Think of all the planets you could terraform! That will be my next bumper-sticker:
The Universe Needs More Trees!

Right, a democracy encourages diversity but not necessarily gender diversity. — Athena

Why should it need to? In a functioning democracy, if the majority desires freedom of self-expression and respect for the individual, diversity is automatically provided-for. If the majority desires equality before the law and of opportunity, class malleability is assured. I don't see the problem with a democratic system being able to maintain a basic standard of living and autonomy for every citizen.

and your age and your health status, are not the only variables that can affect your ability to be a force to be reckoned with and a force for good — universeness

It's not my health that's at issue, but the world's. Even the most optimistic medic can do nothing for a terminal patient - but morphine and a faith healer might mitigate his pain. I just tell stories.

We are beginning to repeat! — universeness

Beginning to? We've been around this jack-in-the-box at least eight times. Pop!

To suggest that gaining ever-increasing agreement with that position, amongst the current human global population, would make no difference to the broad directions humans may take in the future, is just ridiculous and is dead wrong imo. — universeness

Because you and a handful of vocal missionaries will convert +/- 7,000,000,000 other people to your point of view? And having each given up their version of the divine, they will all become rational and co-operative and eager to learn? Ho-kay.
Fight the good fight, by all and every means! I wish you well.

Of course, we will keep on and you and all future humans are welcome — universeness

You mistake me, sir! I am not a future human. I am a past human.
You make the extraordinary claim - all empirical evidence to the contrary - that humans have a future, while demanding empirical evidence regarding a tenet of faith, which affects that future in no way whatever. One of us appears to be less realistic - though happier withal. This is why I don't grudge the believers that little scrap of comfort their delusion provides.

By 2050, the unaffiliated population is expected to exceed 1.2 billion. — universeness

Excellent! Then you'll have only 7.8 billion left to convince. (assuming there are still people left by then.)
Keep on keepin' on!

No. It was a long time ago, makes no never-mind to nobody anymore. Don't worry your pretty little head about it. Instead, don't bother to stay awake worrying about who will place nuclear weapons there first.

I assume that was directed at me ..... thanks (if I choose to ignore the intended sarcasm behind it.) — universeness

Of course it was directed at you. If you've already had such success as you report - far more than I've ever had in reasoning with theists - then demanding rational proofs must be the right way to go about deconverting the faithful. It's just a matter of time until they all come to see the error of their methodology.

Congratulations!

The burden of proof is 100% with them, you have not offered any compelling reason for me to moderate that position in any way, yet. — universeness

*sigh*
I didn't ask you to moderate anything. You can hold any position you choose. You can stand on one foot on top of The Shard and scream you demands for proof through a bullhorn till you're blue in the face. It will have no effect on theists or political zealots. (Though you might attract a small, fanatical band of acolytes who refuse to believe you're not the messiah.)

Nothing you or I do or say make any difference whatsoever. Power and faith, madness and delusion have nothing to do with logic, rationality or accountability.

To suggest otherwise is folly and irrational. — universeness

And this, applied to faith and power, is news to you?

Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof. — universeness

Since when? That only applies in the scientific sphere. Nobody ever made a king or president or general prove his pronouncements and no religious leader has ever offered secular proof for the basis of his canon.

Interesting proposition. Not sure you get to dictate terms, though. In the fiction, such opportunities are a la carte, not buffet.

I am obviously bringing my criteria of value to this which is that there seems little point to immortality, or a even a long life, if you spend most of it doing fuck all. — Tom Storm

Beats the hell out of doing great, glorious historical things, like carving out an empire or conducting a crusade or discovering a savage continent, ripe for plunder.
Yes, I understand about personal values. I believe they should be the deciding factor in our own personal lives, and nobody else's. Why I oppose capital punishment, legal constraints on assisted suicide or contested living wills.

I don't associate age with wisdom. — Tom Storm

Nor do I. I was referring to :

Some people of 50 have lived a life so rich, full — Tom Storm

Presumably, such a person would have life experience useful to people who have less. So I'm asking why such a person should be ready to die at 50? Why would they not want to continue a rich, full life? As for

they can make someone of 90 look like a naïve teenager. — Tom Storm

I should think that 90-year-old would be avid for some experience before it's too late.
Your repugnance is not their repugnance.
For myself, I can imagine another century of learning, experience and activity, physical and mental condition permitting.

I’m in my 50’s but I can’t imagine wanting more than 80 years, I simply don't find life interesting enough. — Tom Storm

Life is as interesting as you are able to and choose to make it. I've known people well into their 80's who still found new adventures, or volunteered or took up arts and hobbies that they had no time for previously; who enjoyed their freedom from life-long obligations. Why should naive teenagers of 90 be censured, or 60-year-olds with rich and varied experience be snuffed out before they could pass along what they've learned?

