The good of society

[Amethyst Hunter]

Outstanding. You've just demonstrated the individualist mindset I was talking about. It's that kind of mindset that doesn't care if the poles melt for our abuse of fossil fuels too or what other harm one might bring to the human species as a whole through their actions now.

Self-righteous and condescending much?

I do what I can in regards to helping out the environment. Beyond that, I'm not going to worry about things I have little to no control over. Where is it a sin to live one's life, so long as you're not bothering anybody? How does my taking birth control pills to regulate a fucked-up cycle (that can do a whole helluva lot worse if allowed to proceed 'naturally') harm the entire world at large, as opposed to something like leaving electric lights on or driving a fuel-sucking behemoth when there's no need to do so?

Hell will freeze over solid before I EVER give up something that's made a huge difference in my life for the better. If that makes me a rampaging selfish Evil Bitch, so be it. Unnecessary martyrdom is not something I personally aspire to.

Yes, I know them well, and NO I'm not going to take your "expert" word over their research.

Yes, I AM calling bullshit on it. It's the same kind of intent that you see on the news where someone basically screams "OMG we're all going to get cancer from *gasp* drinking bottled water! [or some other minute thing]" Every other week it seems you can get cancer from this or that. Get cancer from drinking milk. Get cancer from drinking coffee. Get cancer just from walking out your front door. The scare just gets old after a while. We may as well all just stop living because of this risk or that, and if we're talking carbon footprints, hey, let's just kill ourselves now and spare the planet the accumulated waste we'll inevitably build up over our lifetimes. If something bothers you, fine, don't take this or that. But where is it written that *everybody* has to live by one person's rules just because that one person may not like something?

Hell, there's a risk of blood clots associated with birth control pills. I'd be way more worried about that than cancer. And even the clot factor itself is low for those who don't have inherent risk factors (like smoking) - that's why it's prescribed for certain people and not others.

Of all the things in the world to worry about concerning the human species at large, any supposed cancer/birth control link is the LEAST of people's problems. If BC was that dangerous, it wouldn't have been around for as long as it has been.

[AFPheonix]

Wow, polite much? Answer my question, PLEASE???

I didn't respond directly to that ONE point because I agree (and because the answer to your question would be a reiteration of pretty much every one of my posts thus far). The use of an animal hide to thwart the species natural evolution to being capable of enduring colder climates would be as fundamentally flawed as using technological means to allow infertile couples the ability to reproduce.

Then we would have no society to protect. Societies only came about after farming tech was invented.

I do agree that we need to be mindful of how our actions affect future generations, but to say that we should avoid "thwarting evolution" at all costs by avoiding all tech is preposterous, as many technologies have enabled our species to survive and become stronger (vaccinations that wiped out small pox and polio, anyone?).
Without our species' ability to use tools, we'd still be hanging out on the African savanna.

[tendomentis]

Then we would have no society to protect. Societies only came about after farming tech was invented.

I do agree that we need to be mindful of how our actions affect future generations, but to say that we should avoid "thwarting evolution" at all costs by avoiding all tech is preposterous, as many technologies have enabled our species to survive and become stronger (vaccinations that wiped out small pox and polio, anyone?).
Without our species' ability to use tools, we'd still be hanging out on the African savanna.

Small pox and polio still exist though. IF we lost all our technology tomorrow, the children born after tomorrow would be at risk of those diseases because we never evolved natural immunities to them as we have with so many other diseases. Our technology gives us an immediate sense of security, but it's all false.

[DesignFox]

but who's to say we would have developed immunities to begin with?

Also, there are some parents out their doing there best to reintroduce all these diseases to us, anyway. The latest media scare is that vaccines cause Autism. Now there's a rash of people fumbling through legal loophools so they don't have to vaccinate their kids. Like letting your kid get polio is a better option- especially when there's no scientific evidence linking Autism to vaccines... we'll see who lives to evolve in that case...

Anyway, if our brains evolved enough that we can learn to protect ourselves from disease, isn't that in and of itself an advantage? Why deny what evolution gave us? Animals don't have opposable thumbs...look how far we've come using tools just because of that little trait!

[blas87]

This thread is really silly. I mean, I may be missing the point, but all it has done has made me (and a few other members) a little upset at the suggestion at what we are doing (taking birth control, the biggest example here) is wrong and what we are doing is not for the best of society.

I will not budge. I will keep getting my shot. If I have to stop taking that, I'll find another form of BC. I am not having children, and that is that. Suggesting that birth control is not doing society any good is rubbish. What doesn't do society good is too many unwanted children who may be at risk for abuse or a poverty striken life, or even worse, a rise in the rate of abortions.

