Human Life vs Tree Life

FutureIncoming · May 19, 2006

blastula said:
Without rock, you would not have a solid foundation to build a house. Just because we cannot put a money value on something, does not mean that they have no inherent value. The decline of birds, bees and other pollinators are threatening to putting plants at risk of extinction. You can't quantify the values of those birds, bees and other pollinators on their effect on this earth. Such is the inherent values that you so callously deemed "Zero Objective Value".

You are demonstrating Subjectivity without even realizing it! The Universe does not care whether or not you can or can not build a house. So if you want a house, you Subjectively assign value the foundation you choose for that house (traditionally rock works out better than sand, so rock is valued more). Equally, the Universe does not care if certain plants (or even if all plants) become extinct. But we who Subjectively benefit from the existence of those plants could use that as a reason to assign value to them. But usually we only consider Economic-benefit aspect of those plants, and so we merely assign an ordinary Economic valuation to them. It is only in a Cusp Scenario, where so many plants have been killed (so their biomass could be used to make/support more humans, of course!) that barely enough oxygen is being produced by the survivors for humans to stay alive, might we decide (Subjectively, again!) to grant them a different type of valuation --and likely, a valuation at least equal to that which we Subjectively assign human life.

And (referencing something not quoted) a mother's love for her child is also Subjective-valuation thing. Its existence may be an Objectively real thing, but the Objective Universe does not care, and will swat both of them with a natural disaster as egalitarianly as it will swat unloving germs. The value of that love is utterly Subjective.

As far as the Universe is concerned, I stated things have Zero Objective Value, and provided supporting evidence, and you have failed to disprove it. I stand by my assertion.

FutureIncoming · May 19, 2006

blastula said:
Your talked about "Quantum Mechanics" preventing "Absolute Zero from being a temperature that real matter can experience" is just nonsense. Quantum mechanics is just a branch of theoretical physics of atomic and subatomic level and matter is non-sentient, so how can matter "experience" anything?

Because one definition of "experience" is "participate in", which does not have to involve sentience. Quibbling about definitions will get you nowhere.

And while in Classical theory all the kinetic energy from a given atom or molecule can be transferred to some other atom or molecule, leaving the first with zero, in actuality Quantum Mechanics gives every atom or molecule something called "zero point motion", which cannot be removed. This is a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, one of the cornerstones of QM.

blastula said:
Since you are requesting supporting evidence relating to humans, I therefore need some human subjects for research experiment so that the result will have significant implication directly related to humans.

Can you describe that experiment in more detail? Are you sure you will not actually be dealing with the self-decided Subjective valuations of your human guinea pigs? If you are sure, what is the rationale behind it? And, since you know full well that you don't need to conduct an experiment to explain a rationale, I expect any reluctance on your part, to share the rationale behind your human experimentation, to be evidence that you don't have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

FutureIncoming · May 19, 2006

blastula said:
Who is trying to avoid admitting error?

You are, in consecutive feeble/failed attempts to show that ordinary valuations are anything other than Subjective to the minds that assign those valuations. But eventually you will have to admit defeat, because the Objective Facts all support my case, not yours. Indeed, that statement in red practically defines why valuations are Subjective. So, once you comprehend that, then much of the other nonsense you have posted can continued to be ignored as it properly deserves.

blastula said:
I'm trying to prevent you from sneaking away from the focus of the topics.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!

FutureIncoming said:
(Msg 10, and this one is #53!!!) should abortion have been allowed to prevent that 1001st birth, until trees to support an extra newborn had been grown?

I have yet to see any attempt on your part to answer that question, among others that I have asked. I'd say we are in the present section of the discussion because of your attempt to sneak away from it, by challenging the validity of the Cusp Scenario, yet without offering any evidence whatsoever that some scenario equivalent to it is forever impossible. Rest assured that I expect to eventually deal with every point you raise that is not nonsense. The current focus on valuations is important, because so many pro-lifers are relying on faulty data relevant to it, and base their arguments on it --and that faulty data needs to be corrected. Including your own faulty data. (And I'm sure some of my own data is faulty, too. But not this particular block of data.)

blastula said:
But, your brand of relativity and subjectivity are philosophical thoughts unrelated to science, but derived from Nihilistic relativism. Nihilism holds the position that the world and human existence has no objective meaning, purpose, or value and morality is relative.

So? Just because you can label a point of view as being similar to some other point of view, that does not make it invalid. What can make it invalid is data, and you have so far provided no data that can invalidate that point of view. And by the way, I do not consider morals to be relative; I consider them to be arbitrary. Just like Subjective Valuations are arbitrary. And I can prove it! Consider that Jews declare that eating pork is immoral, while the Christians say it is okay. Only one of those morals can be correct; the other, therefore, is arbitrary. Let's pretend the Jews are correct; why did they think it necessary to make pork-eating a moral issue? Couldn't they simply have said, "if you eat pork, you'll be sorry!" (which was often true in ancient times when it was not known that pork needs to be thoroughly cooked to kill off various disease organisms like trichinosis). Then all they need do is make public example of those who ate pork and suffered for it, to get the message across. So again, the decision to declare a "moral" was an arbitrary thing, even if it was a good thing. (Meanwhile, Christians these days know about the cook-pork-thoroughly thing, which could be one reason why eating pork is not a moral issue for them.) Perhaps the Jews considered that fewer people would end up suffering disease by invoking "morality" --but then that also depends on the arbitrary declaration that human life is valuable! So, Q.E.D., morals are ultimately as arbitrary as passing a Law like this one: "Tommorow we will honor the color blue by not using the word in any written sentence." --Oh, and one more thing: Consider the notion that God is claimed to exist. If true, then what is the Objective Purpose of that existence? I ask this because it can be claimed that the Objective Purpose of the Universe and humans relates to choice that God supposedly made. But in that case what is Objective to us is merely Subjective to God. So step back and examine the bigger picture, God's Place in the Objective scheme of things. That analysis is equivalent to another religion-based argument, that Life was Intelligently Designed, on the basis that it is too complex to have happend spontaneously. However, step back and examine the bigger picture: In what way is the existence of the Intelligent Designer so simple that it didn't require an Intelligent Designer? Recognizing things that are truly absurd helps us focus on logical consequences such as, "If God exists, then God evolved into existence!" Which means that Evolution becomes the explanation for the origin of Life, regardless of whether or not God was involved. (If God not involved, then we are talking about straightforward evolution of molecular complexity.) Similarly, if Purpose for our existence can be either associated or dissociated with Objectivity, regardless of any intermediaries like God, then in the end we would have a truly Objective Answer to that point-of-view which you have labelled Nihilistic. Would you care to make the attempt?

blastula said:
If the world and humans have no meaning, purpose, or value, why even post a thread to argue about whether human life is more important than tree life or not?

IF YOU ACTUALLY COMPREHENDED WHAT I WROTE, TO SAY NOTHING OF TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT, LIKE THIS:

blastula said:
You asserted that "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever".

WHEN WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE WAS THIS (stress added here):

FutureIncoming said:
In Actual Objective Fact, per the Objective Universe, There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever. Humans and trees and everything else have exactly the same Zero Objective Value.

YOU MIGHT RECOGNIZE THAT THE DOOR IS WIDE OPEN FOR SUBJECTIVE VALUATIONS, and therefore you might spout lesser amounts of nonsense. Because I have not once stated that Subjective Valuations can never be useful. I have merely pointed out the error of confusing Objectivity with Subjective Valuations, and currently I am waiting for you to admit that indeed you have been making that error, so that we can get on with the other things you equally-erroneously think I'm trying to avoid.

