Le 09/08/2013 13:41, scott a écrit :

> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just
> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Me too ;-)

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

"scott"  wrote in message news:5204d562$1@news.povray.org...

> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just 
> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Logically, what will "we" do with the power establishment necessary to make 
this happen once our humanitarian mission is complete?

Post a reply to this message

>> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just
>> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)
>
> Logically, what will "we" do with the power establishment necessary to
> make this happen once our humanitarian mission is complete?

Oh there's plenty more to solve that would be possible now with such 
powers... AIDS would be a good start, that kills about 2 million people 
a year, given that a life is considered to be worth about $8m 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life) that means we should allow 
spending up to $16tn to eradicate it, then after a year we'd be in 
profit. $16tn is $2200 per person on the planet, should be plenty enough 
to test every person, however the question is what to do with the people 
who test positive.

You can't just kill them, because apparently there are estimated to be 
up to 35 million people, and that would far outweigh any benefit to 
eradicating AIDS in the short term. You could closely monitor them to 
ensure they don't spread the disease by any means, but that would 
certainly push the cost way above $2200. Best option would be ship them 
to a big island somewhere, preferably one already with an infrastrure 
(existing residents who don't have AIDS can swap lives with the incoming 
infected ones), they would live completely normal lives, jobs, have 
access to medical care, provide value to society and the economy etc, 
the only restriction being never allowed to leave the island and anyone 
who visits is also never allowed to leave, or maybe return visits could 
be allowed under very strict conditions. Job done.

Hmmm, what next?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people 
> to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone who's 
> forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.

Saving millions of people's lives is the same as "forcefully injecting
people for experimental purposes"? I think you are deliberately twisting
the issue.

It's not an experiment. We know that we can eradicate polio. We know that
we would be saving people's lives. There's no question about it.

Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

If your answer is no, then we have to disagree (and I'm tempted to use
some not-very-nice words to describe your attitude.)

If your answer is yes, then what exactly is the practical difference to
the polio vaccine situation? In both cases we would be saving the lives
of innocent people. Would it happen by force? Yes. Would it matter? No.

> > The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
> > evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we are
> > trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure so that
> > everybody will be a bit safer.

> They *don't* know it.  They need to be educated and make a free choice.

Would you stop human sacrifice when you see it, or would just "educate"
them and hope that perhaps one day they will change their rituals?

Every time you are not stopping human sacrifice when you would have the
means to do so, you are allowing an innocent person to die.

No, I just cannot agree with the bullshit sentiment that we should just
obey their wish to commit suicide and take tons of people with them, many
of them who would not want to die or get crippled for life. If they don't
agree, then it's too bad for them. They don't have a say when we are
talking about human life. Life takes priority over cultural bullshit.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:59:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people
>> to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone
>> who's forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.
> 
> Saving millions of people's lives is the same as "forcefully injecting
> people for experimental purposes"? I think you are deliberately twisting
> the issue.

Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to 
take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or that 
you know what you're talking about.

> It's not an experiment. We know that we can eradicate polio. We know
> that we would be saving people's lives. There's no question about it.

So you claim.  Again, from the perspective of the people you'd forcefully 
inject, how do they know you're telling them the truth?  History is 
littered with examples of people who did things to other people "for 
their own good", except it wasn't actually for an altruistic reason.

You're saying "trust me", but not providing a basis for that trust.

> Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
> engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for you 
and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those are 
even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.

> If your answer is yes, then what exactly is the practical difference to
> the polio vaccine situation? In both cases we would be saving the lives
> of innocent people. Would it happen by force? Yes. Would it matter? No.

Again, look at it from the perspective of being the one being forced to 
take the injection.  If you'd take that, then what else would you submit 
to because your government says it's good for you?  Or someone else's 
government?

> No, I just cannot agree with the bullshit sentiment that we should just
> obey their wish to commit suicide and take tons of people with them,
> many of them who would not want to die or get crippled for life. If they
> don't agree, then it's too bad for them. They don't have a say when we
> are talking about human life. Life takes priority over cultural
> bullshit.

And I cannot agree with the bullshit idea that because you say something 
is good for someone who doesn't know better, they should just submit and 
take it because you know better than they do.  Whether you /do/ actually 
know better than they do or not is irrelevant.

I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating 
something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human sacrifice) 
with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you know better 
than they do is not the same thing.

Since we're going for bullshit analogies, how about I just godwin the 
thread right now and say "I'm sure Hitler would agree with you.  After 
all, what he did to the Jews was for their own good."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to 
> take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or that 
> you know what you're talking about.

So what? Neither does an unconscious person. Would you refuse to save the
life of an unconscious person because they are unable to understand what
you are doing to them?

> > Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
> > engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

> Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for you 
> and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those are 
> even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.

Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a totalitarian
regime.

> I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating 
> something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human sacrifice) 
> with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you know better 
> than they do is not the same thing.

Please, by all means explain to me how giving a vaccine to someone, saving
their life, is imposing a totalitarian regime onto them. I would be
interested to hear.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:00:07 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to
>> take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or
>> that you know what you're talking about.
> 
> So what? Neither does an unconscious person. Would you refuse to save
> the life of an unconscious person because they are unable to understand
> what you are doing to them?

Different situation entirely, and you know it.

>> > Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that
>> > regularly engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to
>> > intervene?
> 
>> Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for
>> you and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those
>> are even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.
> 
> Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
> totalitarian regime.

It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump 
something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.

>> I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating
>> something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human
>> sacrifice) with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you
>> know better than they do is not the same thing.
> 
> Please, by all means explain to me how giving a vaccine to someone,
> saving their life, is imposing a totalitarian regime onto them. I would
> be interested to hear.

Have you ever tried to put yourself in someone else's shoes?  You should 
try it sometime.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
> > totalitarian regime.

> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump 
> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.

You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the completely
wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for example, people
calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists" (even though the
movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of anarchy.)

By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
Which makes absolutely no sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:

> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.

Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
Well done.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian 
regime. And whether or not  those injections are a good idea is a relatively 
minor point. The important point is that you can't put the genie back in the 
bottle--nor count on its staying a friendly genie, scott.

Post a reply to this message