I wrote that response to Xander almost a month ago. I've thought about it since then and come to the conclusion that I treated him in a condescending manner by not addressing his argument on its own terms.

With 372,000 births each day, I find vasectomies are the best method of birth and population control. I want to make that clear now. — XanderTheGrey

Vasectomies, IUDs, long term birth control implants, diaphragms, abortion, and ordinary pills and condoms all help reduce the population growth rate. It's still growing, but not as fast.

Reducing the world's population is probably a good idea in the abstract. In concrete terms, not so much. Besides, the world's human population will be reduced in the fullness of time (which means on nature's schedule, not yours). When there are too many humans, not enough food to go around, given disease and environmental stresses (global warming) the human population will crash. If you are wise, you will hope not to be around when it happens. It won't be pleasant.

Hmm ... I will take a second look at your responses to my inauthenticity thread and also what apokrisis has to say.

And, I disagree that the part of us that is authentic is also culturally mediated, because by definition, authentic means uncontaminated, untouched, unaffected.

Now, what I think you're trying to say, and I'll agree, is that a 100% authentic interaction is impossible, because we need structure in communication and interaction. That implies the necessity for language, social norms, and other forms of "cultural mediation".

So yes, all interaction is culturally mediated, and we can almost never have a truly authentic interaction. But, my gripe is with how inauthentic most interactions seem to me to be. But hey, I live in Southern California, and you know what that means :) Maybe things are better elsewhere in the US ... I would hope so.

Should we really place any moral value on individual human life? — XanderTheGrey

Yes, we should. We should because individual human beings are the only creatures that have sufficient moral reasoning capacity to do good, and not coincidentally, to do evil.

Personally I can see no value. — XanderTheGrey

That is literally your problem. I don't take you altogether seriously, however, but some of your posts are skirting the reportable.

... mass murder/suicide... screams the truth, that our lives mean nothing to the universe — XanderTheGrey

Of course our lives mean nothing to the universe. The universe is not a meaning granting institution. You are, I am, everyone here is, that's what humans do. They give meaning.

... and that their is no innocence, just as their is no guilt. There is no right or wrong, there is only whats desired, and whats not desired. — XanderTheGrey

Bullshit.

Some people are guilty, everyone is responsible. Yes, there is right or wrong -- because we meaning-granting humans have defined some things as as right (like being kind to people), and some things as wrong -- like mass murder, for example.

Those of us in the 1st world suffer from a terrible delusion that our everyday lifestyle choices are not responsible for the vast amount of suffering on the otherside of the globe; that its "someone else's fualt" that there are "bad guys" to blame. — XanderTheGrey

Yes, and... why, Mr. Amoral, do you care?

I think the most I would ever seek to do is help create an online movement that encourages mass murder, and murder-suicide, and addresses its true effects on the rest of the population. — XanderTheGrey

I gather you have some mental health problems. You also have some moral problems. Encouraging mass murder and/or mass murder-suicide, is likely to lead to your receiving mental health services either behind bars (in prison) or in a high security mental hospital.

It is one thing to fantasize about people dropping dead--along the lines of "I've never killed anybody but I have very much enjoyed reading certain obituaries." Lots of people read apocalyptic fiction about plagues wiping out most of humanity. The thing about these stories, though, is that there is usually no actor in charge, no mad scientists scheme. The mass die-off is a plot device to get to the point where a few people can start over.

If I were you, I would pay close attention to the kinds of ideas that flit through your mind, and try very hard to not entertain the ones about mass murder. Think about something else. If they seem to be taking up more space in your head, you should give your psychiatrist a call and let him know what is happening.

And stupid me didn't notice that this thread was a month old. Just dove in, Didn't remember I had been here before, either.

I should probably go to bed.

And, I disagree that the part of us that is authentic is also culturally mediated, because by definition, authentic means uncontaminated, untouched, unaffected.

Now, what I think you're trying to say, and I'll agree, is that a 100% authentic interaction is impossible, because we need structure in communication and interaction. That implies the necessity for language, social norms, and other forms of "cultural mediation". — Aurora

I wasn't saying what I thought was true. I was trying to paraphrase Apokrisis. I don't agree with him, but I don't have good responses to what he was saying. He uses rhetorical tricks and gimmicks to win arguments - stuff like facts and things like that. It's not fair.

