are quoting something I never said. I would also appreciate if you didn't insert assumptions about me, as you have said to me.
So they have only two months to live with no chance of being saved and you think they might want to hang about , for what if all hope is gone ?
You keep missing the point every year thousands of these people die without a chance of being saved do you think it's better to watch them die slowly as opposed to a humane death ?
Yes or no will suffice
I'm not making assumptions if you are against my theory it means exactly what I stated as in it's better to watch the ones we cannot help die slowly rather than humanely
How exactly is this is COST EFFECTIVE viable means to ending starvation in developing countries? What kind of question is this?
In terms of cost:
1. we continue to do what we are doing now
or 2. we spend money to send people to these poor countries and forcibly administer whatever "humane" killing method is it TO EVERYONE who we deem are suffering and starving, which by the way, costs a lot of money and time.
So no, this is not a solution to anything cost related. It would actually be extremely expensive. It may be a solution to your own moral integrity for some reason, since apparently it will give you peace of mind and you will sleep better knowing there is "no more" starving people in the world. By the way, there are starving people in USA, there are starving people in developed countries, and there are suffering people EVERYWHERE in the world. It would be so inhumane to let these people live right? What's next down the slippery slope? Lets kill everyone who is sad and have depression and anxiety, because they obviously are suffering. Internal suffering hurts the same amount if not more than physical suffering. It would be SO inhumane to let these SAD people live another day- in the name of justice!
First question I asked was as in the debate topic .....Should we kill them ? Is it more humane to do so ?
If the answer is no , then we just continue and let them die slowly as we are doing now , which is inhumane , or do you disagree with what I just stated?
If so why do you disagree ?
How do you know the costs involved regards what I stated ?
I don't desire a solution to my " moral integrity " and I'm not seeking " peace of mind " so thank you Dr Freud for your character assessment.
Why are you telling me where's starving people are ? I'm well aware of it .
Your leaping to conclusions and going off on different tangents is irrelevant to what I asked , maybe you could attempt an answer ?
Ok I don't seek to name call and I certainly didn't make statements about you individually, thanks.
Should we kill them? It depends. Do they want to die? If these people agree and want to die for the same reasons people agreeing to kill them have, and we are able to carry out this wish then sure. Why not? It would be a win-win. This is the same answer to the humane question. Now, is it humane to decide the fate of these people for them, to go down there and kill them all humanely because WE think it's best for them? No. Do I need to explain this one?
I don't need to the know the exact costs to know it is not cost effective, it is just logic. Will it cost our money to kill these people? Yes. Room and board, salary (maybe not if you have volunteers), transportation, etc. Ok now, what much will it cost us to not go ahead and devise a plan to kill these people? Nothing. But I can ask you now, how do you think cost relates to this topic? If you think it's cost effective to do so, why do you think so?
I want to also touch on the topic of is it more humane to let these people continue living or to do something about it. What did you think of what I said that if they wanted to die, they wouldn't need our help to do so?
The fact is we are all dying, continuously at any moment every day. Yes, starving makes you die faster, and in a painful way. Now can I ask what is the moral basis of killing starving people? Is it aiming to end suffering? If so, I just wanted to point out that people are suffering all over the place for different reason, so I want to ask should we end these peoples sufferings for the same reason? If this isn't the reason then why, what is the basis? I'm not aiming to disrespect. I can respect your position if you believe this method is for the greater good.
Final question, if this were to take place, how can we decide what is this "humane" method to end these people's lives? What is the ideal most humane method to end these lives in your opinion? For this method to be viable it should be cost effective, do you agree?
Ok , you did make a sweeping judgement about me as in ........ It may be a solution to your own moral integrity for some reason, since apparently it will give you peace of mind and you will sleep better knowing there is "no more" starving people in the world......
If you give it out you will get it back it's my one rule on here .
Every year thousands of these people die so if they were told " you will be dead of starvation within two months with no chance of release or we can end it now humaely , which would you opt for .
There you go again with you " Do I need to explain this " why are Americans so rude ?
If you really want to go the sarcasm route I can do it and a lot better , so be my guest
Hows it just logic without knowing the cost that's the opposite of " just logic "
So throwing billions in aid that's not resolving the problem is more cost effective than my option ?
