3 ms·
i understand it on theory, my problem is that this language assumes human life is somehow "measurable" and comparable to a random number and that regulations/c
by alehander42 6y ago
i understand it on theory, my problem is that this language assumes human life is somehow "measurable" and comparable to a random number and that regulations/change of society should follow: this sounds to me like the same way of thinking that eventually did let eugenics become big(later nazism) and later all kinds of communist social experiments to happen (and also sadly leading to many capitalist abuses of society): once our life is mostly a variable in a big calculation, in which stuff like iq/carbon print/social production is more important, you have problems
- toomuchtodo 6y agoYou can quantify human life while still having respect for it.
- alehander42 6y agobut if this changes the way whole societies live, is this really respect anymore? (X respects his life, but is afraid of even having children because Y)
- toomuchtodo 6y agoFinite systems don't care about the human condition. Does gravity care about your opinion as you race towards the ground? No, it just is. Such is the consumption of resources in a finite system. It sounds like you mean for respect to be an acceptance of entitlement. Again, I'm unsure how to reconcile that when resources are finite.
- alehander42 6y agosocieties after all are groups of people and sadly people can be easily manipulated : no need to go into "finite systems", please
- alehander42 6y agoah, i see what you mean now: anyway, most resources aren't really finite, as many of them are renewable, especially when you have the need and ability of more people
- toomuchtodo 6y agoYes, exactly. It's about bending the population curve down to meet up with the technology advancement curve.