BodiSatva · May 19, 2006

Trees are more important than humans...

It is not even close. Seriously.

blastula · May 20, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
refer to your above posts

In my prior post in msg 37 I asked:

"If your subjective value of human life vs tree life is so undeterminable how can you even conceive the notion that one is more or less more important than the other?"

In reply you said:

Quote:"That notion logically stems from the claim that human life is inherently valuable, and also from the additional claim that human life is more valuable than other life. I was simply challenging the claim, by requesting supporting evidence. In Actual Objective Fact, per the Objective Universe, There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever. Humans and trees and everything else have exactly the same Zero Objective Value." UNQuote

When I exposed your contradictory and self-annihilating statement:"There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever", instead of conceding defeat, you concocted a lame excuse of pointing out error due to confusion regarding usefulness of Subjective valuation.

From the above arguments, nothing was said about usefulness of "Subjective Valuation". We were not arguing about whether "Subjective Valuation" can be useful or not. So why would you be pointing out error of confusion?

My question was simply this: if your subjective value is so undeterminable, how can you know whether one is more important than the other? Since everything is subjective, what is more important to you may not be important to others. Since there is no objective value, therefore there is no standard for comparison.

To claim I didn't quote you correctly is another of your lame excuse. The preceding phrases, "In Actual Objective Fact, per the Objective Universe" that I didn't quote would only support my argument against yours if I added in and it would give more weight to my argument that affirmed your claim that "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever".

The sentence that followed that sentence stating "Humans and trees and everything else have exactly the same Zero Objective Value" further confirmed your belief that nothing has any value whatsoever. In your msg 31 you also claimed that "Objective Value does not exist".

To top it off, you also declared, in your own words: "As far as the Universe is concerned, I stated things have Zero Objective Value, and provided supporting evidence, and you have failed to disprove it. I stand by my assertion".

So, let me say it again, if there is nothing that has any value, you must concede that you are of no value.

I can put the actual quote back according to your desire and it won't affect the outcome of my previous argument. Here is the repost of that portion of my argument with your actual quote:

REPOST of my argument from msg 43: [

Quote:
You asserted that "In Actual Objective Fact, per the Objective Universe, There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever". If nothing has any value whatsoever, why worry about tree life or human life who are of no value whatsoever? If you truly believe that "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever", then you must concede that you have no value. Since you have no value, therefore, what ever comes out of your mouth must have no value. So, why should people listen to you who have no value? Are you an empty vessel making valueless noise? This kind of mind set regarding nothing is of value and human life has no value is so dangerous, especially to the minds of disturbed kids whose moral compass is so out of whack. It's no wonder we have so many incidents of murder rampages happening in modern day schools. UNQuote

Cont.

Click to expand...

blastula · May 20, 2006

You arued that "A rock may have a physical length-value of 2 inches, but the whole English measurement system is an arbitrary/Subjective thing". But, you are confused between measurement units and inherent value. Just like your misconception of magnitude and value, the measurement is a way human use to determine the linear distance of something. Whether you use English measure, Chinese measure, or the metric system, it doesn't change the physical dimension of the rock. The rock's physical dimension remains objectively the same no matter how subjectively human's measurement conventions are.

Similarly, you are confused between measurement units and inherent values of circles and triangles. It doesn't matter whether you use the units of degrees or radians, or some Chinese measures, the inherent values are still the same and cannot be altered nor violated. The inherent value has nothing to do with what human thinks and what arbitrary decisions made millenia ago. The inherent values of all things existed long before human being even appeared on this planet. It is humans who discover what is already there and try to devise ways to define and quantify the values of things. The shortcomings of humans are not evidence of subjectivity or of null value.

You accepted "Absolute Zero" as truly "Objective", but 0 K is an extrapolated theoretical point extended from the Celsius scale. Celsius scale is a measure for temperature just like the English linear measure for physical dimention. Seems like you just pick and choose what you would believe.

The speed of light is also a measure of distance traveled by light at a given time. It can be measured in various different unit conventions such as miles per hour, meters per second, or feet per nanosecond, etc. It is no difference than the measuring of the physical dimension of a rock using English or metric systems. So, if you accept that the speed of light, which is a measurement, as having the same Objective value regardless of the Subjective measurement system, why are you so contrary to the others?

Economic and equivalent valuations are also measurements to determine a value. Of course, even human life can be valued in economic terms like you said. That's why we had slaves, and not just life insurance policy. That is why we have murders for personal financial gains. But, the inherent value is not equivalent to economical valuation. Neither can it be measured in monetary terms. Of course trees also have economic value. But, are you willing to trade your life for a life of a tree? Are you willing to trade your loved ones for the lives of some trees?

Just because economic values are subjective, it doesn't mean there is no inherent value. If the value of your life is subjective and have no inherent value, would you allow others to take it away at a whim? Would you let your loved ones be slaughtered at random if their lives have no inherent values and are subjective?

You said, "Chemistry's Periodic Table of the Elements will be topologically equivalent everywhere".

So what? What's the relevance? The periodic table is simply a presentation of all elements. How is it valuable as an equivalent to a Rosetta Stone during encouter with advanced extraterrestrial species, if there is such things? Human body is composed of elements from the Periodic Table. So why are you denying the inherent value of human being? Why don't you come down to the real world instead of living in a state of pure fiction? No wonder your mind is so messed up.

Cont.

blastula · May 20, 2006

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is about the dilemna of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles precisely. When one tries to measure the position precisely, the determination of momentum becomes less precise. When one attempts to measure the momentum precisely, the position cannot be located precisely. It's just like trying to take a close up picture of an object in front of you, the background becomes blurred. When you take a sharp focus of the background, the object in front of you becomes blurred. Heisenberg's Uncerty Principle is not about Absolute Zero.

Regarding pain tolerance differring among people it follows a normal statistical bell curve. On the two ends of the extreme you have extremely high tolerance and extremely low tolerance. The rest of the population, which is about 75 to 95% fall within the average range. Nevertheless, I had said that pain scale is a subjective measure, but when the validiity is established and the scale is standardized and used consistently, the instrument for measuring pain is valid.

I can differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity well enough for scientific research. You're the one who demonstrates confusions between the two and on the term "value" besides many others.

The experiment is one in which you will be the one making the decisions. The outcomes will depend on you and you will have the objective evidence to yourself. I don't need to conduct an experiment to explain a rationale. I'd already done that. You asked for unequivocal objective evidence, then the only thing to convince yourself is to have yourself in the experiment. Of course you're expected to sign all waivers. Judging from your tone you probably don't dare to try.

You talked about the "Universe does not care whether or not you can or can not build a house", as if it is a conscious being. I'm not talking about whether the Universe care or not care. I know better that the Universe is not a conscious being. I'm talking about inherent value of a rock as a rock on the ground, just a the inherent value of the earth's mantle and inner core. If you take them out, things will just collapse.

Assigning subjective value to the foundation or values to anything in terms of your so-called "Economic-benefit" aspect, or assignment of "ordinary Economic valuation" to them is of course subjective, but it doesn't change the inherent values of things.

The planet earth will react with severe climatic change such as melting polar caps and frequent stormy hurricanes that would kill more people than you would be able to even come close to your so-called "Cusp Scenario". By 2050 there will be more elderly in future population than the young, and more will die before you could hit anywhere close to your "Cusp" whatever.

You claimed, "But eventually you will have to admit defeat, because the Objective Facts all support my case". I thought you don't believe in objective fact but in "valuations are Subjective"? If you do, didn't you state it has zero objective value. In other words, it has no value. If it has no value, how can your valueless objective fact be able to support your case? How can I be defeated by something admittedly of no value and no worth? You're truly confused.

