| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"mike3" |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2007 03:02:02 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism and sex |
Hi.
Is there any data on correlations between levels of atheism and levels
of morally unacceptable sexual behaviors like homosexual sex, sex
outside of marriage, sexual promiscuity (including scanty dress and
body showoffs), etc. I've heard a claim that atheism actually creates
*more* moral responsibility than theism. So, I'm curious as to what
the hard data says.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
12 Mar 2007 03:18:26 AM |
|
|
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheism and levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
I've heard a claim that atheism actually creates
*more* moral responsibility than theism.
"Moral" is defined by theists as whatever is accepted
or expected by their god(s). Whether or not the bevahior
would ever be tolerated outside the context of a deity
is entirely irrelevant.
For example, wouldn't you agree that it would be pure malice
for me to labor towards removing your spouse's health
insurance? Keep in mind that I would have nothing personal
to gain from success. It's not a case where your spouse's
medical dollars would go to me or anyone I care about. Your
spouse would lose their medical insurance, and I would gain
nothing. Isn't that malice?
Anyhow, in the name of religious "Morals," numerous groups
have boycotted corporations for offering benefits to the
partners of gay employees.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
12 Mar 2007 10:18:26 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Moral" is defined by theists as whatever is accepted
or expected by their god(s). Whether or not the bevahior
would ever be tolerated outside the context of a deity
is entirely irrelevant.
Going a bit further....since the religious books usually have a very
large selection of positions avaiable to quote, "moral" behavior is
whatever the theist says it is, backed up by some vague quote from the
book.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
13 Mar 2007 04:04:39 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote:
Going a bit further....since the religious books
usually have a very large selection of positions
avaiable to quote, "moral" behavior is whatever
the theist says it is, backed up by some vague
quote from the book.
True. For example, Abraham would have been "Immoral"
if he had not agreed to kill his son.
"I love my son and will do anything to protect him,"
would have been a highly immoral response, according
to the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
21 Mar 2007 06:26:24 PM |
|
|
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheism and levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
I've heard a claim that atheism actually creates
*more* moral responsibility than theism.
"Moral" is defined by theists as whatever is accepted
or expected by their god(s). Whether or not the bevahior
would ever be tolerated outside the context of a deity
is entirely irrelevant.
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
For example, wouldn't you agree that it would be pure malice
for me to labor towards removing your spouse's health
insurance? Keep in mind that I would have nothing personal
to gain from success. It's not a case where your spouse's
medical dollars would go to me or anyone I care about. Your
spouse would lose their medical insurance, and I would gain
nothing. Isn't that malice?
Yes, that would definitely be malice (although I don't have a
spouse at the moment -- I'm not old enough to get married.).
You would be harming another human being for no good
reason, and therefore, I would consider it a no-no.
Anyhow, in the name of religious "Morals," numerous groups
have boycotted corporations for offering benefits to the
partners of gay employees.
I'm curious: What is the purpose of giving additional things
to gays that non-gays would not have? Doesn't this sound
like a favoring of gay sex over straight sex? (Which is a
bit disturbing. Straight sex is the only kind that produces
children, which are needed for the survival and continuation
of the human species. Notice: this is not an argument
against gay sex, it is as argument against favoring it over
straight sex.) If it is, why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
21 Mar 2007 09:54:37 PM |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2007 16:26:24 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheism and levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
Socially acceptable isn't a "should", it's an "is". Should water be
wet?
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
Ethics is a moral system, so if we're not discussing morally
acceptable, we're not discussing ethics.
Social responsibility is relative to the society in question.
For example, wouldn't you agree that it would be pure malice
for me to labor towards removing your spouse's health
insurance? Keep in mind that I would have nothing personal
to gain from success. It's not a case where your spouse's
medical dollars would go to me or anyone I care about. Your
spouse would lose their medical insurance, and I would gain
nothing. Isn't that malice?
Yes, that would definitely be malice (although I don't have a
spouse at the moment -- I'm not old enough to get married.).
You would be harming another human being for no good
reason, and therefore, I would consider it a no-no.
But having sex just for fun with someone to whom you're not married
doesn't hurt anyone so, by your standards, there's nothing wrong with
it.
Anyhow, in the name of religious "Morals," numerous groups
have boycotted corporations for offering benefits to the
partners of gay employees.
