4 ms·

The alternative you ask for then, is for people to merely die and suffer in pain while doing so. In the past, that's what we did, because there just was no opti

The alternative you ask for then, is for people to merely die and suffer in pain while doing so. In the past, that's what we did, because there just was no option for such people. I looked up Ivan Illich, and this essay critiques modern medicine as creating "lifelong patients." That indeed is what has happened, but the alternative is for people to just die. The reality really is I don't really believe anyone ever took death "peacefully" as he puts it here, they too raged and cried and felt all the painful emotions people feel today, they just would actually die and so those emotions would eventually cease. The argument then should be about values: do we actually value human beings as sacred, important things, and their lives are worth preserving just because they are human? The only way you can accept his argument is your answer to this is no.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Der_Einzige 4y ago
The alternative could be to tax the fk out of sugar and other parts of our food chain known to cause people to go into the obesity-diabaetes pipeline. Obesity related health problems are BY FAR the most common killer in America today. But we won't do that because it'll make some very rich people upset and it'll reduce individual liberty. We value individual liberty over a healthy population.
- twelve40 4y ago
  haha the other thread said the real culprit is the vegetable oil, not sugar. Twenty years ago it probably would have been fat. Too many things to ban!
Rury 4y ago
I disagree. Look at your body. It's multicellular, not one living thing. Your very cells both compete and cooperate with one another for resources to survive (just as we humans do amongst ourselves). For the greater good of the organism (you), individual cells are programmed to die when they are in poor health or old age or in too much stress, to allow younger healthier cells to take their place for the greater good of the organism as a whole. When this process is averted, or goes awry, old/unhealthy cells remain and the organism suffers, as it has to support these old/unhealthy cells which don't contribute their fair share to the organism. It has to divert resources which could otherwise go to new younger healthier productive cells. Worse, is cancer, which is literally when cells rebel their original programming, and become selfishly greedy. Obviously, as we all know, these things can lead to the organism becoming dysfunctional and even dying. This reality applies to cells, and to organizations like companies, governments, and even species. So to answer: are lives worth preserving? Yes. But reality is, there can come times when the preserving the lives of the old, is directly at odds with the lives of the young, and choosing to preserve old lives over young lives, is harmful to lives as a whole.
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  Holy shit, GTFO of here with that shit. You first!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Der_Einzige 4y ago

The alternative could be to tax the fk out of sugar and other parts of our food chain known to cause people to go into the obesity-diabaetes pipeline. Obesity related health problems are BY FAR the most common killer in America today. But we won't do that because it'll make some very rich people upset and it'll reduce individual liberty. We value individual liberty over a healthy population.

twelve40 4y ago
haha the other thread said the real culprit is the vegetable oil, not sugar. Twenty years ago it probably would have been fat. Too many things to ban!

Rury 4y ago

I disagree. Look at your body. It's multicellular, not one living thing. Your very cells both compete and cooperate with one another for resources to survive (just as we humans do amongst ourselves). For the greater good of the organism (you), individual cells are programmed to die when they are in poor health or old age or in too much stress, to allow younger healthier cells to take their place for the greater good of the organism as a whole. When this process is averted, or goes awry, old/unhealthy cells remain and the organism suffers, as it has to support these old/unhealthy cells which don't contribute their fair share to the organism. It has to divert resources which could otherwise go to new younger healthier productive cells. Worse, is cancer, which is literally when cells rebel their original programming, and become selfishly greedy. Obviously, as we all know, these things can lead to the organism becoming dysfunctional and even dying. This reality applies to cells, and to organizations like companies, governments, and even species. So to answer: are lives worth preserving? Yes. But reality is, there can come times when the preserving the lives of the old, is directly at odds with the lives of the young, and choosing to preserve old lives over young lives, is harmful to lives as a whole.

HereIGoAgain 4y ago
Holy shit, GTFO of here with that shit. You first!