Cont.

blastula · May 20, 2006

You asked, "should abortion have been allowed to prevent that 1001st birth, until trees to support an extra newborn had been grown?"

I had replied in my first response by calling your questions fallacies of assumption and false conclusion. You falsely assumed we had allowed the 1000th abortion. You also falsely assumed abortion is performed to control overpopulation, and or to prevent tree being cut. And you also falsely assumed that the 1001st child is going to consume tree. What if the child is going to be a tree planters and forest conservator?

Nevertheless, let me give you my answer:

You know my stand, I do not allow any abortion for whatever reasons except in medical emergency cases where a pregnant woman's life is in danger. Even so, any attempt to help the pregnant women in crisis should also consider the life of the unborn, so that if the unborn can be saved without putting the mother in danger, then abortion should take a backseat.

I don't believe any person can take the life of another human being just because of a tree. Saving a tree can be planned well ahead and not wait until the last minute and till the last tree.

If humanity is so greedy and ignorant of well known and well established facts regarding the importance of conservations of resources, then probably humanity should deserve to suffer its own fate in its own hand with courage.

I would rather be in the company of the musicians when the ship sank. And hopefully to have their courage then the cowardice of those that created mayhems, panics and wanton killings to steal a place in the lifeboats reserved first for the youngs, women and elderly when Titanic sank.

Now, to beg the question on your silly question, what if the unfortunate pregnant woman wants to carry to term the 1001 st birth? Are you going to deny her right to choose? Are you going to invade her privacy between her and her doctor? Are you going to invade her body? And are you going to compel her to have the abortion against her will?

Cont.

blastula · May 20, 2006

I'm not trying to label a point of view as being similar to some other point of view to make it invalid. You should know that I was making the differentiattion of subjectivity and relativity between those used in science and those use in philosophy.

You said you don't consider morals to be relative. You consider them to be arbitrary. Arbitrary is worst than relative. Arbitrary is a belief determined by chance, whims, or impulses. It is not by necessity, reason, or any principle. No wonder your arguments are so whimsical and without any real reason.

You cited that Jews declaring eating pork immoral and Christians do not consider it immoral as proof to your assertion that morality and Subjective Valuations are arbitrary. That doesn't ptove anything. Eating pork or not eating pork is a matter of religious traditions that affects only the people of that religion. The Jews do not impose the tradition on Christians or any other groups of people. Even individual Jews can leave their faith if they don't subscribe to the practice, or remained a non-practicing Jews and still able to eat pork.

The morality we are talking about are those reflected in jus gentium, the law of nations or humankind. In any country, murder is a capital crime and it doesn't matter whether you are Jews or Christians. The value of human life is not subject to subjective interpretation of the people or judges. Therefore, one cannot have a different opinion from the other regarding unjust killing of human life. In any nations, cutting down a tree is not a capital offence no matter how much you insist a tree life is more important than human life.

You called much of my post nonsense and said they deserved to be ignored and yet you strayed aimlessly into the issues on God, intelligent design, evolution, origin of life, etc... and invited me to make the attempt on those issue? No thanks. It's too much off topics already.

I'm not going to waste any more of my precious time on stray topics that each by itself is already a very broad topic. Besides, your value is subjectively srbitrary and you have zero objective value. So, what's the use of arguing endlessly in circle with somebody who believe that he has no value?

And you still haven't answered my previous simple questions.

Jerry · May 20, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
Really? Most pro-lifers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life. Forced abortions, per China's example, does not change that aspect of the situation. So, in what way is killing the innocent better than killing the guilty?

I was looking at it through Utilitarian eyes, not pro life eyes.

It would seem to me that preventing those 20 children from coming into existence in the first place would be a more economically viable solution than eliminating 2 people for having created the 20.

There's no need to execute those 2 potential tax payers, soldiers and/or industrial specialists, because the problem is over population, not over financing, etc. Just prevent or restrict their ability to reproduce.

As for abortion from a pro life perspective, I have always upheld the Justifiable Homicide exception for abortion. If our species were in such an extreme situation witch may call for forced abortions and mandatory sterilizations, then I would be open to that debate.

I disagree with China because their focus in on nationalism, which is a doomed concept.

Ironically, if the vast majority of people on earth lived by the guidelines advocated by the pro life folks, there would never be a need for forced abortions nor mandatory sterilizations. China's Final Solution would never even come close to being warranted.

An equilibrium with the ecosystem would come naturally. People would place the welfare of Man as a whole above their own "pursuit of happiness" and "rights".

***
If I could say something to folks in China, I would tell them to go get themselves, and what ever children they may have, fixed as early as possible. It is better to concede personal "reproductive rights" then try to exercise those "reproductive rights" just to have your child aborted against your will.

Just save yourself that trauma and adopt.

FutureIncoming · May 21, 2006

Jerry said:
I was looking at it through Utilitarian eyes, not pro life eyes. It would seem to me that preventing those 20 children from coming into existence in the first place would be a more economically viable solution than eliminating 2 people for having created the 20.

That's not unreasonable, and is related to my item #2 below:

FutureIncoming said:
2. This one can indeed be problematic, if the parents had afforded, for example, two kids, but then had a third that they couldn't. The implication is that the parents were producing resources enough for themselves and the two kids, and as you wrote, that productivity is would be lost if the parents were executed.
3. But the key factor, which you overlooked, is this: How many such widely-reported executions need take place before all other potentially-unaffording-parents got the message, and decided not to deliberately have kids they expect others to pay for? Execution is generally considered to be a pretty effective deterrent to certain crimes, and in this case the crime would be something like "contributing to the Malthusian-Catastrophic death of 90%+ of the human species". If that number of executions is low enough, then perhaps this is a better solution than China's.

Nevertheless, your Msg #60 still ignores the possible results of #3 above. If the execution of a few significantly influences the behavior of many, then can my choice for a Final Solution to overpopulation be better than China's?

Jerry said:
It is better to concede personal "reproductive rights" then try to exercise those "reproductive rights" just to have your child aborted against your will.

Better still is to recognize the Objective Fact that there is no such thing as a Right to Reproduce. It is a privilege that the Universe grants to those that earn it. And the first step is to simply survive to breeding age in an Objective Universe that doesn't grant any such thing as a Right to Life, either. The second step is to find a mate (certainly not a guaranteed thing!)....

FutureIncoming · May 21, 2006

blastula said:
When I exposed your contradictory and self-annihilating statement:"There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever"

WHEN YOU TAKE A STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT AND CLAIM ITS MEANING IS MORE RELEVANT THAN WHAT IT MEANS IN CONTEXT, ALL YOU ARE DOING IS EXPOSING TO EVERYONE YOUR INABILITY TO COMPREHEND AN OVERALL CONTEXT.

blastula said:
Your irrational discourse about the importance of human life vs tree life....