I'm curious: What is the purpose of giving additional things
to gays that non-gays would not have?
What things in particular? Insurance to one's partner? Oh, married
people have that. Marriage? Oh, heterosexuals have that. So what
things that non-gays have are we talking about giving to gays?
Straight sex is the only kind that produces
children
That's nice if your only goal in sex is to produce children. Humans
are menstrual, not estral, so biologically that's not the goal.
Emotionally that's not the goal either, unless you've been brainwashed
(as you obviously have been) into believing that the sole purpose of
sex is reproduction. Since you (admittedly) don't know the first
thing about sex your opinions about it are totally without merit.
Notice: this is not an argument
against gay sex, it is as argument against favoring it over
straight sex.)
And that's fine for heterosexuals, for whom heterosexual sex is
normal. For homosexuals favoring homosexual sex is normal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
23 Mar 2007 12:40:11 AM |
|
|
On Mar 21, 7:54 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 16:26:24 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheismand levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
Socially acceptable isn't a "should", it's an "is". Should water be
wet?
What I means is that does the fact that the society accepts or
rejects it make it better or worse?
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
Ethics is a moral system, so if we're not discussing morally
acceptable, we're not discussing ethics.
And since you've defiend "morally" to involve God, and since
you accept atheism, you do not admit a God, thus "morally"
does not mean anything to you. Without God as your
yardstick, then how do you measure the acceptablility of
something?
Social responsibility is relative to the society in question.
So then whatever the society accepts is game, even if it
leads to misery and suffering -- if the society likes it, then
you'd do it. Right? That's your yardstick?
For example, wouldn't you agree that it would be pure malice
for me to labor towards removing your spouse's health
insurance? Keep in mind that I would have nothing personal
to gain from success. It's not a case where your spouse's
medical dollars would go to me or anyone I care about. Your
spouse would lose their medical insurance, and I would gain
nothing. Isn't that malice?
Yes, that would definitely be malice (although I don't have a
spouse at the moment -- I'm not old enough to get married.).
You would be harming another human being for no good
reason, and therefore, I would consider it a no-no.
But having sex just for fun with someone to whom you're not married
doesn't hurt anyone so, by your standards, there's nothing wrong with
it.
I believe though it has a degrading, sexualizing effect on
the person who is doing it.
Anyhow, in the name of religious "Morals," numerous groups
have boycotted corporations for offering benefits to the
partners of gay employees.
I'm curious: What is the purpose of giving additional things
to gays that non-gays would not have?
What things in particular? Insurance to one's partner? Oh, married
people have that. Marriage? Oh, heterosexuals have that. So what
things that non-gays have are we talking about giving to gays?
Oh, so the "benefits" they give the gays, non-gays would have
anyway?
Straight sex is the only kind that produces
children
That's nice if your only goal in sex is to produce children. Humans
are menstrual, not estral, so biologically that's not the goal.
Emotionally that's not the goal either, unless you've been brainwashed
(as you obviously have been) into believing that the sole purpose of
sex is reproduction. Since you (admittedly) don't know the first
thing about sex your opinions about it are totally without merit.
Then what else is sex for? The only other thing I can see is that it
is an expression of real love, within a real marriage.
Notice: this is not an argument
against gay sex, it is as argument against favoring it over
straight sex.)
And that's fine for heterosexuals, for whom heterosexual sex is
normal. For homosexuals favoring homosexual sex is normal.
Maybe neither should be "favored". Is the company run by gays?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
23 Mar 2007 07:33:47 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2007 22:40:11 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:54 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 16:26:24 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheismand levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
Socially acceptable isn't a "should", it's an "is". Should water be
wet?
What I means is that does the fact that the society accepts or
rejects it make it better or worse?
For whom? It makes society worse, since it's none of society's
business.
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
Ethics is a moral system, so if we're not discussing morally
acceptable, we're not discussing ethics.
And since you've defiend "morally" to involve God
Where? Christians make that claim, but I've never been a Christian.
and since you accept atheism
There's nothing to "accept".
you do not admit a God
One doesn't admit a god (with an upper case "G", it's the name of one
particular god), one believes in one. I don't.
thus "morally" does not mean anything to you.
I don't know where you came up with that, but it definitely qualifies
you as an author of fantasy - your own.
Without God as your
yardstick, then how do you measure the acceptablility of
something?