And stupid me didn't notice that this thread was a month old. Just dove in, Didn't remember I had been here before, either. — Bitter Crank

I've done that several times. That's what happens when someone resurrects an old thread. I appreciated the opportunity to give my mea culpa.

Haha. Will have to read some of his posts.

Yes, I resurrected this thread because I found it worth a read and response.

I think that human life, like any other form in the universe, is neither worthless nor priceless.

All these so called laws and moral and ethical codes we have contrived are simply guidelines and not absolute truths. How can they be absolute truths when they were artificially created ? They are required in society for structure, but the problem arises when people mistake them for absolute truths and are shocked when "criminals" violate them :) — Aurora

As you indicate, values are not absolute, but I think some are fundamental to our nature as human beings. Among those fundamental values is the value placed on human life - both for individual humans and for humanity as a whole. By calling a value "fundamental" I mean two things. First - I think they are built into the physical, biological, and genetic structure of who we are. We have evolved as social animals. We have no choice but to like each other. Second, no society could survive without these fundamental values. These are not "guidelines." They are bedrock foundations for human social life. No group of humans could survive for long without them.

Not everyone who kills is evil, and not everyone who goes to church and never harms a fly is innocent, either. So, I think homicide is bad, but there are evils that are orders of magnitude worse than homicide. They look harmless or even noble on the surface, but are far worse than homicide. When you subject another person to suffering (mental, emotional, physical) and force them to live their entire life with that suffering, that, to me, is far worse than putting that person out of his/her misery. — Aurora

Well, ok. As a person who can see the end of his life on the horizon, I agree that there are many things worse than my death. Are you willing, as XandertheGrey is, to extend that to the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people? Are there things worse than that? What are they? I think I understand XtG's answer to that question. His take is utilitarian. Kill all the people who use more than their share of resources so that people who have access to less than their fair share will have a chance. Is that ok with you? In principle if not in practice?

As you indicate, values are not absolute, but I think some are fundamental to our nature as human beings. Among those fundamental values is the value placed on human life - both for individual humans and for humanity as a whole. By calling a value "fundamental" I mean two things. First - I think they are built into the physical, biological, and genetic structure of who we are. We have evolved as social animals. We have no choice but to like each other. Second, no society could survive without these fundamental values. These are not "guidelines." They are bedrock foundations for human social life. No group of humans could survive for long without them. — T Clark

I agree that chaos would quickly ensue, without certain values. But, what I meant by those values being "guidelines" and nothing more, is a bit deeper than immediately meets the eye or the mind.

No matter what rule/law/whatever we come up with, there is no power in this universe that is going to enforce them or guarantee that they are followed or adhered to without exception. It is well and good to say, "Thou shall not kill." Is there any guarantee that that rule will never be violated ?

The reason for pointing out that this is a guideline is a hint that says, "Don't think of this rule/law in absolute terms. There is no guarantee that it will not be violated." You might think this is a silly and unnecessary little footnote, i.e. it is obvious to everyone that this is not an absolute guarantee, but then if it is so damn obvious, why are people so friggin shell shocked when something goes wrong in their lives ? Getting robbed, car getting vandalized, family member getting murdered. If they know that no law is absolute, what's the problem ?

That was a rhetorical question. I know the answer - because people expect and demand that these laws are always obeyed. So, it is best for people to remember that those so called laws are not absolute truths, and that people can rest assured that they will be violated. i.e. They are just guidelines that suggest, not enforce, a certain code of conduct.

A lot of suffering can be avoided by simply remembering that these are guidelines. That's what this is really about - avoiding suffering. Expectation = suffering. So, by not expecting/demanding that this guideline be always followed, a lot of suffering can be avoided.

Hope this clarifies things.

Well, ok. As a person who can see the end of his life on the horizon, I agree that there are many things worse than my death. Are you willing, as XandertheGrey is, to extend that to the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people? Are there things worse than that? What are they? I think I understand XtG's answer to that question. His take is utilitarian. Kill all the people who use more than their share of resources so that people who have access to less than their fair share will have a chance. Is that ok with you? In principle if not in practice? — T Clark

My response about homicide had nothing to do with the OP advocating mass-murder. I just shared my opinion, in general, about homicide. By saying that there are things far far worse than homicide, I'm not saying, "Ok, let's go wipe out a bunch of people."