On the contrary, my arguments have incorporated valid data and have been utterly rational and consistent (barring occasional sloppy wording). Your mere claim of irrationality, totally unsupported by valid data, is therefore itself an irrational claim, and your failure to comprehend plain text, on more than one occasion, simply proves that you are working with invalid data (such as, for example, the ridiculous notion that the Universe incorporates Objective Value) -- and therefore your conclusions derived from that cannot possibly be valid. And so any claims that they are valid are of course irrational claims. Furthermore, your deliberate attempts to confuse Measurements with Values is also ridiculous in an abortion-debate forum, simply because no pro-lifer insists that an unborn human be born just because it happens to be 5 inches long. All pro-lifers specify a different sort of Valuation altogether ("worth", the exact sort that does not exist Objectively), to insist that an unborn human be born, yet your irrational quibblings and denunciations, about the context of my messages, due to your invalid data and your non-comprehension of what I'm talking about (possibly deliberate, the more I read your nonsense) have done nothing but waste server space. Why is it that almost no one else around here has trouble understanding what I write, when it is nontechnical?

blastula said:
nothing was said about usefulness of "Subjective Valuation"

Nothing needed to be said, because the subtopic receiving focus was Objective Valuation, or, to make it more clear to your comprehension, Objective Worth, a thing that pro-lifers implicitly use as a rationale to oppose abortion. My arguments have been totally consistent in showing how Objective Worth does not exist, while not denying at all any aspect of Subjective Worth, such as usefulness or even determinability. There was no need to get into aspects of Subjective Worth until AFTER you deign to admit you are totally in error about Objective Worth. However, I'll offer a clue....

blastula said:
Since there is no objective value, therefore there is no standard for comparison.

The Law of Supply and Demand always works, whenever allowed. Go ahead, try to find a item where knowledgable providers and consumers always fail to assign a value for it that both can accept. And on what basis should you think that that assigned value should always be the same, regardless of circumstances? In the Cusp Scenario regarding tree life, their Subjective Valuations can indeed be agreed to be equal to that of human life, while in todays not-yet-Cusp-Scenario, Subjective Valuations generally are agreed that tree life is worth less than human life. I have no problem whatsoever with "Floating Subjective Valuations". It matches Reality and is known to work. Why do you have a problem with it? Obviously, because you are erroneously fixated on Objective Valuations!

And so, I see no reason to proceed with trashing more of your nonsense until after we are agreed that the basis of your nonsense, regarding Objective Worth, is totally erroneous.

Jerry · May 21, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
That's not unreasonable, and is related to my item #2 below:

FutureIncoming said:

.3. But the key factor, which you overlooked, is this: How many such widely-reported executions need take place before all other potentially-unaffording-parents got the message, and decided not to deliberately have kids they expect others to pay for? Execution is generally considered to be a pretty effective deterrent to certain crimes, and in this case the crime would be something like "contributing to the Malthusian-Catastrophic death of 90%+ of the human species". If that number of executions is low enough, then perhaps this is a better solution than China's.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, your Msg #60 still ignores the possible results of #3 above. If the execution of a few significantly influences the behavior of many, then can my choice for a Final Solution to overpopulation be better than China's?

Hm, OK.

You will need to streamline the execution check-out lane. At present it would take each parent @ 20 years to exhaust their Rights of Appeal. So it would be @ 20 years before we saw the first execution. During those 20 years these parents would need to be supported by taxpayer money, and their 20 children would be of little help because those 20 children would not be taxable producers until they turned 18.

FutureIncoming said:
Better still is to recognize the Objective Fact that there is no such thing as a Right to Reproduce. It is a privilege that the Universe grants to those that earn it. And the first step is to simply survive to breeding age in an Objective Universe that doesn't grant any such thing as a Right to Life, either. The second step is to find a mate (certainly not a guaranteed thing!).…

Yes there most certainly is such a right. It comes from the same place where our founding fathers say the rest our rights came from. Your right to reproduce is conferred upon you at your creation, you need earn nothing. Whether or not you will come to a point in your life where you can execute that right is up to you, but you still have that right.

Anyway, I said “reproductive rights”, not “right to reproduce”. Certainly those who abort in the name of “reproductive rights” are not executing a “right to reproduce”. My point being that if you are trapped in a climate such as China, it is better to forfeit your ability to choose on your own terms rather than being forced to forfeit your ability to choose on the government’s terms.

Jerry · May 21, 2006

In any event, Future, your argument seems to be an extended rant, venting hatred from those in your personal past onto the masses. There need be no executions at all, of anyone, in order to solve over population. Even in extreme scenarios China proves this. Why the focused hatred on the parents?

I mean, come on......you wish to reduce human life to plant life and exicute parents for having more children then they should have.

There's something fundamentally flawed with that outlook. It's unhealthy.

blastula · May 21, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
refer to your above post.

You claimed I took your statement out of context regarding your statement: "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever".

Let us re-analyze the statement from the source of dispute to determine the context.

In msg 31 you quoted me say, "Originally Posted by blastula, in Msg #24 Value is inherent in every living and non-living thing". And in which your replied, "UTTERLY FALSE. All values are Subjective, not Objective."

In msg 31 you stated: "The bald fact is, the Objective Universe (Nature) cares not one whit about anything. Life exists because of Nature (the Laws of Physics/Chemistry/etc allowed it)," Therefore, your definition of "Objective Universe" is another word for "Nature". Everything in this world is part of Nature or Nature itself. Therefore, "Nature" is also the universe or the world.

In msg 33 you stated: "All values are Subjective". Therefore, the interpretation in terms of objectivity is: No value is Objective.

In msg 38 you quoted me saying: "Originally Posted by blastula, continuing If your subjective value of human life vs tree life is so undeterminable how can you even conceive the notion that one is more or less more important than the other?".

And in which you replied, "That notion logically stems from the claim that human life is inherently valuable, and also from the additional claim that human life is more valuable than other life. I was simply challenging the claim, by requesting supporting evidence. In Actual Objective Fact, per the Objective Universe, There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever. Humans and trees and everything else have exactly the same Zero Objective Value".

Your claim that I had taken "OUT OF CONTEXT" your meaning because I omitted "In Actual Objective Fact, per the Objective Universe". But, that just simply means "In fact, according to nature, or universe..." or " In fact, in this world..."

Therefore, the context of this phrase has no significant meaning except to emphasize your position, i.e. "In fact, in this world". From the totality of your other statements from msg 31 to 38, you had made it clear that nothing has any objective value.

Finally, you also stated, "Humans and trees and everything else have exactly the same Zero Objective Value".

This is a statement of declaration and it is as clear as the blue sky that the meaning is consistent with "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever". Which simply means nothing has any value whatsoever. So, how can it be out of context?

Therefore, if nothing has value, you must concede that you have no value. And whatever you argued about regarding tree life vs human life has no value.

Even if you still insist that it is out of context, the alternative context is just as defeating to you as the other. Because alternatively if you didn't mean "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever", then in the alternative you are saying, "Thing has value". Which is my argument, i.e. everything has inherent value. Either way, you are self-destruct.

Cont.

blastula · May 21, 2006

You stated: "On the contrary, my arguments have incorporated valid data and have been utterly rational and consistent (barring occasional sloppy wording)".

What valid data? Do you consider a hypothetical 1001 st birth a valid data? Regarding your claim of rationality and consistency, your posts speak louder than your word.

Regarding your criticism on "the ridiculous notion that the Universe incorporates Objective Value". I don't know what exactly do you mean by it. But, objective reality is independent of conscious awareness. Therefore, the lack of knowledge of objective reality in human mind will not affect or change its inherent value.The limitation of human knowledge of objective reality is delimited by our perceiving mind.

Measurement is simply human's way to quantify objective value. So, how can you be so easily confused? For instance, if you are asked to guess how many jelly beans are there in a jelly bean jar. You can simply look at the jar and make a wild guess. Or you can measure the volume of the jar and estimate the volume of one jelly bean to calculate the number of jelly beans in the jar.

The wild guessing method is subjective because it is based solely on personal feeling. The second method by measurement and calculation is more objective in terms of scientific method.

The answer regarding the number of jelly beans may be close but may most likely not the exact answer as the true number of jelly beans in the jar. Even though both measurement methods are based on estimate, and just because you consider the estimated values "Subjective valuation", it doesn't mean that there are no actual number of jelly beans in the jar.