With morality which, if you had to ask, you have none of. But most
children are amoral, so there's hope for you.
Social responsibility is relative to the society in question.
So then whatever the society accepts is game, even if it
leads to misery and suffering -- if the society likes it, then
you'd do it. Right?
No, then society considers it moral. Can't you keep track of the
thread for more than a few words? I don't accept societal morality as
something to live by - I have my own moral standards.
But having sex just for fun with someone to whom you're not married
doesn't hurt anyone so, by your standards, there's nothing wrong with
it.
I believe though it has a degrading, sexualizing effect on
the person who is doing it.
Then don't do it. You think you have the right to make that decision
for anyone but yourself?
I'm curious: What is the purpose of giving additional things
to gays that non-gays would not have?
What things in particular? Insurance to one's partner? Oh, married
people have that. Marriage? Oh, heterosexuals have that. So what
things that non-gays have are we talking about giving to gays?
Oh, so the "benefits" they give the gays, non-gays would have
anyway?
I asked YOU - what things are homosexuals asking for that
heterosexuals don't already have? The right to be persecuted? Oh,
they already have that.
Then what else is sex for?
You're assuming there's a reason. Sex evolved, not for any reason,
just because it did.
The only other thing I can see is that it
is an expression of real love, within a real marriage.
Toddlers can't see over the counter, but that doesn't mean that
there's nothing behind it.
Notice: this is not an argument
against gay sex, it is as argument against favoring it over
straight sex.)
And that's fine for heterosexuals, for whom heterosexual sex is
normal. For homosexuals favoring homosexual sex is normal.
Maybe neither should be "favored".
But heterosexuality is. Or, in your case, asexuality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
23 Mar 2007 08:33:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:33:47 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <a1r803tju6o6uku312kmqbio1pn9lqhmse@4ax.com>
On 22 Mar 2007 22:40:11 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
... Can't you keep track of the
thread for more than a few words?
No, "mike3" can not.
He proves this relentlessly.
:
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Toby A Inkster" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
23 Mar 2007 07:16:40 AM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
I believe though it has a degrading, sexualizing effect on
the person who is doing it.
But given that you've already admitted you're not one of those people,
surely you must admit that your own beliefs on this matter are based on
very little actual knowledge.
I may have various beliefs on the best way to fly a helicopter, but given
that I've never even attempted to fly one, I accept that my beliefs are
not very informed, and I'd probably be forced to change my beliefs if I
ever flew a helicopter.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
22 Mar 2007 03:23:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:54:37 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <t6r303d7g49vs1ckiutnmqbpvl2k2o7acc@4ax.com>
On 21 Mar 2007 16:26:24 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheism and levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
Socially acceptable isn't a "should", it's an "is". Should water be
wet?
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
Ethics is a moral system, so if we're not discussing morally
acceptable, we're not discussing ethics.
Social responsibility is relative to the society in question.
Prezarkely!
In certain Papuan societies, murder is an essential element of being
moral.
If one cannot or is not willing to commit murder, then one is
considered "amoral", and are shunned.
(Not at all co-incidentally, the *exact* equivalent moral code applies
to White House appointees, as well as La Cosa Nostra, and The Holy
Roman Catholic Church.)
"Morality", whatever one thinks of it, or even what it is, is entirely
relative.
:
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
23 Mar 2007 12:43:56 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 1:23 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:54:37 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <t6r303d7g49vs1ckiutnmqbpvl2k2o7...@4ax.com>
On 21 Mar 2007 16:26:24 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheism and levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
Socially acceptableisn't a "should", it's an "is". Should water be
wet?
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
Ethics is a moral system, so if we're not discussing morally
acceptable, we're not discussing ethics.
Social responsibility is relative to the society in question.
Prezarkely!
In certain Papuan societies, murder is an essential element of being
moral.
If one cannot or is not willing to commit murder, then one is
considered "amoral", and are shunned.
But that does not mean it is good, or that it is the best thing for
the
world. What helps humanity is good.
(Not at all co-incidentally, the *exact* equivalent moral code applies
to White House appointees, as well as La Cosa Nostra, and The Holy
Roman Catholic Church.)
"Morality", whatever one thinks of it, or even what it is, is entirely
relative.