Another member already brought up a very valid point. What does it matter, as long as we are minding our own business and not harming anyone? Certainly I'm not harming ANYONE by taking birth control and refusing to have children and if I ever need some kind of technology to heal me, so help me GOD, I will take it.

[tendomentis]

This thread is really silly. I mean, I may be missing the point, but all it has done has made me (and a few other members) a little upset at the suggestion at what we are doing (taking birth control, the biggest example here) is wrong and what we are doing is not for the best of society.

I will not budge. I will keep getting my shot. If I have to stop taking that, I'll find another form of BC. I am not having children, and that is that. Suggesting that birth control is not doing society any good is rubbish. What doesn't do society good is too many unwanted children who may be at risk for abuse or a poverty striken life, or even worse, a rise in the rate of abortions.

Another member already brought up a very valid point. What does it matter, as long as we are minding our own business and not harming anyone? Certainly I'm not harming ANYONE by taking birth control and refusing to have children and if I ever need some kind of technology to heal me, so help me GOD, I will take it.

Then yes, you did miss the point of this thread.

As I said in other posts, this was not a birth control debate thread (at least, not specifically). Certain posters have taken an almost Freudian defensive stance to the mere suggestion that birth control (amongst other concepts) could be harmful to the species in the long run. No one likes to think that something they do on a regular basis to make their own lives easier/more bearable could be destructive to others. Look at the sheer resistance in the last twenty years to Global Warming if you need an example, or even to smokers for another example.

In the end, this thread was to get people to think outside another invisible box.

[DesignFox]

I think the real point tendomentis is trying to make is that a lot of the meddling we do might adversely affect humanity as a whole.

I don't think the birth control point is the best example. I think a better example is the argument about medical technology- people who weren't supposed to procreate finding ways to do so. People who have dibilitating diseases reproducing and spreading their disease onto future generations. What about people with mental disabilities that can be inherited?

I think the argument is that people with these traits never would survive if not for the medical technology we currently have. Some of these people would never have children. Are we cheating our evolution by allowing the "weaker" of the species to survive and reproduce- as per their or our own choices?

I say that it's impossible to really tell what impact this would have if say the apocolypse were to happen. Perhaps someone with disease X also has a gene that prevents them from suffering from disease Y. We just don't really know.

I think that human society has evolved in such a way that we can prevent and protect ourselves from certain aspects of our environment. And why not? Maybe our big brains will backfire on us and we are cheating ourselves...but then, like other species, if that's the case- we'll just die out or evolve to something different. Nature will take care of itself one way or the other.

I don't see why we should let people die when we have the technology to help them live- sometimes people want to die- but we don't let them- society deems that unnacceptable.

In the case of some people who have minor problems like say, allergies...or short sightedness...who cares? We can correct these problems. Neither of these problems are life threatening. Sure, technology makes us more comfortable but somehow I think I'd be able to survive without it. Should people like that choose not to have children because their children will probably be near sighted and allergy stricken?

If the day came that we had no technology...well. We'd just start over. Some people would die. Some people would be better suited and would just live.

I say live and let live. As long as you aren't directly harming other individuals through your actions, I don't care what you do!

[Boozy]

I say that it's impossible to really tell what impact this would have if say the apocolypse were to happen. Perhaps someone with disease X also has a gene that prevents them from suffering from disease Y. We just don't really know.

Actually, the Human Genome Project found dozens of examples like that. For example, the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, common in people of African ancestry, protects against malaria, a common disease on the savannah. It is arrogant to think that we can have any idea what our actions today will do over the course of millennia.

The vast course of evolution shouldn't be a major concern for us when we have bigger problems. Global warming is happening now, as is disease, drought, starvation, overpopulation. If we have the technology to fix those problems, we must do so. Evolution has given us larger brains, morality,a desire to cooperate, and emotions such as empathy, love, and caring. The invisible hand of evolution thinks that these traits are useful for the survival of the human race. Who are we to ignore these traits? I refuse to let someone die just because they have "bad genes".

I understand what you're saying tendomentis, I just don't agree with you.

Earlier, when I asked you about "evolution to what end", you thought I meant I was asking for a finish line. I am not. I was asking you what sort of world you want to live in and what kind of traits you value in your fellow man. Personally, I want more Stephen Hawkings. Thankfully, we can have them. Because we have the technology to save the lives of those who have a great deal more to offer than child-bearing hips, immunity to disease, and the ability to wield a spear.

[DesignFox]

Well put Boozy. As usual, someone puts it better than I!

[tendomentis]

Actually, the Human Genome Project found dozens of examples like that. For example, the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, common in people of African ancestry, protects against malaria, a common disease on the savannah. It is arrogant to think that we can have any idea what our actions today will do over the course of millennia.