I'm aware of human suffering and that's why I'm attempting to alleviate it YOU on the other hand think it's better to let them starve to death slowly which is inhumane
Cost effective method would be a cynide pill but I'm open to suggestions
@Dermot. You are seriously suggesting that distributing cyanide pills in bulk to the "third world" is the most "cost effective" way of "resolving the problem" of "alleviating" human suffering there and that this should replace "throwing billions in aid" to said nations.....
Thank you Santa, that's one Hell of a Christmas present........
I appreciate that you are willing to accept that the reality of the situation admits of no pleasant outcomes.
Regarding cyanide pills,specifically:
- Advantage - Cyanide pills make possible an easy method of voluntary suicide.
- Disadvantage - Broad distribution of cyanide is likely to result in it getting into the environment causing unintended poisoning of unwilling participants via things like polluted soil and water.
- Disadvantage - Distribution to unwilling participants through intentional poisoning of water supplies, etc..
You assume because we CAN feed the world, that we're actually TRYING to do it........
No I never assumed or said that you liar
You say ...... Apparently, you think I said that we're DOING it and FAILING... .....
No , didn't think that either .....
You say ......
Having trouble with words again??? We'll NEVER have a debate as long as you keep making up shit..
Mother Teresa
No , I'm having difficulty with your retardation ; you don't debate you never answer any question asked of you , you're possibly too busy looking for your next black cause issue to wail about .
Now run on back to your book and don't forget your crayons " ole man river "
Very noble sentiments there Dermont, but those involved in helping to accelerate nature's ''natural selection'' process would, at best be vilified by the hoards of sanctimonious'go-gooders', or at worst charged with mass murder.
Thank you Antrim, I'm only vouching for a humane swift end for these unfortunate wretches and as my father used to say " A prophet is never heard in his own land
@Dermot. Antrim only agrees with you on this matter because in a previous post he said, "Let evolution run its course and the weak will die off naturally so the strong can flourish and multiply.
Trying to artificially alter the 'natural selection' process does nobody any favours, and only serves to prolong the agony of the lower orders of our species."
I do not think that is the position you want to align yourself with based on the bottom half of our conversation
Sacred means that it is connected to God. All life is connected to God. We are created in the image of God.
Because all life is sacred. (See my previous statement). We shouldn't kill them because there is a chance for help. There is a chance that we could help them all if everyone would step up and help.
... what about people, children who die from cancer.... do they deserve that, can they handle that? Agreed that everyone else should step up and help these people, considering how uch food goes to waste, but my above point still stands.
I know it sounds good in theory, but in practice it is not so obvious.
I take it you have never had a dog or other pet that had to be put to sleep because it was in pain from untreatable illness.
Have you ever watched a loved one slowly and painfully die of cancer or some similarly excruciating illness?
Consider the horrors of dementia.
There is an interesting phenomenon about memory loss. People lose their most recent memories first, and lose their earliest memories last.
This means that the sufferer of diseases like Alzheimer's loses the ability to integrate recent experience into learning coping mechanisms. They cannot even keep track of the simple fact that they have dementia, or that their perceptions and memories of themselves are out of date, sometimes by decades.
Imagine the psychological horror of your most recent memories being those of a seventeen year-old girl, and then looking into a mirror and seeing withered octogenarian, or seeing gnarled arthritic claws where a young woman's graceful hands should be.
Imagine the unabated terror of thinking you are a three-year-old boy surrounded by unaccountably old strangers, crying out for your mommy when she has been dead for decades. Mommy is NEVER going to come and give the "little boy" the only comfort she wants and needs to allay her fears, and this "little boy" is NEVER going to stop wanting mommy.
And then consider these experiences happen in a mind that can no longer learn from these experiences, so they are newly terrifying every single day.
I have watched all of these things in person. I have seen enough real pain extended over months and years, without possibility of amelioration to know exactly how ironically inhumane it is to take killing off the table because it is "never humane."
"Would it not be a viable and cost effective solution rather than watch them die slowly and miserably from afar ?"