So then you think every possible system works? Ie. we could legalize
_everything_ and still have a good society? Let everyone do as
their heart desires? Let them kill, rape, pillage, dog-eat-dog
compete,
etc.?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
25 Mar 2007 05:49:49 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Mar 22, 1:23 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:54:37 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <t6r303d7g49vs1ckiutnmqbpvl2k2o7...@4ax.com>
On 21 Mar 2007 16:26:24 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheism and levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
Socially acceptableisn't a "should", it's an "is". Should water be
wet?
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
Ethics is a moral system, so if we're not discussing morally
acceptable, we're not discussing ethics.
Social responsibility is relative to the society in question.
Prezarkely!
In certain Papuan societies, murder is an essential element of being
moral.
If one cannot or is not willing to commit murder, then one is
considered "amoral", and are shunned.
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
Keep in mind 'good' often depends on the persons personal point of view.
In the above mentioned societies being willing to murder is good and not
being so willing is bad.
In countries like the former USA being willing to murder is bad and not
being so willing is good. Then again said countries with their military
considers not being willing to murder is bad and being so willing is
good.
Having a military 'hunting license' and being willing to murder remains
murder. The state has indicated murder of 'x' and under 'y'
circumstances will not result in your being prosecuted.
In the US state execution of prisoners is considered 'good.' Other
societies have condemned such executions as barbaric.
So is murder good or bad? Pick one. If you can't pick one then you're
indicating the circumstances (which includes societal mores and ethics)
depends on other factors. In such case, then you can't indicate the
social requirements of those certain Papuan societies which
sanction/direct murder to be bad.
Same thing with other topics.
or that it is the best thing for the world.
An objective consideration of criteria(s) and measuring of 'best thing
for the world' is what?
One can, like you're doing (and that's not being negative), handwave and
utter meaningless verbage, but that provides zero information nor does
it assist in a solution(s).
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
What helps humanity is good.
Once again you provide meaningless verbage via 'helps humanity good.'
A case can be made that all of the Crusades, Inquisitions, purges,
ethnic cleansing, invasions leading to the decimation of the natives,
the WW2 holocaust as well as the mass starvation and depredations in
Russia, polio, plagues, etc., is 'good' as it provided some check on the
population numbers through time.
(Not at all co-incidentally, the *exact* equivalent moral code applies
to White House appointees, as well as La Cosa Nostra, and The Holy
Roman Catholic Church.)
"Morality", whatever one thinks of it, or even what it is, is entirely
relative.
So then you think every possible system works?
They all work to some degree and fail in other ways.
Ie. we could legalize _everything_ and still have a good society?
Let freedom ring. Land of the free and home of the brave. Meaningless
verbage as the former USA is neither. Your above words indicate that.
Once again you utilize the meaningless word 'good' combined with
society.
Let everyone do as their heart desires? Let them kill, rape, pillage, dog-eat-dog
compete, etc.?
Let them? Where do you get 'let?' Heck, that's what's happening now
and has been through time. All that be done is to 'clean up the mess,'
as best one can.
I understand in the mid/late 1800's out west where almost everyone not
only carried arms but were proficient with them was a very polite
society. If such was the case, one can understand why the politeness.
I was reading an article the other day on Iran. No, I don't have a link
to it as I had no expectation of needing it. Driving there was a giant
'demolition derby' as it was the only place in a totalitarian society
where people (drivers) were anonymous. It was the one place they could
defy the state.
Another article, on spiegel.de, iirc (click for the english version) a
town in either Germany or Austria removed all the traffic signs from the
city, which included roundabouts. Such put responsibility back on the
shoulders of the drivers. The result? Collisions decreased
dramatically.
One last thing. You indicated; "Let everyone do as their heart
desires?." You also gave some examples. Now for the rhetorical
question. Would you be out there raping, killing, pillaging if it
weren't for laws against it?
If so, then you can't be trusted 'off leash.'
If no, then why the expectation everyone else would be?
Keep in mind to do *anything* (which includes nothing) requires
motivation.
Cheers.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
25 Mar 2007 09:23:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n6rd03pigpret6q2pudlmoolkkq5umqrfs@4ax.com>
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Mar 22, 1:23 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:54:37 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <t6r303d7g49vs1ckiutnmqbpvl2k2o7...@4ax.com>
On 21 Mar 2007 16:26:24 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:18 am, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there any data on correlations between levels of
atheism and levels of morally unacceptable sexual
behaviors
You've confused "Socially acceptable" with "Morally
acceptable."