Therefore, just because we are unable to perceive objective reality it doesn't mean there is no inherent value already existed in the "jar" of objective reality.

When did I ever make a claim insisting that an unborn human be born just because it happens to be 5 inches long? It seems you are always making wild allegations and strange or disconneded arguments leading astray to nowhere. And calling my posts nonsense, and yet accusing me of wasting server space.

You said your "arguments have been totally consistent in showing how Objective Worth does not exist, while not denying at all any aspect of Subjective Worth, such as usefulness or even determinability".

Now, if "Objective Worth" does not exist as you said, then you must concede you have no worth. Since you have no worth, how are you able to be useful? Without any worth how can you have any determinability worthy of determinability?

In previous post, I stated: "Since there is no objective value, therefore there is no standard for comparison".

And in which you replied: "The Law of Supply and Demand always works, whenever allowed".

Which means when it is not allowed, there is no comparison. But then again, if "The Law of Supply and Demand always works" then why are you having problem when trees are being cut due to "The Law of Supply and Demand"?

Would you try to find an item where knowledgable providers of logs and consumers of timber always fail to assign a value for it that both can accept? If "The Law of Supply and Demand always works", then what is your complaint that started this thread?

You said: "In the Cusp Scenario regarding tree life, their Subjective Valuations can indeed be agreed to be equal to that of human life, while in todays not-yet-Cusp-Scenario, Subjective Valuations generally are agreed that tree life is worth less than human life".

If in "Cusp Scenario" regarding tree life, their "Subjective Valuations" can indeed be agreed to be equal to that of human life, then please tell me what would that value be? Is it life for life, rights for rights, or money for money?

I don't understand what did you mean by "Floating Subjective Valuations". You use so many compounded terms that is hard for me to keep track of their true meaning. Then again, I wonder is there any true meaning in your belief system where only arbitrary subjectivity exists? If you are living in a world of arbitrary subjectivity what Reality are you referring to? Is there such a thing called "Subjective Reality" or "Arbitrary Reality" in your system? And how does it work?

FutureIncoming · May 22, 2006

Jerry said:
You will need to streamline the execution check-out lane.

I assumed that was a normal part of anything designated a "Final Solution". Besides, what is there to appeal? Parents of a newborn either pay the bills themselves or seek assistance from others to pay the bills. It is the seeking-of-assistance that would result in a death penalty. Simple, incontrovertible guilt. Yes, I'm aware that appeals sometimes challenge the validity of the law that leads to such things as death sentences, but it seems to me that in any Scenario that invokes this particular Final Solution, that would have been thought-of in advance and, as you put it, "streamlined".

But the question I asked you didn't answer.

FutureIncoming said:
If the execution of a few significantly influences the behavior of many, then can my choice for a Final Solution to overpopulation be better than China's?

Well?

Jerry said:
Yes there most certainly is such a right {{to reproduce}}

Now you are mixing apples and oranges. I was talking about the Objective Universe as granting no such thing. You are talking about the Constitution or some such similar Subjective thing (which thereby ignores Objective Reality -- and that could be OK as long as it is widely understood that such a grant ignores Objective Reality; if 1/7to1/6 of couples are Naturally infertile, how is that Subjective "Right" being exercised?). Also, you didn't specify the actual data that supports your claim. I'd like to see that data, please.

Jerry said:
you wish to reduce human life to plant life and exicute parents for having more children then they should have.

FALSE, TWICE. I wish it to be equally-widely understood that Objective Reality is again being ignored when Subjectively specifying value-of-human-life. Then it can be equally well understood that there are possible situations in which value-of-human-life cannot retain that initial Subjective specification. For example, in a sinking-ship scenario, "Women and children first!" is traditional. From that we might paraphrase the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, but all women and children are created superior." See? Under ordinary circumstances that paraphrase is invalid, but in a sinking-ship scenario it is traditionally valid, thereby proving that value-of mens' lives, at least, is not a Constant. Once the non-constant value of human life is understood, then other things are simple logic:
1. Overpopulation can cause certain life forms to become as valuable as humans, due to Law of Supply and Demand (and the necessity of them to exist for humans to continue to exist).
2. It behooves humans to prevent an Overpopulation Scenario from occuring, by valuing those other life-forms enough so that they are never allowed to become in that-short a supply --and by exercising some sort of control over the Population Explosion. That "Final Solution" I suggested is merely the best that I could pick, of a bad lot of possiblities (could lead to fewest forced deaths).

Regarding "more children than they should have", where did I say that? Didn't I say that you could have 20 if you could afford them all yourself (meaning both parents)? It seems to me that your objection to that stems from some notion that actually is equivalent to this statement: "My selfish desire to have offspring is so important that I'm going to do it, and you are going to pay for it!" And that statement is what I am actually and utterly opposing, with the Final Solution I suggested (do remember that when I first phrased it, I included the word "deliberate", and this is what I meant by that).

FutureIncoming · May 22, 2006

blastula said:
You claimed I took your statement out of context regarding your statement: "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever".

Exactly. You went to great lengths in Msg #65 to present quotes in which I specified the word "Objective" (or equivalent thereof) as part of many such statements. But then you take that particular phrase, excluding "objective", and then you spout idiocy like this:

blastula said:
Which simply means nothing has any value whatsoever. So, how can it be out of context?

By separating "objective" from what I wrote, you are indeed excluding relevant context. Thus:

FutureIncoming said:
per the Objective Universe, There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever.

does not logically lead to what you wrote. Instead it logically leads to "Which simply means that nothing has any OBJECTIVE value whatsoever." The door is still left wide-open for Subjective valuations --and I stated that, also, in Msg #53.

Now that I have explained once again how you have failed to comprehend simple text (and context), will you now deign to admit that you indeed have no evidence whatsoever to support any claim that human life is Objectively valuable?

=====================================================

blastula said:
What valid data?

1. The supply of biomass is finite.
2. Human population growth converts biomass from other forms into human bodies and also into support-biomass.
3. There is a mathematical limit to how far #2 can go, due to #1.
4. The Law of Supply and Demand is quite factual.
5. Human life, despite claims to the contrary, is only Subjectively valuable. In support of that I have presented various data such as ransoms and the attitude of aristocrats toward peasants. (Also see the sinking-ship thing in #67.)
6a. There is no aspect of the purely physical/mindless Universe that acts to avoid the destruction of anything.
6b. Are not valuations normally associated with attempts to prevent the random destruction of valued things?
6c. If something was valuable to the Objective Universe, then there should be some sort of avoidance of its random destruction, per 6b. The lack of any such thing, per 6a, leads us to the conclusion that there isn't anything that is Objectively Valuable.

Do I really need to present more valid data on my part? When you have yet to present anything more than quibbles about what I meant by "value"? Here's some more valid data for you to consider:
1. Astrophysicists studying stars have excellent descriptions of the gross changes they can experience as time passes.
2. The Sun is about 30% brighter today than it was 4.5 billion years ago, due to the accumulation of helium "ash" in the core of the Sun.
3. In another 4 or 5 billion years, the Sun will swell to become a Red Giant type of star. The Earth's biosphere will be utterly destroyed at that time.
4. When the Earth first cooled off after its formation more than 4 billion years ago, the Sun's radiance was insufficient by itself to keep all the water at the Earth's surface from freezing solid. Except at that time the Earth's atmosphere was also rich in greenhouse gases.
5. As the Sun's radiance has increased over billions of years, the quantity of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere has diminished, and not in lock-step, either. There are episodes in the geologic record indicating that the whole Earth was covered in ice at least twice, and the Permian Extinction (70-90% of all life died) is associated with a Global Warming episode. But on the average, the Earth's surface has mostly stayed away from those extremes.
6. There is a limit to how much greenhouse gas can be removed from the Earth's atmosphere. The Sun's radiance is still increasing slowly and inexoribly. There are estimates that in about 300million years, even with no greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun will begin heating the Earth into a permanent Global Warming situation. Thus most of the Earth's biosphere is under a death sentence much much sooner than when the Sun becomes a Red Giant.
7. Human life is part of the Earth's biosphere. If it is Objectively valuable, and if it manages to avoid self-destruction for that long a time, then where is the Objective mechanism that will prevent that death sentence? (Heh, where is the Objective mechanism that will keep an Extinction-Level asteroid or comet impact from happening perhaps as many as 5 times those 300million years?)