Are there things worse than mass-murder ? Abso-friggin-lutely !!! This is the easiest question you've asked me all week :) Answer - Mass-suffering ! Think about what people in workplaces, schools, social circles, and unhappy marriages do to each other day after day after year after year. Worse than murder ? Any day of any millennium.

What could possibly be worse than the suffering people inflict on each other ? Bullying, harassment, alienation, discrimination, objectification ... ??? I can't think of anything worse, and I've spent 34 years trying.

To live and suffer is orders of magnitude worse than death, in my opinion. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shot dead by my worst enemy than be treated like crap by my fellow man every single day for 80 (or whatever) years. Oh, this is an easy choice for me :)

The reason for pointing out that this is a guideline is a hint that says, "Don't think of this rule/law in absolute terms. There is no guarantee that it will not be violated." You might think this is a silly and unnecessary little footnote, i.e. it is obvious to everyone that this is not an absolute guarantee, but then if it is so damn obvious, why are people so friggin shell shocked when something goes wrong in their lives ? Getting robbed, car getting vandalized, family member getting murdered. If they know that no law is absolute, what's the problem ? — Aurora

I don't find this very satisfying. I think it misses the point. Of course people murder each other. Of course the families of the victims are shocked, sad, and angry. What I'm trying to say I think is more profound. It's not a law. It's not a rule. It's not a guideline. It's not absolute. It can be violated or ignored - People are willing to kill not just someone, but millions of people. That doesn't change the fact that it is who we are. What we are. We are not human without it. We love each other. Like each other. Want to be with each other. It's not moral, it's existential. It's human. I feel it every moment of every day. If you don't, so be it. Maybe you're just not aware of it. I'm sure there are some people who don't have it. Maybe you're one of those.

I just edited my post (the one you responded to). I added a paragraph about expectation/suffering. Maybe that will clarify what I said. The point is to remember that whatever "this" is, is not absolute, and that one cannot expect/demand it always holds true.

What I'm trying to say is also profound and fundamental - no moral/ethical codes that we artificially contrive can always be upheld, so don't expect/demand that. This will save you a lot of suffering.

Maybe guideline is not the best word. Pick any word in any language that implies, "This is not an absolute rule/guarantee, but just a hint/suggestion on how to behave with your fellow man and how your fellow man might treat you."

To live and suffer is orders of magnitude worse than death, in my opinion. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shot dead by my worst enemy than be treated like crap by my fellow man every single day for 80 (or whatever) years. Oh, this is an easy choice for me :) — Aurora

You get to choose the values in your own life. If you think it makes more sense to end your life than to live with the suffering, well, knock yourself out. You don't get to choose for others. A billion bad marriages is reason to kill a billion people? A lot of life stinks. A lot is ok. Some is wonderful. Suck it up.

You get to choose the values in your own life. If you think it makes more sense to end your life than to live with the suffering, well, knock yourself out. You don't get to choose for others. A billion bad marriages is reason to kill a billion people? A lot of life stinks. A lot is ok. Some is wonderful. Suck it up. — T Clark

I don't understand why you keep putting words in my mouth. For the last time, I'm not making any kind of choice for anyone else. Frankly, I don't give half a horseshit what anyone else does with his/her life.

I'm only answering the question - "What is worse than xyz ?" You asked, I answered, you misunderstood, I clarified :)

If you ask me, "What tastes worse ? Olives or dog shit ?", I'll say, "Olives". That doesn't mean I'm going to run outside and find me some dog shit to eat. It just means I think Olives taste worse than dog shit.

I don't understand why you keep putting words in my mouth. For the last time, I'm not making any kind of choice for anyone else. Frankly, I don't give half a horseshit what anyone else does with his/her life.

I'm only answering the question - "What is worse than xyz ?" — Aurora

This is a thread which is, at least partly, about mass murder. My question - What is worse than mass murder? not what is worse than xyz?, is what you responded too. I think you said that the death of thousands, or millions, or billions of people is better than the suffering of thousands, or millions, or billions of people. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you did not speak clearly enough. A billion people will not decide individually to die. That decision will be made by Joseph Stalin, Donald Trump, or XandertheGrey.

This is a thread which is, at least partly, about mass murder. My question - What is worse than mass murder? not what is worse than xyz?, is what you responded too. I think you said that the death of thousands, or millions, or billions of people is better than the suffering of thousands, or millions, or billions of people. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you did not speak clearly enough. A billion people will not decide individually to die. That decision will be made by Joseph Stalin, Donald Trump, or XandertheGrey. — T Clark

I see. But, your question is a bit ambiguous. The answer depends on if the answerer (me) is the one making the decision for the masses or if I'm simply a bystander/observer who doesn't get to decide.