Use whatever terminology you prefer. Then, to you, is it
"socially" acceptable, or should it be? If so, why?
Socially acceptableisn't a "should", it's an "is". Should water be
wet?
If you don't want to talk about "moral" responsibility, then
what about other terms, like "ethical" or "social"
responsibility. How much of that does it confer?
Ethics is a moral system, so if we're not discussing morally
acceptable, we're not discussing ethics.
Social responsibility is relative to the society in question.
Prezarkely!
In certain Papuan societies, murder is an essential element of being
moral.
If one cannot or is not willing to commit murder, then one is
considered "amoral", and are shunned.
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
Keep in mind 'good' often depends on the persons personal point of view.
In the above mentioned societies being willing to murder is good and not
being so willing is bad.
In countries like the former USA being willing to murder is bad and not
being so willing is good. Then again said countries with their military
considers not being willing to murder is bad and being so willing is
good.
Having a military 'hunting license' and being willing to murder remains
murder. The state has indicated murder of 'x' and under 'y'
circumstances will not result in your being prosecuted.
In the US state execution of prisoners is considered 'good.' Other
societies have condemned such executions as barbaric.
So is murder good or bad? Pick one. If you can't pick one then you're
indicating the circumstances (which includes societal mores and ethics)
depends on other factors. In such case, then you can't indicate the
social requirements of those certain Papuan societies which
sanction/direct murder to be bad.
Same thing with other topics.
or that it is the best thing for the world.
An objective consideration of criteria(s) and measuring of 'best thing
for the world' is what?
One can, like you're doing (and that's not being negative), handwave and
utter meaningless verbage, but that provides zero information nor does
it assist in a solution(s).
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
What helps humanity is good.
Once again you provide meaningless verbage via 'helps humanity good.'
A case can be made that all of the Crusades, Inquisitions, purges,
ethnic cleansing, invasions leading to the decimation of the natives,
the WW2 holocaust as well as the mass starvation and depredations in
Russia, polio, plagues, etc., is 'good' as it provided some check on the
population numbers through time.
(Not at all co-incidentally, the *exact* equivalent moral code applies
to White House appointees, as well as La Cosa Nostra, and The Holy
Roman Catholic Church.)
"Morality", whatever one thinks of it, or even what it is, is entirely
relative.
So then you think every possible system works?
They all work to some degree and fail in other ways.
Ie. we could legalize _everything_ and still have a good society?
Let freedom ring. Land of the free and home of the brave. Meaningless
verbage as the former USA is neither. Your above words indicate that.
Once again you utilize the meaningless word 'good' combined with
society.
Let everyone do as their heart desires? Let them kill, rape, pillage, dog-eat-dog
compete, etc.?
Let them? Where do you get 'let?' Heck, that's what's happening now
and has been through time. All that be done is to 'clean up the mess,'
as best one can.
I understand in the mid/late 1800's out west where almost everyone not
only carried arms but were proficient with them was a very polite
society. If such was the case, one can understand why the politeness.
I was reading an article the other day on Iran. No, I don't have a link
to it as I had no expectation of needing it. Driving there was a giant
'demolition derby' as it was the only place in a totalitarian society
where people (drivers) were anonymous. It was the one place they could
defy the state.
Another article, on spiegel.de, iirc (click for the english version) a
town in either Germany or Austria removed all the traffic signs from the
city, which included roundabouts. Such put responsibility back on the
shoulders of the drivers. The result? Collisions decreased
dramatically.
One last thing. You indicated; "Let everyone do as their heart
desires?." You also gave some examples. Now for the rhetorical
question. Would you be out there raping, killing, pillaging if it
weren't for laws against it?
If so, then you can't be trusted 'off leash.'
If no, then why the expectation everyone else would be?
Keep in mind to do *anything* (which includes nothing) requires
motivation.
Cheers.
Well said, sir.
I just hope that the response is as considered and rational.
But I will wager that it will be nothing but another incoherent and
illogical diatribe.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
29 Mar 2007 04:19:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:53:01 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n6rd03pigpret6q2pudlmoolkkq5umqrfs@4ax.com>
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
[]
One last thing. You indicated; "Let everyone do as their heart
desires?." You also gave some examples. Now for the rhetorical
question. Would you be out there raping, killing, pillaging if it
weren't for laws against it?
If so, then you can't be trusted 'off leash.'