Uhhh...No. How about the world Superpowers stop hoarding all of the f'cking wealth, oppressing and disenfranchising the "Third World" countries and those in extreme poverty. There are resources to alleviate their suffering we (those who live in Superpower nations) are choosing not to out of either intentionally "maintain the reigns" of power and/or apathy (apathy with respect to the general public more so). Please read Peter Singer books or watch him give talks if you have not already (there are many more people than just Peter Singer with intelligent commentary on this matter, he's just a good start if someone is so clueless as to actually take Dermot's debate topic seriously). Also, the saying, "humanely kill the starving in..." is a remarkable feat of ethical gymnastics where you we could somehow be acting humanely killing the people that are starving and suffering, while neglecting to mention that we are the one's (in most cases) keeping them confined to a broken system where they are bound to suffer, starve, and die.
Dermot, I certainly hope that you are just playing Devil's Advocate on this one..
Uhhh .....Why ? Yes that's going to happen isn't it ? I've read and like Singers commentary on most matters and if you're going to start making remarks about intelligence and say anyone who supports my stance is clueless well you may expect it back ; your jabs are not an argument
You say ..........
Also the saying "humanely kill the starving in..." is a remarkable feat of ethical gymnastics where you we could somehow be acting humanely killing the people that are starving and suffering, while neglecting to mention that we are the one's (in most cases) keeping them confined to a broken system where they are bound to suffer, starve, and die...........
Ethical gymnastics ? Your argument saying we are the ones responsible does not need mentioning is that not pretty obvious going on the debate topic itself ?
At this very moment children are starving to death in large numbers ; without resorting to a lecture on what we should be doing that debate has been going for decades , you're saying , like others that it's better to let then die slowly until we decide to act differently.
What sort of " ethical gymnastics " do you go through to " reason " that a slow death is better than a quick one ?
Appealing to what should be done is not an argument its merely doing what we have been doing for decades ; remember feed the world ? people talking about the end of hunger ?
You certainly hope ? Why ? Are you outraged or what's your problem?
F'ck yeah I'm outraged. How do people like you exist?? jeffreyone already made points to you that you were unable to wrap your mind around. The "West"/wealthy powerful nations are demonstrably the ones keeping many of these severely impoverished nations in the conditions that they are in. Furthermore, even if the Superpowers were not largely responsible for the existence of these conditions to begin with (which they largely are), then we still have enough money to alleviate the problem and SAVE lives instead of MASS MURDERING more than we already are. If you have listened to Peter Singer than you know that he is arguing for THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE not the lives you can forget about and abandon more than we already have. You could make similar arguments for the indigenous people in the Americas as you did toward "third world" countries, roughly speaking that is in outline; "Well, we've already done so much damage to them that they are unable to reassemble themselves in a self sufficient manner and we are obviously not going to give up our position/control/domination over them. Also, we certainly aren't going to give away any serious amount of our resources to them either to help get them back on their feet nor should that be our responsibility (we need to look out for our own society). Why don't we just put the miserable wretches out of their misery. If you think about, we are actually helping them and being heros in a way. Think of how much they would suffer if we were not humane enough to intervene in this way and put them out of their misery. (We can do no wrong)". The previous statement is what early American colonizers actually did do to the extremely vulnerable Indigenous population btw, not just some vague mindset they may or may not have had and that type of behavior continued for centuries and the remnants of it linger to this day (and it is the position that you are now arguing for in a modern sense).
Killing an enormous amount of people (nearly 10 million or so a year) when you could nearly just as easily transport oatmeal, rice, water and the like to SAVE their lives (of the type you are describing at least) is amongst the most asinine, sadistic, callous, barbaric, wicked, immoral and murderous idea I've ever come into contact with. The fact that you are so casually talking about your genocidal "heroism" is mind boggling (and extremely creepy).
Think for a moment, okay, lets execute your plan. The first year we humanely euthanize 5-10 million people or so thus putting them out of their misery. Okay, fine. How about the following year? Are we going to send out professional "Death Squads" to euthanize the next round of 5-10 million people? And the following year, 5 years, 10 years on, ect.? This would clearly beg the question; why are we committing all of these resources to killing all of these people year after year when you can see the disaster coming from 10,000 miles away (e.i. it is highly predictable) instead of making efforts to prevent it when we have the resources to ameliorate the situation?? Not to mention, we are largely the reason why it is happening in the first place?