Jerry · May 22, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
But the question I asked you didn't answer.

FutureIncoming said:

If the execution of a few significantly influences the behavior of many, then can my choice for a Final Solution to overpopulation be better than China's?

Click to expand...

Well?

No. Capitol Punishment has proven not to be a deterrence, so you can not assume that it would influence the population significantly enough.

If anything, it would spark a revolution.

You can not prove your "If" as probable. Even when faced with genocide, Jews still executed practices forbidden by the state. Your Final Solution would achieve no greater end, no matter how many parents you have carted off by the train car full.

FutureIncoming said:
I was talking about the Objective Universe as granting no such thing.

I know that.
Objective Universe=Holy Spirit, the ultimate observer, judging no one and being without judgment. God.

FutureIncoming said:
You are talking about the Constitution or some such similar Subjective thing.

Well, yeah, of coarse I am. Your Final Solution would need to be legalized. It would need legal authority in order to be executed. Thus, your Final solution is Subjective.

FutureIncoming said:
(which thereby ignores Objective Reality -- and that could be OK as long as it is widely understood that such a grant ignores Objective Reality; if 1/7to1/6 of couples are Naturally infertile, how is that Subjective "Right" being exercised?).

I didn't say that the right would be exorcised, I said that the right was possessed. Even a quadriplegic retains the right to bear arms, even if they can not execute that right. Likewise an infertile person retains the right to reproduce. If an infertile person had no such right, then they would also have no right to attempt various forms of reproductive procedures to bear a child.
Not even cloning would be an option, then.

FutureIncoming said:
Also, you didn't specify the actual data that supports your claim. I'd like to see that data, please.

In the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers said:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

FutureIncoming said:
False, twice. I wish it to be equally-widely understood that Objective Reality is again being ignored when Subjectively specifying value-of-human-life. Then it can be equally well understood that there are possible situations in which value-of-human-life cannot retain that initial Subjective specification. For example, in a sinking-ship scenario, "Women and children first!" is traditional. From that we might paraphrase the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, but all women and children are created superior." See? Under ordinary circumstances that paraphrase is invalid, but in a sinking-ship scenario it is traditionally valid, thereby proving that value-of men’s' lives, at least, is not a Constant. Once the non-constant value of human life is understood, then other things are simple logic:

"Women and children first" does not come from the value of a man's life being less than the value of a woman's life or a child's life, but out of love and the Natural order. Men are Naturally the protectors of the family. We die in place of our wife not because our lives are of less value, but to protect our wife. We die in place of our children not because our life is of less value, but to protect our children.

If anyone need die, then at every opportunity we die before anyone ells.

***
The Holy Spirit is not being ignored when determining the value of human life. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is from God that this value is set, and as God has demonstrated, human life is priceless.

FutureIncoming said:
Regarding "more children than they should have", where did I say that? Didn't I say that you could have 20 if you could afford them all yourself (meaning both parents)? It seems to me that your objection to that stems from some notion that actually is equivalent to this statement: "My selfish desire to have offspring is so important that I'm going to do it, and you are going to pay for it!" And that statement is what I am actually and utterly opposing, with the Final Solution I suggested (do remember that when I first phrased it, I included the word "deliberate", and this is what I meant by that).

*ahem*
Oops, so I have 20 children and you are forced to pay for them because I say so. I'll just lie to the Judge and say "I didn't deliberately have them (*tong in cheek*)".

Oh, you want to execute me for not affording all of my children? Ok, in a court of law, prove that I had them deliberately.

All I need to do is claim that I used a condom and I'm innocent. No, not even that. All I need to do is say "the pregnancy was an accident" or "I wanted her to abort".

Now it's my word -vs- yours, and I, the defendant, need prove nothing.

You, bearing the burden of proof, must prove that I not only did not use any contraception what so ever, but that I deliberately sought to impregnate my honey specifically so that you would be forced to pay for that child. You must positively prove, with sufficient physical evidence, your conspiracy theory in a court of law.

***
So much more efficient is it to simply mandate sterilization.

Mandatory sterilization would be far easier, cheaper and faster to legislate and enforce.

China's Final Solution is by far more efficient than yours.

***
Were your parents ill prepared for children?

blastula · May 22, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
refer to your above post.

Argumentum ad Nihil:
"In Actual Objective Fact, per the Objective Universe, There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever " - FutureIncoming.

You're certainly very unusual in your thought process. The "Objective" part that was left out was irrelevant to you. It has no value to you whatsoever. How would it make any difference if the word "Objective" was excluded in the quote? If nothing in the "Actual Objective Fact" or "Objective Uniververse" has any value whatsoever, what's so pertinent or significant with the word "Objective"? Nihil! Nothing!

You said: "The door is still left wide-open for Subjective valuations"

But "Subjective valuation" is just that, subjective. This means that values are whatever we desire ("door left wide-open")and are in the eyes of the beholders. There is no absolute standard to determine which values should be accepted and therefore the determination is left to personal opinion, feeling and emotion. If you truly believe in "Subjective valuation" then you should concede to my "Subjective valuation" of your argument. Therefore, I say you have no value and by your subjective convention, you have no value.

So you called those itemized 1-6 valid data?

You said, "The supply of biomass is finite" and "Human population growth converts biomass from other forms into human bodies and also into support-biomass". So? They don't prove that tree life is more important than human life. Your #3 just self-destruct.

You said, "The Law of Supply and Demand is quite factual".

Yeah, the values can be just as factual as waking up to nothing when stock market crashed as in the Great Depression and the recent Dot-Com Crash. If you believe in "The Law of Supply and Demand ", why are you complaining when timbers are cut based on market demand and supply?

Furthermore, the link http://shrewdnessofapes.blogspot.com...-see-poem.html you posted in your first post was reporting a declining timber sales on federal lands despite the growing trend of population growth. If the population is growing and many millions are added, and if your theory is true, why would timber sales decline? Therefore, your hypothesis that if one new human is added to the population, immediately we must cut down a tree to help support that life is utterly debunked.

Your conjecture about the "purely physical/mindless Universe" or "Objective Universe" avoiding destruction of anything is just ridiculous. If it is mindless, how can it avoid? The objective reality is something that exists independent of any consciousness lack alone human's perception of it. In other words, the objective reality would be there as it is, even if no conscious mind is present to perceived it.

As for the rest of your post regarding earth freezing, sun radiating, greenhousing, etc... , no offence, but they are just disconnected.

FutureIncoming · May 23, 2006

Jerry said:
Capitol Punishment has proven not to be a deterrence

Really? A deterrence is something that is expected to reduce the total number of events being targeted. I agree that deterrence never prevents all of those events, but if it prevents any, then the deterrence indeed is doing what it is supposed to do. So, what evidence have you that Capital Punishment for first-degree murder never deters any first-degree murders?