If no, then why the expectation everyone else would be?
Keep in mind to do *anything* (which includes nothing) requires
motivation.
Cheers.
Well said, sir.
Thank you.
I just hope that the response is as considered and rational.
But I will wager that it will be nothing but another incoherent and
illogical diatribe.
Sucker bet.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
26 Mar 2007 01:25:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
What helps humanity is good.
Once again you provide meaningless verbage via 'helps humanity good.'
Or he could just answer the obvious question, "Good for whom?" If for
humanity it's just a tautology - what is good for humanity is good for
humanity - and, so, bereft of any meaning. (I hesitate to say "is
childish", because he may take it as an ad hom, when it's merely
true.)
I was reading an article the other day on Iran. No, I don't have a link
to it as I had no expectation of needing it. Driving there was a giant
'demolition derby' as it was the only place in a totalitarian society
where people (drivers) were anonymous. It was the one place they could
defy the state.
Another article, on spiegel.de, iirc (click for the english version) a
town in either Germany or Austria removed all the traffic signs from the
city, which included roundabouts. Such put responsibility back on the
shoulders of the drivers. The result? Collisions decreased
dramatically.
You make the point, but in a round-about way. As you show above,
there are some people who have morals and some who don't. Being
forced to do 'good' doesn't produce 'good' unless the people are
willing to do 'good' without being forced to. Those who are moral may
actually resent someone else's "morality" being forced on them.
One last thing. You indicated; "Let everyone do as their heart
desires?." You also gave some examples. Now for the rhetorical
question. Would you be out there raping, killing, pillaging if it
weren't for laws against it?
How many "Christians" have we seen posting that, if they weren't
afraid of their god, they're afraid that they'd be doing *exactly*
that?
If so, then you can't be trusted 'off leash.'
If no, then why the expectation everyone else would be?
Keep in mind to do *anything* (which includes nothing) requires
motivation.
I think it may need to be pointed out to Mike that his lack of belief
in Zoroaster doesn't, itself, motivate him to do anything. Maybe he's
old enough to make the obvious connection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
29 Mar 2007 04:31:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation. Drop
to hunter/gather stage?
What helps humanity is good.
Once again you provide meaningless verbage via 'helps humanity good.'
Or he could just answer the obvious question, "Good for whom?" If for
humanity it's just a tautology - what is good for humanity is good for
humanity - and, so, bereft of any meaning. (I hesitate to say "is
childish", because he may take it as an ad hom, when it's merely
true.)
Yes.
I was reading an article the other day on Iran. No, I don't have a link
to it as I had no expectation of needing it. Driving there was a giant
'demolition derby' as it was the only place in a totalitarian society
where people (drivers) were anonymous. It was the one place they could
defy the state.
Another article, on spiegel.de, iirc (click for the english version) a
town in either Germany or Austria removed all the traffic signs from the
city, which included roundabouts. Such put responsibility back on the
shoulders of the drivers. The result? Collisions decreased
dramatically.
You make the point, but in a round-about way. As you show above,
there are some people who have morals and some who don't. Being
forced to do 'good' doesn't produce 'good' unless the people are
willing to do 'good' without being forced to. Those who are moral may
actually resent someone else's "morality" being forced on them.
Exactly.
One last thing. You indicated; "Let everyone do as their heart
desires?." You also gave some examples. Now for the rhetorical
question. Would you be out there raping, killing, pillaging if it
weren't for laws against it?
How many "Christians" have we seen posting that, if they weren't
afraid of their god, they're afraid that they'd be doing *exactly*
that?
Far far too many for my comfort.
If so, then you can't be trusted 'off leash.'
If no, then why the expectation everyone else would be?
Keep in mind to do *anything* (which includes nothing) requires
motivation.
I think it may need to be pointed out to Mike that his lack of belief
in Zoroaster doesn't, itself, motivate him to do anything. Maybe he's
old enough to make the obvious connection.
I guess we will see.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
29 Mar 2007 10:07:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:31:20 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation.
Actually I counted wrong - decimation is killing 10%, not leaving 10%.
Drop to hunter/gather stage?
Civilization is probably the single worst thing our species ever
invented. But we were more like scavenger-gatherers. Driving a whole
herd of horses over a cliff with fire to bring home a few hundred
pounds of meat isn't the image I get when I hear "Great White Hunter".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
30 Mar 2007 08:13:16 AM |
|
|
On Mar 30, 11:07 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:31:20 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation.
