3 ms·

> I'm assuming that the only satisfying way to influense the world is one that includes spreading your genes. We get that, but it's an assumption that depends

by Udo 12y ago

> I'm assuming that the only satisfying way to influense the world is one that includes spreading your genes. We get that, but it's an assumption that depends on your personal value system and on what you personally consider satisfying. That's hardly something you can just project onto the general population. A lot of people will agree with your basic assessment, however in this extreme form I'm afraid you're rapidly coming to a point where you don't see any value in humans once they have spawned their genes. And that's not how we as a civilization see things any more, and the understanding that we have value based on who we are (instead of how many offspring we have) has been part of the general social contract since at least the enlightenment era.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
"That's hardly something you can just project onto the general population" I didn't. However I think it is true for a big part of general population and they'll face a reality check soon enough. But I talk about myself mostly. "I'm afraid you're rapidly coming to a point where you don't see any value in humans once they have spawned their genes" It's a bit different. People who are still able to spawn their genes are unconditionally valuable. But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. They may be very valuable (take nobel laureates), but it's not given. Maybe not. The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. That's my opinion.
- Udo 12y ago
  > But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. And that value is assigned conditionally by... you? It's your belief that the value of human life is restricted to its immediate usefulness? > The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. Again, I was not aware that we had a population crisis.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    We're talking about my views anyway, why would you ask that over and over? If you don't see this as a problem, you may just move along.
    - Udo 12y ago
      I was asking because I was fascinated and curious.
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        My views don't have to conform to whatever constraints you expect them to. I'm just telling you what I really think.
        Udo 12y ago
        > My views don't have to conform to whatever constraints you expect them to. That's why I asked about your views "over and over", because I wanted to find out how your value system works. There is no need to get testy. It's true that I disagree, but this discussion happened mostly because I wanted to find out more, not because I wanted to display your views in a misleading light. Peace.
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        I just failed to understand why you were surprised that in my views I assign value to people and not some external entity does. The opposite will be actually weird.

by Udo 12y ago

guard-of-terra 12y ago

"That's hardly something you can just project onto the general population" I didn't. However I think it is true for a big part of general population and they'll face a reality check soon enough. But I talk about myself mostly. "I'm afraid you're rapidly coming to a point where you don't see any value in humans once they have spawned their genes" It's a bit different. People who are still able to spawn their genes are unconditionally valuable. But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. They may be very valuable (take nobel laureates), but it's not given. Maybe not. The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. That's my opinion.

Udo 12y ago
> But people who can no longer spawn their genes are only conditionally valuable. And that value is assigned conditionally by... you? It's your belief that the value of human life is restricted to its immediate usefulness? > The problem is, people are only really fertile for a tiny part of their life. Increasingly tiny. That's a problem for us. Again, I was not aware that we had a population crisis.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  We're talking about my views anyway, why would you ask that over and over? If you don't see this as a problem, you may just move along.
  - Udo 12y ago
    I was asking because I was fascinated and curious.
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      My views don't have to conform to whatever constraints you expect them to. I'm just telling you what I really think.
      - Udo 12y ago
        > My views don't have to conform to whatever constraints you expect them to. That's why I asked about your views "over and over", because I wanted to find out how your value system works. There is no need to get testy. It's true that I disagree, but this discussion happened mostly because I wanted to find out more, not because I wanted to display your views in a misleading light. Peace.
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        I just failed to understand why you were surprised that in my views I assign value to people and not some external entity does. The opposite will be actually weird.