The scriptures have to be interpreted. Some bits are true, apparently, while other bits are metaphor, allegory, symbolic... or the ancient people misunderstood God's meaning, lost it in translation or whatever - any lame excuse for why what they profess to be the basis of their faith is holy, though it doesn't mean most of what it says.
It's the professional interpreters you have to guard against, not the text itself.

It [death] is foundational to the human condition and I would say that without it we would simply lose our humanity, if not our minds first. — Benj96

We can do both of those things in the awareness of mortality. "Humanity" is not something to be particularly proud of, and our minds are, at best, delicately balanced. We buy into absurdly implausible eternal-life-insurance schemes and commit atrocities in the name of whatever god promises our side immortality.

And yet, the progress we see in tech innovation and medicine certainly seems bound for immortality if that ultimatum is at all possible. — Benj96

Virtual immortality - as pure energy, reborn in new bodies, in heaven or in the Matrix - seems the only way that's even remotely possible. Can't have all those billions of lumbering, milling, consuming, contentious, rapacious human bodies on this one planet, and they're too heavy to move anywhere else.


We hate and fear the idea of ceasing to exist, having our painstakingly constructed personality, accumulated memory and closely guarded ego wiped out like writing off a blackboard. That's why people invest in being frozen or cloned or having potential progeny kept on ice indefinitely. Failing that, they want to leave offspring or monuments, footnotes in history books, foundations, endowments or things named after themselves - a legacy wherein they may continue some kind of existence.

What do you think the ideal life span for a human is? — Benj96

As long as there are enough positive aspects of life to outweigh the negative. With luck and decent health care system, 100+/- years is not unreasonable.

How do we justify the right to death if one is perfectly healthy but simply feels it's their time? — Benj96

If they're in perfect health, they can suicide any time, with no justification. Certainly, I don't feel that anyone except my spouse owes me an explanation, and I don't think the law has any business in such a private matter.

Should anyone be allowed to be immortal and if so why? — Benj96

There are three kinds of immortality in fiction: you can't die of natural causes but can be killed; you can't die at all, but can be damaged, or you keep coming back fresh and new from every kind of death. If society has no control over the matter, 'allowed' is a moot point.
If they can be killed, do you mean mandatory recycling at 300, or 80, or 35? I can't see our collective ability to handle such a decision, nor would I trust a state agency to carry out the program. If some mad scientist came up with the formula for Tree-of-life fruit juice, he would almost certainly keep that secret within a small circle.

The question then becomes, which is more pernicious and more of an existential threat to humanity, the bible/quran or any other religious book (I will not dignify such, with the word 'holy'), or the internet? — universeness

The internet, by several leagues. Books don't do any harm by themselves. In fact, it was reading the bible that turned me off Judeo-Christianity. It's the influencers in palaces and pulpits that do the harm, thumping people over the head and stupefying them with a book those people either haven't read or haven't understood. They've done and are doing quite a lot of damage on television and they can do far more over the world wide web.

Having 3 models for humans or only one just doesn't work for me. It does not go with you can be anything you want to be and right now that includes sexual differences beyond what I thought the choices were. — Athena

I don't understand this. What three 'models' of humans? How does a universal standard of living, rights, freedoms and opportunity not allow for gender diversity?

And they say I'm cynical!

I object to describe a country like you describe Haiti. — FreeEmotion

It was a reference to a comment by then-president DJT. There were a couple of other sardonic references in my post, and you're quite right to object to all of them, if you didn't understand my intent.

So, as the powers of nation-state have been disseminated to international and transnational actors, elected representatives are not necessarily the agents who determine how policies are implemented

So, like, nobody's in control, except possibly megacorporations. Does not bide well.

Wonderful gradation of colour.

Given either the moral obligation or the voluntary act, why are ordinary citizens so powerless to prevent mass suffering or other people? — FreeEmotion