Actually I counted wrong - decimation is killing 10%, not leaving 10%.
It works if you decimate 66 times as (.9)^66=0.00096.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
04 Apr 2007 06:12:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:07:04 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:31:20 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation.
Actually I counted wrong - decimation is killing 10%, not leaving 10%.
No worries.
Drop to hunter/gather stage?
Civilization is probably the single worst thing our species ever
invented.
Why? Its a wonderful idea that's never been tried.
But we were more like scavenger-gatherers.
True.
Driving a whole
herd of horses over a cliff with fire to bring home a few hundred
pounds of meat isn't the image I get when I hear "Great White Hunter".
Heh, and it sure doesn't bring an image of Ted Nugent to mind either.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
05 Apr 2007 01:37:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:12:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <j3c8139sgl36offhq70umkfk49f417bi9i@4ax.com>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:07:04 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:31:20 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation.
Actually I counted wrong - decimation is killing 10%, not leaving 10%.
No worries.
Drop to hunter/gather stage?
Civilization is probably the single worst thing our species ever
invented.
Why? Its a wonderful idea that's never been tried.
Just like "Democracy"!
But we were more like scavenger-gatherers.
True.
Driving a whole
herd of horses over a cliff with fire to bring home a few hundred
pounds of meat isn't the image I get when I hear "Great White Hunter".
Heh, and it sure doesn't bring an image of Ted Nugent to mind either.
He's into cross-bows.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
11 Apr 2007 11:39:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:07:47 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:12:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <j3c8139sgl36offhq70umkfk49f417bi9i@4ax.com>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:07:04 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
[]
Civilization is probably the single worst thing our species ever
invented.
Why? Its a wonderful idea that's never been tried.
Just like "Democracy"!
Yep.
But we were more like scavenger-gatherers.
True.
Driving a whole
herd of horses over a cliff with fire to bring home a few hundred
pounds of meat isn't the image I get when I hear "Great White Hunter".
Heh, and it sure doesn't bring an image of Ted Nugent to mind either.
He's into cross-bows.
Red and blue bows in his hair?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
11 Apr 2007 04:51:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:39:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6n3q139or8cio6ng1uorqc6t4j8a10m5kg@4ax.com>
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:07:47 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:12:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <j3c8139sgl36offhq70umkfk49f417bi9i@4ax.com>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:07:04 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
[]
Civilization is probably the single worst thing our species ever
invented.
Why? Its a wonderful idea that's never been tried.
Just like "Democracy"!
Yep.
But we were more like scavenger-gatherers.
True.
Driving a whole
herd of horses over a cliff with fire to bring home a few hundred
pounds of meat isn't the image I get when I hear "Great White Hunter".
Heh, and it sure doesn't bring an image of Ted Nugent to mind either.
He's into cross-bows.
Red and blue bows in his hair?
Not cross-dressing!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
18 Apr 2007 10:38:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:21:20 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:39:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6n3q139or8cio6ng1uorqc6t4j8a10m5kg@4ax.com>
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:07:47 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:12:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <j3c8139sgl36offhq70umkfk49f417bi9i@4ax.com>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:07:04 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
[]
Civilization is probably the single worst thing our species ever
invented.
Why? Its a wonderful idea that's never been tried.
Just like "Democracy"!
Yep.
But we were more like scavenger-gatherers.
True.
Driving a whole
herd of horses over a cliff with fire to bring home a few hundred
pounds of meat isn't the image I get when I hear "Great White Hunter".
Heh, and it sure doesn't bring an image of Ted Nugent to mind either.
He's into cross-bows.
Red and blue bows in his hair?
Not cross-dressing!
Unless he's dear hunting.... ;)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
30 Mar 2007 08:38:57 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation. Drop
to hunter/gather stage?
Well, if you "decimate" (reduce to 1/10th) three times, you do get
6,000,000 :)
But I don't see 6,000,0000 as being a viable world population with our
standard of living. There's more than that in the NY area alone.
Maybe 1-600,000,000 million would work well.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
04 Apr 2007 06:14:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:38:57 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation. Drop
to hunter/gather stage?
Well, if you "decimate" (reduce to 1/10th) three times, you do get
6,000,000 :)
But I don't see 6,000,0000 as being a viable world population with our
standard of living. There's more than that in the NY area alone.