When we were arguing before, I thought you were just being a disgruntled jack'ss toward me. I didn't realize that you were anywhere close to this level...... On a bit of a more positive note with you however, I read most of your posts on the US use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and agreed with essentially everything you said from what I can remember (which I clearly view as both a moral and practical issue also for obvious reasons).
Btw, I am in favor of euthanasia with consent under conditions of extreme and/or prolonged pain (so in a very limited sense, I understand the point that you think you are driving at). However, I think you are really missing the big picture here and are instead adamant about focusing in on the pixel.. If you would have made a thread about euthanizing a person with ALS (e.g. what Stephen Hawking has) if they gave a clear indication that that is what they wanted because they were suffering so badly for an extended period of time, then I would be on your side. However, there is a big difference because in the case of ALS there is NOTHING we can currently do and in the case of starving people in "third world" countries we can do SOMETHING. In fact, if we wanted to, we could do EVERYTHING. They are very different cases.
From the start your first I presume of many fallacies , as in an argument from outrage; so continue with your skirts lifted and getting all dewy eyed and emotional at the temerity of people daring to ask questions ..... on a debate site .
Here you go with the Sir Bob Geldof style lecture on what OUGHT to be done ; which is merely stating the obvious and has been stated millions of times by politicians and "experts " from around the globe for the last 100 years ; I asked you not to deliver a lecture but like every question I ask you merely avoid the question and go off on an emotional rant .
Your appeal to authority as in Peter Singer is touching , I'm well aware off Singers views but I could not give a fuck as I hold my own opinions on the matter
All you're saying is what we OUGHT ago to be doing and the children are still starving as we speak that's dying a slow death as the world watches and talks about what we ought to be doing .
When we were talking before I thought you were just being a pompus prick because I mocked your "scholarly " you tube video ; I didn't realise you were anywhere close to this level
Your appeal to authority as in Stephen Hawkings is again touching but not pertinent to what I asked ; also Im delighted you found a buddy in Jeffers and find his comments absorbing "birds of a feather flock together " you're well suited .
So maybe you can go off put your colouring book and crayons down and attempt to answer what I actually asked without the Sir Bob and Bono style lecture on " This outrageous crisis " Bob famously wagged his finger at this stage and said " shame on us all " ........ you're probably all outraged again ?
I asked you ...
At this very moment children are starving to death in large numbers ; WITHOUT RESORTING TO A LECTURE on what we should be doing that debate has been going for decades , you're saying , like others that it's better to let then die slowly until we decide to act differently.
What sort of " ethical gymnastics " do you go through to " reason " that a slow death is better than a quick one ?
Appealing to what should be done is not an argument its merely doing what we have been doing for decades ; remember feed the world ? people talking about the end of hunger ?
You certainly hope ? Why ? Are you outraged or what's your problem?
Your appeal to authority as in Peter Singer is touching , I'm well aware off Singers views but I could not give a fuck as I hold my own opinions on the matter
Appeal to authority? I do not even agree with a lot of Singers views although the overall message of ways in which we can go about sensibly SAVING lives is a lot more sensible than how to swiftly END lives that can be potentially helped. Singer is attempting to provide a consciousness awareness and potential solutions that in principle will allow more people to live longer, healthier, lives. You are arguing for a framework in which your "solution" to the problem is, the Superpowers can get rid of a nuisance and get it over with already. Moreover, to top it all off, proclaim that it is a mission of International Humanitarianism.
Your appeal to authority as in Stephen Hawkings is again touching but not pertinent to what I asked
I invoked Stephen Hawking because he is an example of a person with ALS that everyone knows what that looks like and how debilitating it is.
At this very moment children are starving to death in large numbers ; WITHOUT RESORTING TO A LECTURE on what we should be doing that debate has been going for decades , you're saying , like others that it's better to let then die slowly until we decide to act differently.