The vast course of evolution shouldn't be a major concern for us when we have bigger problems. Global warming is happening now, as is disease, drought, starvation, overpopulation. If we have the technology to fix those problems, we must do so. Evolution has given us larger brains, morality,a desire to cooperate, and emotions such as empathy, love, and caring. The invisible hand of evolution thinks that these traits are useful for the survival of the human race. Who are we to ignore these traits? I refuse to let someone die just because they have "bad genes".

I understand what you're saying tendomentis, I just don't agree with you.

Earlier, when I asked you about "evolution to what end", you thought I meant I was asking for a finish line. I am not. I was asking you what sort of world you want to live in and what kind of traits you value in your fellow man. Personally, I want more Stephen Hawkings. Thankfully, we can have them. Because we have the technology to save the lives of those who have a great deal more to offer than child-bearing hips, immunity to disease, and the ability to wield a spear.

The difference is that evolution is not moral. Evolution does not have a sense of morality or empathy. Those are traits that we've cultivated in our own species. By using morality and empathy to guide decisions about our species evolution, one is essentially fighting with the natural process of evolution by using variables that the natural process of evolution does not use to determine a course of action. As such, whatever course of action you came to about our species' evolution using morality and empathy to guide you would almost always be an incorrect course when taking into account the Red Queen principle (as co-evolving systems may not and generally WILL not factor the human concepts of morality and empathy into their decision making, thereby leaving the human race at a disadvantage in the evolutionary arms race).

Obviously, empathy and morality have a place (otherwise we wouldn't have evolved those traits), but they do more harm than good when used to determine our evolutionary direction, which is what you are advocating. In essence you are anthropomorphising the natural (and clearly NOT human) process of evolution, which is only natural. While very human of you, it does (for obvious reasons) yield inaccurate results when viewing evolution in that way.

[DesignFox]

<snip>
Obviously, empathy and morality have a place (otherwise we wouldn't have evolved those traits), but they do more harm than good when used to determine our evolutionary direction....

But how do we know this? You said yourself that evolution is a natural process. We don't even know which way this process will go. How can we even begin to control it?

[tendomentis]

But how do we know this? You said yourself that evolution is a natural process. We don't even know which way this process will go. How can we even begin to control it?

Exactly. If it's a fully natural process that doesn't have a moral compass or empathy for the species it kills off en masse, then we could NEVER control it from a morally or empathically derived method. All we could hope to do is disturb the natural process, which causes long term consequences. This is, incidentally, what we are already doing in as much as trying to direct our development from a moral standpoint. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable. We have no control over it except to abide by it and allow the process to happen as it should, or constantly attempt to cheat the process (which can only ever be a short term solution....the house always wins).

[DesignFox]

We have no control over it except to abide by it and allow the process to happen as it should, or constantly attempt to cheat the process (which can only ever be a short term solution....the house always wins).

But how "should" the process happen? If we were given the intellect to prevent disease or protect ourselves shouldn't we use it? How are we messing with evolution when we don't even know which direction nature will take us?

[tendomentis]

But how "should" the process happen? If we were given the intellect to prevent disease or protect ourselves shouldn't we use it? How are we messing with evolution when we don't even know which direction nature will take us?

Why assume that we evolved the intellect so we could cheat evolution? That's the easy path, so it's obvious why we would default to it, but perhaps we have the intellect so we do exactly what we are doing RIGHT NOW.

Questioning it.

We are the only species (that we are aware of anyway) that is aware of our own evolution, thanks largely to our intellect. PERHAPS we developed that trait so we would be capable of self-regulating our evolution-cheating traits (which I would define as undesirable).

[Boozy]

The use of an animal hide to thwart the species natural evolution to being capabale of enduring colder climates would be as fundamentally flawed as using technological means to allow infertile couples the ability to reproduce.

I missed this one.

I don't think you're recognizing intelligence (and by extension, inventiveness) as a valuable heritable trait in its own right. The guy that first covered himself with an animal hide was smarter than the guy who didn't. Smart-Warm Guy then doesn't freeze to death, and lives on to produce children.

The best part is, smarts are more versatile. Smart-Warm Guy's kids inherit his intelligence, and use it to find uses for other things lying about the cave, like sharp rocks and long sticks to make spears for hunting.

Dumb-Cold Guy may have been more resilient to cold, and therefore lived to reproduce. Dumb-Cold Guys kids won't freeze to death, but they aren't very successful with hunting in comparison to Smart-Warm Guy's progeny. They starve.

Of course, that's just one scenario. Almost anything could have happened.

I guess I fail to see how technology is unnatural. In actuality, its very natural for use to create inventions to aid in our survival. We actually evolved by doing so. To not create is unnatural for us.