Jerry said:
you can not assume that it would influence the population significantly enough.

Well, remember I said I didn't know what other forcible thing China could have tried that the world would accept. So I suggested something I thought might be possible, and I offered some reasons....

jerry said:
it would spark a revolution.

Really? I notice your woefully inadequate response to this:

FutureIncoming said:
"My selfish desire to have offspring is so important that I'm going to do it, and you are going to pay for it!"

Jerry said:
I'll just lie to the Judge and say "I didn't deliberately have them

Sorry, that doesn't work when abortions are legal and pregnancies last for plenty of months in which to get one. "Deliberately having a kid" doesn't just mean starting a pregnancy; it also means carrying it to term. Very very few women have a kid without knowing they were pregnant -- and I doubt that any of those women ever managed to not-know-it twice..
So, back to that "you are going to pay for it" thing. Do you know about the life cycle of a bird, the cuckoo? It lays its egg in the nest of a different species of bird, when that bird is temporarily absent. The cuckoo's egg hatches first, and the first thing the chick does is push the other eggs out of the nest. Then it becomes the sole beneficiary of the other birds' parenting efforts. The word "cuckold" derives from this. Murders have been known to happen when a man finds out that the child his wife bears is not his own offspring -- and Societies have been known to forgive those murders. Well, the "you are going to pay for it" thing is essentially equivalent to a cuckold situation. Do you really think that Society would revolt to support cuckolders of Society?
===========

Jerry said:
Even when faced with genocide, Jews still executed practices forbidden by the state.

That's true, but how many of those practices were public? This is a different situation, in which the forbidden thing is to seek public assistance for supporting one's offspring. To seek it is to immediately be apprehendable, one is publicly violating the law, after all. Would the public be affected/detered by broad-daylight arrests of assistance-seekers, in accordance with that law? Yes, I know this will drive the assistance-seekers "underground", but who is going to give them assistance, and how much assitance can they actually give, anyway? AND, when those assistance-seekers have even more kids and seek even more assistance, do you suppose a "last straw" situation will eventually dawn upon those underground assistance-providers? (How much of your income can you give away to support other people's kids, and what if they make more kids and want more of your money?) It seems to me that the assistance-seekers would eventually be exposed.

Jerry said:
Your Final Solution would achieve no greater end, no matter how many parents you have carted off by the train car full.

Private things cannot truly effectively be banned, I agree. But public things are another matter.
===========

Jerry said:
Objective Universe=Holy Spirit,

Let's see the supporting evidence for that claim, please? The Objective Universe, as seen by Science, is just a bunch of mostly nonsentient mass/energy, like stars, planets, etc.

FutureIncoming said:
if 1/7to1/6 of couples are Naturally infertile, how is that Subjective "Right" {{to reproduce}} being exercised?

Jerry said:
If an infertile person had no such right, then they would also have no right to attempt various forms of reproductive procedures to bear a child. Not even cloning would be an option, then.

You almost understood the difference between Objective and Subjective there. The Objective Universe grants every living organism the Right To Try Anything, but No Right To Succeed At Anything (some birds detect cuckoo eggs and eject them from their nests, and in response various subspecies of cuckoo have evolved eggs that look extremely similar to the eggs of the species of birds they specialize in cuckolding). A totally infertile person has no Objective Right to reproduce, simply because all attempts will fail (by definition of "totally infertile"!). And granting a Subjective Right to reproduce won't change that definition one whit. (I will ignore cloning because it is far-from-normal-reproduction, far from being a routine alternative ("progeria" is a very likely medical problem of any cloned human), and it would qualify for the "deliberate" thing --although I admit that if you could afford a clone, you could probably also afford to raise it, and so my suggested Final Solution wouldn't interfere.) Our technology is just about ready to fit the quadraplegic that you mentioned (unquoted here) with a prosthetic gun (nervous-system-to-computer interfaces are functioning, in the labs). The overall point is that lots of things called Objective are actually Subjective, and consequently cannot be relied-upon to continue existing.
Next, I see you quoted some stuff from the Declaration of Independence, which is not the Law of the Land -- and I know you know it. Why did you even try --or, better, why didn't you present this:

the Founding Fathers said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to ... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

That's pretty powerful stuff, but we already have plenty of laws to the effect that you cannot use your Liberty as an excuse to violate the Liberty of others. I suspect that cuckolding others would qualify as something frowned-upon, like theft.

Jerry said:
"Women and children first" does not come from the value of a man's life being less than the value of a woman's life or a child's life, but out of love and the Natural order. Men are Naturally the protectors of the family. We die in place of our wife not because our lives are of less value, but to protect our wife. We die in place of our children not because our life is of less value, but to protect our children.

BAD LOGIC. In an all-lives-are-valued-equally-but-somebody-must-die scenario, it is traditional to draw lots. All you have written is about men choosing to value their own lives less than those of the women and children. Which is indeed a Subjective reValuation.
===============

Jerry said:
The Holy Spirit is not being ignored when determining the value of human life. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is from God that this value is set, and as God has demonstrated, human life is priceless.

Sorry, but all of that goes into the "unproved claims" category. Besides, what about the claimed Flood? In that tale "priceless" didn't stop God from revaluing a great many human lives to Zero. So, to the extent that we have Free Will, regardless of whether or not God exists or has specified any valuations for humans, we have the power to Subjectively Value and reValue anything, including human life. Wars see a lot of reValuations to Zero....
===============

Jerry said:
So much more efficient is it to simply mandate sterilization.

If we had effective and reliable Reversible Sterilization technologies available for both sexes, I'd agree with you in an instant. I'd go so far as to recommend sterilizing everyone, no exceptions, at puberty. Then put a high price on the Reversal procedure. If they can afford to get a Reversal, then probably they can afford the kids they will be having afterward. However, without Reversible Steriliztion, I'd say you would run into far more Public Opposition than I would for recommending the execution of Cuckolders of Society. See, lots of responsible folks in tough situations hold out hope for improvement, so that they can offer offspring decent lives. Mandatory permanent sterilizations take that hope away from them -- and people without hope have been known to do very ugly things, against those who removed that hope
==============

Jerry said:
Were your parents ill prepared for children?

In some ways it is said that no parent is ever prepared for the first kid. But mine were middle class, and both in their 20s when they had their first. It is my understanding that they planned and prepared for the kids they had.

FutureIncoming · May 23, 2006

blastula said:
Your conjecture about the "purely physical/mindless Universe" or "Objective Universe" avoiding destruction of anything is just ridiculous. If it is mindless, how can it avoid? The objective reality is something that exists independent of any consciousness lack alone human's perception of it. In other words, the objective reality would be there as it is, even if no conscious mind is present to perceived it.

AH, so perhaps you finally understand why there is no such thing as an Objective Valuation. Valuations can only be done by minds, and the Objective Universe hasn't got one.

blastula said:
The "Objective" part that was left out was irrelevant to you.

FALSE.. Otherwise I would neither kept using the word nor insisted you were ignoring it. If anything you needed it to be irrelevant in order to "have a case". You have failed..

Are you ready to admit it, yet? (That there is no such thing as Objective Value/Worth?)

Your silly statements about my valid data are just that, silly. Those data points remain valid regardless of who draws what conclusions from them! Nothing you wrote contested in the slightest the validity of those points. Even this:

blastula said:
why would timber sales {{on Federal Lands}} decline?