Maybe 1-600,000,000 million would work well.
There's no question about a hefty change in the standard of living.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
30 Mar 2007 07:58:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:38:57 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <euj0dq$ihr$2@news04.infoave.net>
stoney wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:49 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 22:43:56 -0700, "mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
But that does not mean it is good,
Says who? Based on what objective measure?
[snippety]
Taking the long view with 'best thing for the world' can lead to
conclusion(s) you won't like. With the hefty overpopulation of the
planet combined with the raping and despoiling of the planet the best
thing for the planet would be for humans to become extinct.
Or at least decimated (literally) about 3 times. A global population
of about 6 million should be both viable and safe.
At first I read that as 6 billion. That's one heck of decimation. Drop
to hunter/gather stage?
Well, if you "decimate" (reduce to 1/10th) three times, you do get
6,000,000 :)
But that is NOT what decimate means.
It means removing one in every 10.
But I don't see 6,000,0000 as being a viable world population with our
standard of living. There's more than that in the NY area alone.
Maybe 1-600,000,000 million would work well.
<snip>
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
30 Mar 2007 09:59:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:38:57 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
Well, if you "decimate" (reduce to 1/10th) three times, you do get
6,000,000 :)
That's how I misused it, but it means reduce BY 10%, not reduce TO
10%.
But I don't see 6,000,0000 as being a viable world population with our
standard of living.
Viable means that the species will continue. I think that "our
standard of living" is the single worst thing our species ever
invented.
There's more than that in the NY area alone.
Maybe 1-600,000,000 million would work well.
When we were 25 million we did very well, but a viable population
(genetically) is much smaller than that, as long as we don't go down
the path of the cheetah.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
30 Mar 2007 12:52:53 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:38:57 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
Well, if you "decimate" (reduce to 1/10th) three times, you do get
6,000,000 :)
That's how I misused it, but it means reduce BY 10%, not reduce TO
10%.
Yes, I stand corrected on that myself.
But I don't see 6,000,0000 as being a viable world population with our
standard of living.
Viable means that the species will continue. I think that "our
standard of living" is the single worst thing our species ever
invented.
That was the point. If we wanted to go back to "hunter-gatherer" we
could probably go back to several hundred-thousands for the population.
But if we want to keep anything remotely resembling even the early
industrial ages, we'd probably need a larger population.
There's more than that in the NY area alone.
Maybe 1-600,000,000 million would work well.
When we were 25 million we did very well, but a viable population
(genetically) is much smaller than that, as long as we don't go down
the path of the cheetah.
Yes, we wouldn't need as many to be genetically viable (I think a
breeding population is usually considered to be a minimum of several
hundred in any given area) but I was looking at it as
"socially-economically viable" at anything close to the lines of what we
have now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
30 Mar 2007 08:01:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:52:53 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
Yes, we wouldn't need as many to be genetically viable (I think a
breeding population is usually considered to be a minimum of several
hundred in any given area) but I was looking at it as
"socially-economically viable" at anything close to the lines of what we
have now.
I don't know if there's a name for my position, but I really believe
that when we entered the Neolithic age we were asking for trouble. I
think Paleolithic technology was enough. I'm not a Luddite by any
means, I just think that we can't maintain a Paleolithic social
structure, and Paleolithic weapons, which is when we were at least
safe from each other, with a post-industrial civilization.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and sex |
31 Mar 2007 01:00:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:01:35 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <habr03tbh94pj40b4abotouldgj7m1tq1a@4ax.com>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:52:53 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
Yes, we wouldn't need as many to be genetically viable (I think a
breeding population is usually considered to be a minimum of several
hundred in any given area) but I was looking at it as
"socially-economically viable" at anything close to the lines of what we
have now.
I don't know if there's a name for my position, but I really believe
that when we entered the Neolithic age we were asking for trouble. I
think Paleolithic technology was enough. I'm not a Luddite by any
means, I just think that we can't maintain a Paleolithic social
structure, and Paleolithic weapons, which is when we were at least
safe from each other, with a post-industrial civilization.
As the Australian Aboriginals have amply shown to those who will open
their eyes, such a lifestyle is the only truly sustainable one.
Zero growth, and the rocks that they used were replenished at about
rate of consumption.
I am deadly serious, by the way.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
