2000+ people ctb globally each day

[Crazy4u]

euthanasia should never be forced. We are pro choice not pro death

 

[rationalis]

If nobody works, who makes the stuff the government gives you?

euthanasia should never be forced. We are pro choice not pro death

It is okay to have philosophical discussions.

 

[Chinaski]

I think the world and people's lives would be tremendously better if we had forced euthanasia at a certain age like Logan's Run. Maybe not 21 like the book, but I think 40-45 would be perfect.

Logan's Run - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

u wot m8

 

[summers]

The only people who can seriously answer this question are terminally ill patients with a finite amount of time left. For me personally? I can only theorize. If I were happy and healthy, deep down I'd probably be depressed as fuck knowing exactly when I was going to die

There are a fuck ton of people 45 or older who still enjoy life and have lots of things they still want to do. I thought this site was pro-choice? Forced euthanasia at x age completely goes against that notion

Looking at this strictly from the viewpoints of economics and sustainability, people would benefit tremendously from this policy. The good of the many...

 

[Chinaski]

Looking at this strictly from the viewpoints of economics and sustainability, people would benefit tremendously from this policy. The good of the many...

Okay if you look at human life entirely through those viewpoints then why stop here, why not sterilise the poor, why not decimate economically weaker nations and plunder them, why not withdraw health and social care provision and let those who you see as being burdensome fight to the death amongst themselves, why not round up people you consider to be the untermensch and gas them, why not do total recall but for real, why not colonise Mars and nuke the planet, why

 

[summers]

Okay if you look at human life entirely through those viewpoints then why stop here, why not sterilise the poor, why not decimate economically weaker nations and plunder them, why not withdraw health and social care provision and let those who you see as being burdensome fight to the death amongst themselves, why not round up people you consider to be the untermensch and gas them, why not do total recall but for real, why not colonise Mars and nuke the planet, why

How do you think ai is going to look at human life? We haven't evolved or changed in hundreds of thousands of years. When a species stagnates, it goes extinct.

And trust me, ai will take care of everything you mentioned.

 

[Chinaski]

We haven't evolved or changed in hundreds of thousands of years.

Based entirely on your posts I'm inclined to agree tbf

 

[summers]

Based entirely on your posts I'm inclined to agree tbf

I think I actually have caused the homo sapiens to regress. Thank god I didn't pass on my genes

 

[rationaldeath]

Looking at this strictly from the viewpoints of economics and sustainability, people would benefit tremendously from this policy. The good of the many...

Okay if you look at human life entirely through those viewpoints then why stop here, why not sterilise the poor, why not decimate economically weaker nations and plunder them, why not withdraw health and social care provision and let those who you see as being burdensome fight to the death amongst themselves, why not round up people you consider to be the untermensch and gas them, why not do total recall but for real, why not colonise Mars and nuke the planet, why

How would you two describe your core views on ethics? I'd have to agree that it intuitively feels wrong to me to favor the many at the expense of the few, and even beyond that I feel most attracted to an ethical system that places an equal "maximum value" to each individual without any additional value towards groups of people. The issues I have are justifying that with anything more than my own feelings and actually applying it to specific real world scenarios.

 

[summers]

How would you two describe your core views on ethics? I'd have to agree that it intuitively feels wrong to me to favor the many at the expense of the few, and even beyond that I feel most attracted to an ethical system that places an equal "maximum value" to each individual without any additional value towards groups of people. The issues I have are justifying that with anything more than my own feelings and actually applying it to specific real world scenarios.

I favor optimal efficiency over ethics. And I'll leave it at that...

 

[rationaldeath]

I favor optimal efficiency over ethics. And I'll leave it at that...

That's fair. Also I agree with your earlier point about AI, it seems like one of the only realistic paths for humanity to change drastically for the better (or end it all together).

 

[summers]

2000 seems very low. 20,000 makes more sense to me.

That would be about 12% of people dying by suicide. That's certainly not the case, but if it were, I think the world would be a much more interesting place

 

[D&D]

Hasn't 'optimal efficiency over ethics' been tried already ... like some 80 years ago by a little man with a funny mustache and his sidekicks?

 

[summers]

Hasn't 'optimal efficiency over ethics' been tried already ... like some 80 years ago by a little man with a funny mustache and his sidekicks?

Hitler's actions were in no way efficient. His actions led to one of the biggest wastes of human and material resources the world has ever seen.

1. He killed people who were productive.
2. He started a war that killed people who were productive.
3. The war wasted resources that could have been used to improve everyone's lives.
4. Resources were wasted on weapons that have no productive value - things that destroy are generally not productive.
5. WWII was a huge waste of non-renewable resources. All the oil used in the war could have done something productive.

I could go on, but I think you get the point...

Edit: Efficiency does not mean marginalizing certain groups. This is also inefficient. People with low morale are less productive. The most efficient society would be one where people are happy and healthy, where people can work in fields that interest them so they put in more effort. It would also mean automating tasks (jobs) that can be better accomplished by machines and/or ai.

 

[Chinaski]

Hitler's actions were in no way efficient. His actions led to one of the biggest wastes of human and material resources the world has ever seen.

1. He killed people who were productive.
2. He started a war that killed people who were productive.
3. The war wasted resources that could have been used to improve everyone's lives.
4. Resources were wasted on weapons that have no productive value - things that destroy are generally not productive.
5. WWII was a huge waste of non-renewable resources. All the oil used in the war could have done something productive.

I could go on, but I think you get the point...

Edit: Efficiency does not mean marginalizing certain groups. This is also inefficient. People with low morale are less productive. The most efficient society would be one where people are happy and healthy, where people can work in fields that interest them so they put in more effort. It would also mean automating tasks (jobs) that can be better accomplished by machines and/or ai.