How about "the lumber companies are getting timber cheaper elsewhere (there are such things as tree farms)"
How about "Federal Lands have been sold and are no longer Federal Lands, so the lumber companies are busy focussing on clear-cutting non-Federal Lands"
How about "Federal Lands are running out of trees that can be cut without the area becoming equivalent to clear-cut, so the Forestry Service is reducing sales to let the forests recover"

How about you answer my question, now.

blastula · May 23, 2006

You said, "Valuations can only be done by minds, and the Objective Universe hasn't got one". So don't keep ascribing the term "avoid" or "care not about" to the "Objective Universe" as if it has a conscious mind.

And human minds are limited in their ability to know. There are still a lot of things out there in the outer space or the deep ocean that we don't know about. Just because we don't know it doesn't mean there is no objective reality. Objective value encompasses inherent value of things and moral values. Objective values are real, subjective values are in the minds. In morality, objective values are the principles, subjective values are the preferences. Therefore, principles reflect truth and unchange. Preferences reflect arbitrary relativity and change of mind.

If you insist that "there is no such thing as Objective Value/Worth" so why would your using the word becomes relevant? Even when I added the word back, it didn't change a bit to your context. You insisted with your "valueless/worthless" protest because you were put into a self-defeated corner.

Your "data points" are really irrelevant, it's like trying to draw some rabbits out of a magician's hat.

The notion that "the lumber companies are getting timber cheaper elsewhere" is just silly. If the world is so overpopulated, and if your hypothesis is that if one new human is added to the population, immediately we must cut down a tree to help support that life, then eslewhere or anywhere there will be increased demands. Therefore, the price should be going up as population increases everywhere and "elsewhere". The fact that the sales didn't even stay even but went down despite population increase clearly debunked your hypothesis.

Federal Lands or not is irrelevant. Don't try to skirt the issue. If a tree must be cut down immediately to help support that new human life, it doesn't matter where that tree comes from. All it matter is a tree be available. And if tree resource is scarce, anywhere it came from will be highly demanded and pricey.

You said, "so the lumber companies are busy focussing on clear-cutting non-Federal Lands". Then if they are clear-cutting despite no demand, it goes to show you that my previous argument regarding wanton cutting that has nothing to do with population grow or demand. Just like the wanton slaughters of the buffalo to near extinction, it wasn't because of overpopulation or demand. So, are you ready to concede now?

You said, "How about 'Federal Lands are running out of trees that can be cut without the area becoming equivalent to clear-cut, so the Forestry Service is reducing sales to let the forests recover'". Running out of trees is a reduction in supply. If supply goes down, and demands go up due to large population growth, price goes up. So, how can sales be down? Sales go down because there is decrease in demand.

If the Forestry Service can reduce sales to let forests recover, then why the gripe about overpopulation, human life vs tree life, and your favorite "Cusp" scenatio. You really don't make sense.

Jerry · May 23, 2006

FutureIncoming,
You have not established your premise that Capitol Punishment will detour your targeted action, so I have nothing to disprove.

You can not succeed in prosecuting me for having a child I can not afford because 1) It is virtually impossible to prove the very specific intent of the act that you seek, 2) not being a woman, I can not abort my child, and 3) I have no legal authority and excuse to force a woman to abort.

Your cuckold analogy does not apply because we are not speaking of one newborn killing another newborn. Even if you were to liken a man murdering a child to the actions of a male Lion, since we are not speaking of men killing children, but of the state killing parents, that analogy would not apply either.

You inadvertently admitted that your Final Solution would not work when you described said forbidden actions going underground. You can not assume that your Final Solution is viable when it is based on pure supposition that some “last straw” scenario would come about, because that scenario is pure conjecture at best. You have not established it’s inevitability nor it’s nature.

Quantum theory is supporting God’s existence more and more as it struggles to describe our universe. I have nothing to post which I have not already given you on this.

If you will recall, I did not post the DoI as law. The DoI supports my claim: “Yes there most certainly is such a right [to reproduce]. It comes from the same place where our founding fathers say the rest our rights came from.” Whether or not you are in America, are an American, or are subject in any way to American law, you have fundamental rights conferred upon you, by God, upon your creation.

No tradition of “drawing lots” exists within the timeless natural order. Everyone and everything has a purpose and reason. We simply do not first shear a common understanding of the Natural Law premise.

God did not devalue human life in the flood, which is why He grieved.

Leadership is the art of making someone do something because they want to. Your Final Solution is not leadership, it is vengeful domination.

***
I feel that blastula is doing a fine job of debating you into the corner, and keeping you there, so I’ll go warm up a bench and watch the game now.

FutureIncoming · May 23, 2006

blastula said:
You said, "Valuations can only be done by minds, and the Objective Universe hasn't got one". So don't keep ascribing the term "avoid" or "care not about" to the "Objective Universe" as if it has a conscious mind.

I only did that to show you the idiocy of your position, regarding Objective Values. That is, if the Objective Universe includes Valuations, then it also has to include Events that are in accordance with those Valuations. But, since Everything in the Universe is subject to Random Destruction, there are no such Events. Therefore the lack of Objective Valuations is proved. You have no argument that can defeat those very simple facts and logic. Even this:

blastula said:
There are still a lot of things out there in the outer space or the deep ocean that we don't know about. Just because we don't know it...

We know enough to reach a valid conclusion in this matter. If human life is Objectively valuable, then why did Toba, 70,000 years ago, nearly extinguish the human species worldwide? Why did pieces of a comet crash in several places from Argentina to southern Iraq about 4or5 thousand years ago, and knock out both the early Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations (and incidently leave a multicultural legacy of seeing comets as bad omens)? Why did an earthquake about the same time connect the Mediterranean to the Black Sea, flooding thousands of square miles of human habitation? Why did Santorini wipe out the entire Minoan civilization? Why did the Black Death exist to kill 1/3 the population of Europe? Why is there ever any crop failure anywhere? Why did two earthquakes in China in the early 20th Century each kill about 800,000 people? Why was there a tsunami in the Indian Ocean in Dec. 2004? Why was there an iceberg in front of the Titanic? Why was a guy on a bicycle in a valley at a family get-together, with no clouds visible, killed by lightning (nearest cloud was hidden by a hill and ten miles away)? We have plenty of evidence that the Objective Universe places Zero Value on the existence of humans.

blastula said:
... doesn't mean there is no objective reality.

DO NOT MIX APPLES AND ORANGES. REALTY IS NOT THE SAME AS VALUATION.

blastula said:
Objective value encompasses inherent value of things

DO NOT CONTINUE TRYING TO SAY THAT EITHER OBJECTIVE OR INHERENT VALUE EXISTS WITHOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE. Those labels are quite synonymous, and your feeble attempt to claim that one exists because the other exists, without even directly saying that the other exists, much less providing evidence, has failed stupidly. I challenge you to do it right! Pick just one thing and explain how it has Objective/Inherent Worth, and I will show you at least one error of fact or logic in that explanation, guaranteed.

blastula said:
... and moral values.

NOPE. Moral values are utterly Subjective. Why else have cannibals claimed that their dinner is a way to honor the dead, while non-cannibals disagree?

blastula said:
Objective values are real,

Your mere say-so is worthless in a Debate Forum. PROVE IT.

=================

blastula said:
If the Forestry Service can reduce sales to let forests recover, then why the gripe about overpopulation, human life vs tree life, and your favorite "Cusp" scenario. You really don't make sense.

What I wrote makes perfect sense when one actually comprehends the difference between a Scenario based on the human experience at Easter Island, and the Current World Situation, which is approaching a different supply-of-resources Cusp. Are you claiming you lack the normal human ability to mentally imagine oneself in some situation other than one's own ordinary situation? Have you looked up the definition of "Scenario" recently?

Human Life vs Tree Life

The Bodhisattva