So when will genocide be justified under "act of mother nature"? Page 2

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

  • Raiko101 7 Dec 2012 13:57:12 6,101 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    So is the arguement here based on whether or not mother nature is delibrately killing people to 'regulate' the population? As if to say it has a conscience?

    That's like saying my shoe laces keep untying as my shoes are trying to piss me off. We're in crazy territory here.

    3DS: 4210 4002 8289 (Dave)
    Wii U: Raiko87
    Xbox Live: Raiko87

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 7 Dec 2012 14:32:15 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Interesting hypothetical question to pose; how would your armchair humanitarian, myself included, react if the diminishing resources, including maybe even land itself, forced conflict.

    Fight or die?
  • MetalDog 7 Dec 2012 14:36:14 23,708 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I would like to think I'd die before I twatted anyone else for my own survival - but until you're in the position, I don't think anyone really knows for sure what they'd do.
    I wouldn't succeed anyway - the one time I got mugged I pulled the punch I threw, my heart just wasn't in it.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 7 Dec 2012 14:38:16 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    No I think the same. I'm a pussy anyway.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 14:48:42
    Someone call Mark Wahlberg. He can talk Mother Nature down.
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 14:52:05 22,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Malthus's lifeboat would be a lot bigger if people accepted a reduction in 'footprint' over a struggle.

    Just sayin'.
  • SClaw 7 Dec 2012 14:56:16 826 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    @bitch_tits_zero_nine It doesn’t make you a pussy. It takes a lot more courage to deny your natural instinct to defend yourself than it does it swing your fist.

    I’m a pacifist so, like MetalDog, I’d like to think that I’d rather die than hurt anyone else. However I’ve never been tested in that principle, and hope I won’t be.

    OPs question is bullshit dangerous thinking.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 7 Dec 2012 15:03:02 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Hmm.. War is at the back of my mind every time there is a freak weather incident.

    If there is correlation between global warming, it would be interesting, in todays highly ethics based high speed communication world, if the so called free democratic governments could get away with state sanctioned conflict for something so base as living space.
  • Inertia 7 Dec 2012 15:03:55 676 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Are we really over populated? Or do we just over use our natural resources for our numbers?

    I suppose you could justify your own suicide in the name of "over population" but I think logic will have to go to sleep if you think that means that other people are justified, I don't know by what criteria, to kill other people to keep numbers down.

    And if that were so why couldn't the individual murder indiscriminately with this reason at heart?
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 15:05:45 22,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    If resources were distributed more... elegantly, there wouldn't be half the potential for strife.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 15:08:23
    People always want what the others have. It would change nothing.
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 15:09:49 22,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It would change something if the relative values were reduced.

    It's all very well being dismissive of the issue by way of such remarks, but there's a big difference between 'wanting a river delta for the agricultural bounty whilst we will starve in five years' and 'wanting a shiny toy because my toy isn't quite as shiny'.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 15:16:38
    No, there is no difference in anything other than your magical idealised world that completely ignores human nature.
  • grey_matters 7 Dec 2012 15:21:00 3,679 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    It would change something if the relative values were reduced.

    It's all very well being dismissive of the issue by way of such remarks, but there's a big difference between 'wanting a river delta for the agricultural bounty whilst we will starve in five years' and 'wanting a shiny toy because my toy isn't quite as shiny'.
    If the river-delta people develop growth-based economics then they will eventually need to annex the surrounding regions, regardless of how peaceful and/stable things were up to that point (unless they renounce exponential growth at that point, causing a certain amount of pain to their own people and economy).
  • MetalDog 7 Dec 2012 15:22:11 23,708 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    So what you're telling us, Aargh, is that you'd pop a cap in someone if it was the only way you could get a new iPhone?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 15:25:06 22,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    No, there is no difference in anything other than your magical idealised world that completely ignores human nature.
    Since when was I ignoring human nature? I'm saying that your remark 'people always want what others have' doesn't exist in a vacuum. In an different world that desire could be mitigated/tempered/channelled by the very things it wants: the 'other things'. I'm not saying it's possible, or even necessarily desirable in some senses, but it's still something to think about.