Ok, so if I had that power and had to make that decision, I'd say, "Let the billion people live and suffer" as opposed to "Let the billion people die (by my hand)." for the obvious reason that I don't want to kill anyone.

But, if I were a neutral observer and it were totally out of my hands, I'd say that it is worse overall, for the people, for the planet, and for the universe ... for those people to stick around and suffer vs for them to die (assuming those are the only 2 choices available and that living and being happy is not an option).

Another way of saying this is that of the 2 crimes listed below, #2 is far worse:
1 - Inflicting mass murder
2 - Inflicting mass suffering

This is what I said, quite clearly in my opinion, in my previous responses.

Does that make sense ? The answer really depends on what my role is.

But, if I were a neutral observer and it were totally out of my hands, I'd say that it is worse overall, for the people, for the planet, and for the universe ... for those people to stick around and suffer vs for them to die (assuming those are the only 2 choices available and that living and being happy is not an option). This is what I was alluding to in my previous response above. — Aurora

That brings a number of things to mind.

• Does this set of conditions represent the current situation in the world or is you point hypothetical?
• I don't get it. If killing a bunch of people would make the world a better place - and would be better for the people being killed - why wouldn't you kill them?
• If killing or dying is a reasonable solution for suffering, isn't it hypocritical for you not to kill yourself? Please don't. It's fun to discuss things with you and I'd miss it. Or is your life more fortunate than the masses. If that's the case, why would you think others value their lives less than you do yours.
• Do you really think it makes any difference to the universe, or even the world, what happens to human beings individually or as a group? That's an oddly self-important view of our place in creation.

Does this set of conditions represent the current situation in the world or is you point hypothetical? — T Clark

I guess my answer is based on my view of the current situation in the world. Given (my view of) how things currently are, I think it is worse for people to stick around and suffer.

I don't get it. If killing a bunch of people would make the world a better place - and would be better for the people being killed - why wouldn't you kill them?
If killing or dying is a reasonable solution for suffering, isn't it hypocritical for you not to kill yourself? — T Clark

When did I say I wouldn't want to include myself in the hit list ? :) I'd happily be #1 on the list. But I didn't see that option as part of the question. This whole question scenario is hypothetical to begin with, so I was simply saying that if I were put in the role of a 3rd person or bystander, I would choose XYZ. However, if there were a 3rd option (put myself on the hit list), I would happily be #1 on the list. In fact, if option #4 was to save all others by being the only person on the hit list, I'd blissfully choose that.

(About not wanting to kill others) Make no mistake about it - we are all, every one of us, hypocrites, at one time or another, about one subject or another :) Yes, I would never hurt another human being (to this day, I have never punched another person ... I let an 80 lb girl whoop my ass in martial arts sparring for this reason), so it would not be fathomable for me to ever kill anyone. Whatever weapon I were given to kill others, I would turn on myself (if I had no other choice) rather than hurt others.

Or is your life more fortunate than the masses. If that's the case, why would you think others value their lives less than you do yours. — T Clark

Quite the opposite :) As I said above, I'd happily be the only person on the hit list and save all others.

Do you really think it makes any difference to the universe, or even the world, what happens to human beings individually or as a group? That's an oddly self-important view of our place in creation. — T Clark

Yes, big time ! When a person suffers, that suffering is externalized in different forms, and the suffering spreads not unlike a viral epidemic. Heard the saying, "Misery loves company." ? I have witnessed, first hand, this externalization of suffering.

There are also far subtler forms of this externalization of suffering. What might seem, at first glance, to be a bunch of people enjoying themselves at a party by being so loud that they disturb the whole neighborhood, is more than likely just the result of noisy human minds that need the noise to feel fulfillment or enjoyment because they can't get it from the tranquility of sitting in their rooms and being considerate towards their neighbors.

Suffering is externalized, and mental noise is externalized.

Obnoxiously loud music, noisy lawn mowers, saws cutting down our forests, nuclear weapons and bombs ... what are they but an externalization of human suffering (the ego not being satisfied with the present moment) ?

So, the planet and the universe would do better without sufferers.