No, I'm saying that you are giving a false choice. If you marshal a plan and investment to euthanize people in a humane manner, than those funds could just as easily go toward saving "X" amount of people that haven't reached the point of no return. If you are saying, "should we euthanize those that have gone beyond the point of no return?" now we are discussing a different matter entirely because they would comprise a minority of those starving and do not reach said point until toward the very end of their life (e.i. there is a substantial window of time in which they could be reached that would avoid the worst case scenario). In a practical, real world sense, that would not make sense for the reasons I have discussed above. In a strictly philosophical sense devoid of all other context, as I told you in my previous post, "...I am in favor of euthanasia with consent under conditions of extreme and/or prolonged pain...However, I think you are really missing the big picture here and are instead adamant about focusing in on the pixel"
"If it's better to let then die slowly as we are doing now until we decide to act differently ? "
I did answer it. Recall, " In a practical, real world sense, that would not make sense for the reasons I have discussed above", scroll back to what I said in my original post and find, "Think for a moment, okay, lets execute your plan. The first year we humanely euthanize 5-10 million people or so thus putting them out of their misery. Okay, fine. How about the following year? Are we going to send out professional "Death Squads" to euthanize the next round of 5-10 million people? And the following year, 5 years, 10 years on, ect.? This would clearly beg the question; why are we committing all of these resources to killing all of these people year after year when you can see the disaster coming from 10,000 miles away (e.i. it is highly predictable) instead of making efforts to prevent it when we have the resources to ameliorate the situation?? Not to mention, we are largely the reason why it is happening in the first place?"
Hence, I DO NOT think that is a reasonable nor politically feasible solution due to the reasoning I outlined above. Now, if doctors in programs such as Doctors Without Borders, the UN, ect. have equipment to carry out Euthanasia on a patient with the patient(s) being clearly past the point of no return due to extreme, prolonged malnutrition, and has given clear consent, than I am on board with that. However, this is very different than the large scale project that you are suggesting and you appear to be under the odd illusion that the context does not matter (and considering the context I would just return to my initial pragmatic argument). Btw, to be clear, what sort of number range of people are you considering here considering between 5-10 million starve (e.i. die of malnutrition) yearly?
So therefore you agree it's better to let them die slowly until we work it out .
You say .....This would clearly beg the question; why are we committing all of these resources to killing all of these people year after year when you can see the disaster coming from 10,000 miles away (e.i. it is highly predictable) instead of making efforts to prevent it when we have the resources to ameliorate the situation?? Not to mention, we are largely the reason why it is happening in the first place?"........
But we see disasters and famines coming all the time and our pompous politicians and A list celebs bleat on about " feeling their pain " at star studded dinners where videos are beamed from around the globe of starving kids while the misty eyed ones quaff champagne and get all misty eyed at the " unfolding tragedy "
In the meantime these people are dying of starvation as we speak if given the choice where they're told " you can die now or two months time painfully " what's the logical choice ?
I would seriously have to anylyse the figures and evaluate what proportion of people definitely could not be saved and carry out my plan from there ; cyanide tablets would I think be most effective and humane also cost effective if my calculations are correct , I'm open to suggestions
I agree about a lot of the frustration that results from the mass apathy and empty rhetoric. Also, like I said, I agree with you IN PRINCIPLE that for a person who has reached a point of no return it would be better to have a means of being euthanized than living out the final days to weeks in extreme pain/anguish/despair. Now, and here we disagree, I do not think it is at all a sensible plan for the nations that OUGHT to be helping prevent/ameliorate the problem with nutritional resources and the like (as well as larger political and economic issues the subsume this problem) to be the ones trumpeting the "death pill" solution to alleviate the problem (which btw is also an OUGHT argument, as in these people are suffering we OUGHT to alleviate it by providing a path to death with more dignity and minimal pain by comparison). It is not POLITICALLY FEASIBLE (and cruel/depraved frankly), as in, how in the hell would they explain themselves that rather than marshal the proper effort along the lines that Peter Singer suggests or from the Governments, they are content with just distributing a means to end the peoples lives that they are in a position to save. Now, if the "third world" countries themselves were able to have such medical resources available that they could offer to their people in such circumstances, that is a different case (and of course they do not have those resources because if they did they would also be able to treat said people with basic nutrition)
Firstly on a side note I really like Singer as a philosopher I remember him saying in an interview that he needs armed guards going into lectures at times he has been called a Nazi , a fucker , a brain dead fascist etc ,etc and its marvellous that it bothers him not ; he also said that the eating of meat with be looked on with the same moral indignation in 100 years time as slavery is now and of course most say he's insane , I think he's a visionary .