    It's all very well saying such things, but it blurs the complexity of its own meaning with its glibness.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 15:26:59 07-12-2012
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 7 Dec 2012 15:25:08 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yeah, it occurs to me that there Is a relative equilibrium because of mutual self interest to not fight; like nuclear theory. Which works because it is compatible, to a degree, with the base human instinct of, as I said, self interest.

    Edited by bitch_tits_zero_nine at 15:25:54 07-12-2012
  • SClaw 7 Dec 2012 15:26:08 826 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Conflict, dialogue, compromise, misunderstands, differences and strife are what make humanity a great thing. If you homogenised the world in such a way that no one ever wanted for or fought over (physically or verbally) anything then you’d be diminishing us as a species. Absolute peace and unending supply is not paradise; it’s stagnation and slow death.

    That does not justify killing, of course, but we have to accept that death is indeed a natural part of life. Not only natural but absolute essential to life. That does not mean we SHOULD cause more death than we must (just living causes death; even plants are alive, veggies, so everyone “kills” to live) simply because it makes our lives more convenient.
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 15:28:05 22,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    grey_matters wrote:
    RedSparrows wrote:
    It would change something if the relative values were reduced.

    It's all very well being dismissive of the issue by way of such remarks, but there's a big difference between 'wanting a river delta for the agricultural bounty whilst we will starve in five years' and 'wanting a shiny toy because my toy isn't quite as shiny'.
    If the river-delta people develop growth-based economics then they will eventually need to annex the surrounding regions, regardless of how peaceful and/stable things were up to that point (unless they renounce exponential growth at that point, causing a certain amount of pain to their own people and economy).
    Yeah - the growth point being the key.

    We're dealing with thought experiments here - there's no easy answer, obv.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 15:29:55
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    No, there is no difference in anything other than your magical idealised world that completely ignores human nature.
    Since when was I ignoring human nature? I'm saying that your remark 'people always want what others have' doesn't exist in a vacuum. In an different world that desire could be mitigated/tempered/channelled by the very things it wants: the 'other things'. I'm not saying it's possible, or even necessarily desirable in some senses, but it's still something to think about.

    It's all very well saying such things, but it blurs the complexity of its own meaning with its glibness.
    Flesch-kincaid grade = -3.4

    Edited by Aargh. at 15:30:05 07-12-2012
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 7 Dec 2012 15:30:06 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yeah, after reading all of Aldous Huxleys books where he describes utopian societies without conflict;

    The thing that he fails to acknowledge is that this would surely cost the world its best art, given that art comes from pain.
  • SClaw 7 Dec 2012 15:34:17 826 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    @bitch_tits_zero_nine Slight aside but that’s a fallacy. Great art comes from competition – not pain. All the world’s greatest classical art pieces are about showing how you’re more awesome than everyone else ("my religion is better than your religion" huge paintings/statues being the most common theme). But I agree with your point; can’t have creativity without conflict of some kind.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 7 Dec 2012 15:36:17 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    heh, best songs do surely. I'm a fookin emo when I drink.
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 15:36:33 22,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'm not sure that it's really useful, again, to judge such an enormously important part of human experience in such a simple way.

    Art happens for many reasons, and if there's a core one, underlying all and each other reason, go and write a book on it, because it'd be very popular...

    Edited by RedSparrows at 15:36:53 07-12-2012
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 7 Dec 2012 15:37:37 6,654 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    lol, rereading my post; it was mental masturbation tbh.

    Shrug.
  • kalel 7 Dec 2012 15:39:03 86,448 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Quite an odd OP.
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 15:40:29 22,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Bitch_tits, I engage in mental masturbation all the time. It's nothing* to be ashamed of.

    *it really is, at times.
  • SClaw 7 Dec 2012 15:41:33 826 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I'm still a bit miffed by self-deprecating Genesis joke fell flat.

    Edited by SClaw at 15:41:56 07-12-2012
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 15:48:42
    OP reads like the inside of page 1 of almost every Final Fantasy game.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 15:52:33
    kalel wrote:
    Quite an odd OP.
    I dunno. It's starting to look sane compared to the direction the thread is starting to take.
  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

Log in or register to reply