Several reasons.
They are actually powerless. Decisions about foreign affairs are made in secret at the highest levels of government - no referendum, no public discussion, often not even a debate in the house of representatives.
They are ignorant. Issues of "National Security" are never aired in the public broadcasting media. Information, such as it is, is released in dribs and drabs at the discretion of the relevant government organs and officials.
They are partisan. Told that they themselves may be in danger, any issue becomes a matter of us vs them - them being, presumedly, the designated other. They'll approve whatever action the leadership deems appropriate to protect them from than nebulous other. And if that danger is demonstrated by a violent attack, they not merely approve but actively and enthusiastically support countermeasures by their government. Even if those measures infringe on their own civil rights.
They are misdirected and trained to respond to misdirection. The organs of propaganda give plausible (more or less) explanations for the troubles of other people (poor life choices, lack of moral fibre, laziness, irresponsibility) and far more abstruse ones for the troubles of other countries: why shit-holes like Haiti fail is too complicated to follow, but it's all their own fault.
Vindictiveness. People are quite easy to rile up against any person, group or entity that has harmed or slighted them in some way or damaged their self-image. They may not know or care what actions on the part of their government and its agents may have precipitated a blow against their nation or its citizens, what caused the other to lash out, but they care very much about the injury or insult itself.
Self-interest. If it costs themselves any risk, loss or inconvenience, they simply prefer not to know.

They may be generous and kind to someone whose suffering they understand, but the big issues in the world are just too much work to unravel.

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing if you're acknowledging that we should help others in need, with "should" designating that which is ethically demanded of us. — Hanover

I'm not disagreeing. I simply stated some facts around the issue. Yes, it's wrong for them to do the wrong thing or not do the right thing. I do judge them, just as others of their fellow humans judge them. And there is nothing we can do about their seeing it otherwise.

This is a subjective ethic though, meaning that you're willing to concede it's ethical to ignore others if that happens to be your own personal viewpoint. — Hanover

What I'm willing to concede is irrelevant. My whole point was that none of us have the authority or power to impose our moral outlook on people who don't share it.
Governments and churches can levy taxes and tithes on their membership, and pass laws for minimum civil behaviour. Beyond that, we are pretty much free to decide our degree of participation in the human race.

If that is the case, I see no reason not to attach that subjectivism to everything, meaning if I personally don't believe caring for my own children is necessary, I don't mind murdering, and I think lying is perfectly fine, then so it is. — Hanover

Those are exactly the situations in which the state and the community intervene, because collectively, we have decided such an attitude is unacceptable.

My position is that if you are ethically obligated to help others regardless of your worldview. — Hanover

And you are entitled to that opinion, as am I, since I happen to share it. Sure, the world would be better if we all cared for one another. The fact remains that neither of us is in a position to impose it on others.

A stable government and an at least adequate government requires a reasonably effective political system. "Reasonably effective" means reasonably honest, reasonably fair, reasonably competent, reasonably focused on the needs of the citizens. — BC

Thanks, that's a reasonable assessment. Not exactly desiderata, but I suppose it covers the essentials.
The inequality and inequity do rankle some, but I understand that we don't all have the same criteria for success.

Cynical answer, as if the Devil’s dictionary were updated — 0 thru 9

It was, by John Ralston Saul https://www.johnralstonsaul.com/non-fiction-books/the-doubters-companion/

What is exact knowledge? I believe those who think they can know absolute truth are absolutely dangerous, — Athena

Not absolute truth - that's faith. Exact knowledge is about precision, as distinct from guesstimation and opinion: knowing how much weight a girder can bear, so that the bridge doesn't collapse; what dosage of a drug is curative and which is lethal; how high an engine can rev without exploding, how many homes a sewage pipe can service before it backs up into their basements. The reliability of exact knowledge means I'm likely to survive a day in the busiest city. Even if you just want to built a reed hut, you need some engineering skill; in a modern industrial world, we need lots of engineering, technical, medical, statistical and analytic skills, a lot of exact knowledge.

is it an inner feeling that you have, based on your
social programming, or your internal impulses? — FreeEmotion

Any reason it can't be both? It's not so unusual, in my experience, for a society or community to reflect the personal attitude of its members.

That's a very different beast from a successful state, and 'success' for a state will depend on the criteria one is adopting, which are not going to be universal. — mcdoodle

I see your point. I'm actually interested in both - what it takes for a nation to functional over a specified period of time, and what we believe to be the benchmarks of successful governance.

The US has been socially dysfunctional from its inception (see devastating civil war in the middle of its history, with its aftermath lingering to this day, and four frontiers porous to illicit trafficking of damn near everything) even though it's been phenomenally successful in the international arena. Yet its spokesmen do not hesitate to call "failed state" on nations they themselves destabilized.

Yes, there are different ways of measuring how well a country is organized and run. One might be longevity of political systems and efficacy of its adminitration; another might be economic stability and competitiveness in the world market. By the definition of failed state, the opposite would be internal order and amicable diplomatic/trade relations with other countries.
A popular standard is from the POV of average citizens

Quality of life index - One of the most comprehensive equations is Numbeo's Quality of Life Index, which measures eight indices:
purchasing power (including rent); safety; health care; cost of living; property price to income ratio
traffic commute time; pollution; climate.

and

The U.S. News and World Report's annual "Best Countries Report", assembled in partnership with the BAV Group and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, uses detailed surveys to track a similar, but different set of indicators. These include affordability, safety, the job market, level of income equality, economic and political stability, and the quality of public education and health systems.