I ask questions mainly that get people stirred up as for me they're the most fun , I have and do take a completely opposite stance on some issues to my normal stance as it's most informative and enjoyable , incidentally I can trade insults and sarcasm with anyone but I prefer if people play fair I will too
Right fair points but given that we know for a fact and can tell beforehand as journalists tell us , these people are dying before our eyes and we watch from afar a large proportion have no chance of being saved so is it just we allow it to happen slowly .
Also where I'm from we are renowned for how much as a small nation we give in aid , when I was a child we had a box in the class called " A Penny for the black baby end starvation " yet it still goes on and it's now online donations in the classroom for the same African victims of starvation.
This same conversation will still be ongoing in 50 years time I have a cousin works for an aid concern in Africa he said a sizeable proportion of aid is reallocated by corupt government personal, will it ever change
@Dermot. "Firstly on a side note I really like Singer as a philosopher... he also said that the eating of meat with be looked on with the same moral indignation in 100 years time as slavery is now and of course most say he's insane , I think he's a visionary ."
We have another point of agreement. I like Peter Singer also (I actually met him in real life, he visited my University last year and gave a talk). Also, I am vegan, so we have at least some agreement on the matter of eating meat and the immorality of how most humans treat most animals generally.
"Right fair points but given that we know for a fact and can tell beforehand as journalists tell us , these people are dying before our eyes and we watch from afar a large proportion have no chance of being saved so is it just we allow it to happen slowly...This same conversation will still be ongoing in 50 years time I "
For this, I would just return to my former arguments although I would note that it appears that we have some point of agreement of a broader case for euthanasia under certain conditions with consent. On this case though, I do not agree with the mass euthanasia program that you are supporting (my reasoning is in my former posts).
"where I'm from we are renowned for how much as a small nation we give in aid... "
Ireland is not part of the list of world "Superpowers" that I am referring to that have a deep obligation to deal with this matter. So, assuming your statement is true, great (I am not nearly as familiar with Ireland society as I live in the US). But the ones that really need to deal with the issue are the "Superpower" governments, and the population of people as Singer argues.
It's been a most interesting debate , thank you every one for your thoughts my final thoughts are as such ...........
We know for a fact that a large proportion of people will die from starvation as we actually watch them do so ; if we allow 8 - 12 weeks for these people to die slowly how is that humane ?
How is it humane to suggest that it's a better option to watch them die slowly because in some way society at least has not taken this " dreadful " option ?
A fact states what is ,as in it's a fact that children are dying of starvation as we speak , values say what ought to be done ; which leads to the question can we ever derive an 'OUGHT ' from an 'IS ?
Liberals want to feed them ? They're not sucedding are they ?
I love people I'm a humanist you are the complete opposite .
Take you to turn it again into a race issue again your usual route so you won't have to answer questions.
Your seething racism is nauseating as in you seem to take a perverse enjoyment in watching children that cannot be saved die slowly ; your detestation of blacks is appaling
watching children that cannot be saved die slowly ; your detestation of blacks is appaling
Hello again, D:
First off, I don't believe the children CANNOT be saved. That's what you call a straw man.. Therefore, KILLING them wouldn't be GOOD.. It would be MASS MURDER..
Right wingers have landed in BONKERS town, where KILLING black people is humane, and FEEDING them means you detest them..
But they're not being saved you idiot and it's not a straw man to state the truth you idiotic brute .Are you denying children are dying slowly of starvation ? Bet you won't answer ?
Do you think it right to watch them die slowly ? Bet you won't answer ?
Now that's a Straw Man as in you who has turned this into a race issue yet again .
So you love the starving but want to prolong their suffering by not feeding a large of them , whys that ?