Wait, are you saying Hitler was actually *bad*?

 

[summers]

Wait, are you saying Hitler was actually *bad*?

Of course. I never said he was good, nor did I ever support any of his programs/policies.

Edit: I don't use the word a lot, but Hitler was evil personified. I hate human suffering, and he caused more that just about anyone else in history.

 

[Chinaski]

Of course. I never said he was good, nor did I ever support any of his programs/policies.

Yeah that's fair enough, l was perhaps a tad confused in that I've literally never seen anyone do a TOP FIVE REASONS WHY HITLER WAS BAD list where all five reasons were "he wasted resources"

 

[summers]

Yeah that's fair enough, l was perhaps a tad confused in that I've literally never seen anyone do a TOP FIVE REASONS WHY HITLER WAS BAD list where all five reasons were "he wasted resources"

Fine, then he was a traitor who betrayed his own people. Judas, Brutus, and Cassius wound up in Satan's mouth for being traitors.

All my grandparents lived through WWII in Europe. My grandfather was lined up against the wall to be shot and was saved by someone important in the village. Growing up, I had neighbors who were in camps. So please don't ever say I support hitler or nazi-ism, or neo-nazi-ism. You don't know my or my family's story.

 

[Pluto]

3. The war wasted resources that could have been used to improve everyone's lives.
4. Resources were wasted on weapons that have no productive value - things that destroy are generally not productive.

Totally off-topic but I would debate this point. Hitler's regime gave us everything from jet-powered airplanes to Volkswagen cars to modern rockets. Sadly, much of it was funded and built by innocent people brutalised by his regime.

As for the wider point, we would be better off finding ways to improve efficiency that do not involve murder. Even voluntary euthanasia carries the danger of pressuring elderly people to view themselves as burdensome and CTB. The reality is that elderly people have wisdom and life experience - more than the latest 20-year-old celebrity - and should have a genuine place in a sane society.

 

[summers]

Totally off-topic but I would debate this point. Hitler's regime gave us everything from jet-powered airplanes to Volkswagen cars to modern rockets. Sadly, much of it was funded and built by innocent people brutalised by his regime.

As for the wider point, we would be better off finding ways to improve efficiency that do not involve murder. Even voluntary euthanasia carries the danger of pressuring elderly people to view themselves as burdensome and CTB. The reality is that elderly people have wisdom and life experience - more than the latest 20-year-old celebrity - and should have a genuine place in a sane society.

Please keep in mind, I'm not the author of Logan's Run or The Giver. I agree with this idea, but it's not mine.

 

[Pluto]

Please keep in mind, I'm not the author of Logan's Run or The Giver. I agree with this idea, but it's not mine.

It can be good to debate fringe ideas like that. I don't mean to have a go at you. :)

 

[Feeding Pigeons]

It was my tipping point. All illusions have been destroyed and I just both wait and fear of death.

Yeah, I think it sealed the deal for me too. Seeing how the vaccinations played out, and how people reacted? It just proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that nobody is interested in preserving neither life nor liberties. People are fucking ugly and easily mislead. We deserve whatever comes next.

 

[fox_wannabe]

Yeah, I think it sealed the deal for me too. Seeing how the vaccinations played out, and how people reacted? It just proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that nobody is interested in preserving neither life nor liberties. People are fucking ugly and easily mislead. We deserve whatever comes next.

We fully deserve as species, but nobody deserved to be brought into this mess. Only think that gives me hope is that there will be no next generation of poor suckers living in this world.

Humans in general are very little. We have our petty games and desires. But I just wonder how many creatures suffer, including humans, for us to enjoy this game. Truly horrifying. We should go extinct and I do not mean to be edgy. I am serious. We slaughter too many animals and exploit too much labor.

 

[Pluto]

We fully deserve as species, but nobody deserved to be brought into this mess. Only think that gives me hope is that there will be no next generation of poor suckers living in this world.

You might like these guys.

VHEMT

www.vhemt.org

Personally I don't agree with them totally. Firstly, if environmentalists present themselves as misanthropic, it could actually turn people away from the movement. (A lot of leftist politics has this 'reverse psychology' problem; it's why they keep losing elections.) Secondly, each specific concern with human activity can be overcome by one who is engaged in the issues and has resources to work with.

 

[fox_wannabe]

You might like these guys.

VHEMT

www.vhemt.org

Personally I don't agree with them totally. Firstly, if environmentalists present themselves as misanthropic, it could actually turn people away from the movement. (A lot of leftist politics has this 'reverse psychology' problem; it's why they keep losing elections.) Secondly, each specific concern with human activity can be overcome by one who is engaged in the issues and has resources to work with.

I actually know this movement. I also know guy called Inmendham. Great guy, speaks only truth. I am also antinatalist. I do not treat it as any valid political movement. . I value the suffering argument. We just cause too much suffering we cannot see.

 

[MyStateKilledMe]

I would have loved to live in the "Logan's Run" universe. It was basically a pleasure dome, with unlimited food, comforts, and friendships. The only catch was... you know. I had depression since I was a baby, hated my life since I became self-aware, and was suicidal since I was 6. So I'd have loved to "renew" at a young age (21 in the book, 30 in the movie). In fact, during my 20's, I had a dark comeback to the pro-lifer mantra "Life is too short to be negative." It was "Life is not short enough!" Hell, I still think life is not short enough.

 

[👁️👃👁️]

.

I actually know this movement. I also know guy called Inmendham. Great guy, speaks only truth. I am also antinatalist. I do not treat it as any valid political movement. . I value the suffering argument. We just cause too much suffering we cannot see.

That the one who was speaking about killing pregnant women?