I was wondering what posters here consider reasonable criteria for measuring the success of a country, in terms of governance and citizenship.

Gee, Vera, that's kind of a negative way of looking at it. But yes, a functioning government should control immigration and political unrest. — BC

Well, yes, failure is a negative. By that standard, the US qualifies. I'm trying to define what, beyond those basic abilities to maintain sovereignty - which is easier for a world power than some little nothing country just trying to get by, especially if it has resources or a strategic location major powers want - should be required for success.

What is a stable government? How long is a long term?
What is an adequate economy?

Is it rational to live, considering that I will eventually die anyway, so why postpone it? Moreover, by dying sooner, I can potentially avoid future suffering. — rossii

And save everyone else the burden of taking care of you.
In a case of protracted terminal illness, especially when accompanied by great pain, suicide is a perfectly rational choice. Rational [non-bible-based] legal systems allow compassionate care-givers to assist suicide in those situations.
I am at an age, and in a condition, where considering the options is quite sensible, even though I'm not there yet and hope not to have to decide for a few more years.

But I think you've got it backwards. No biological organism needs to justify its existence: life just happens for no reason at all. Once you're in the world, and if you have any effect on the world, leaving it is more complicated. Others who do want to live may depend on you. You say your suicide would hurt people - that matters. You are responsible for the relationships and attachments you form.
Is that enough reason to live? Other things being equal, it's a pretty good start.
Then you could maybe find something that you can do for others. I don't know what your material situation is, but even homeless people on the very edge can help one another in some small way.

I don't know what you have already read or whether this is relevant, but it's interesting:
I Am a Strange Loop
Hofstadter, Douglas R.

If people felt they were truly able to work for themselves, their families and communities, the world would bloom into life and color like a desert after a rain storm — 0 thru 9

That's my optimistic version of "after", yes.
I just can't see any way of stopping the juggernaut short of waiting for it to crash, thereby crushing the majority of us. If that crash comes about with a long-drawn-out whimper, the chances of recovery in the foreseeable future is more likely than if it comes about with a nuclear bang. Scenarios to contemplate

It also depends on their capacity, degree of autonomy and range of available options.
According to 's ethical code, a veteran with two missing limbs and a sick wife is just as responsible for the care and protection of his children as a stock-broker with a young, healthy wife and a staff of seven domestics.
And if a boat capsizes and ten injured people fall into the water, since you can't possibly save them all, you have no moral obligation to rescue even one, but should you jump in to attempt it, calling on other bystanders for help is empty virtue-signalling.

I don't see how that is remotely connected to questions about morality, though. — Tzeentch

Pity!

Maybe a new way of thinking about a different way of living is slowly being born. — 0 thru 9

Undoubtedly.

https://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/
communal living
urban farming
https://ecoshack.com/how-to-live-off-the-grid/

Eschewing meat has become increasingly mainstream.

https://www.thesimplicityhabit.com/what-simple-living-is/
small-scale renewable energy systems.
That's all going in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are still far too many of us for everyone to benefit, although that situation could be remedied in a relatively short time, with the will to do so.
Some initiatives are well under way
https://africaclimatesummit.org/
natural farming
green building in Asia
Indigenous peoples and local communities
The question is which kind of endeavour wins. It seems to me the madness of international politics and trade moves faster than the sanity of mitigation.

It is unfortunately an old question… how could a religion centered on ‘love’ become the very opposite. — 0 thru 9

It didn't, really. Jesus (or whoever invented him) attempted to reform an old, hard, punitive religion into a benign and generous one. That creator-god was supposed to lend the authority of tradition to the new religion. It sounded good enough to attract followers, but Paul, or the Council of Nicaea neglected to burn every copy of the the volumes that became the Old Testament, which had much greater appeal to the patriarchs with most clout. Still does.

Maybe a monotheistic belief system oversimplifies that which is beyond human understanding and control. — 0 thru 9

Hence the trinity and all those saints.

It’s no wonder that many consider any religious or spiritual expression to be folly, madness, archaic. — 0 thru 9

And some, like myself are content to disbelieve. The void, afaic, is best filled with a connection to the earth - nature and life - to supply the spiritual component, the awe and reverence. Beyond that, rewarding personal relationships and meaningful work. (But I do enjoy some indulgence!)