Human life is over-valued

[facthunter]

Stop making babies. Just practice. In Leviticus it says eat the fruit of your loins when you are besieged. and confound thine enemies with your good health.Tthat doesn't pass the Pub test anymore than your suggestion does. Offer yourself if that rings your bell. I've just broken the LAW by suggesting it. OK people who attempt suicide should be given CAPITAL Punishment. THAT would teach them.  Nev

Edited December 19, 2023 by facthunter

[octave]

17 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Consider this ! .

Now the ' government ' force's " compulsory " medication down out throat . Why doesn't it just terminate our, 

lives at a ' predetermined ' age . Hopefully at a much later age than " Logans Run " .

Say; in the ' next ' generation or two , when the population has surpassed ,the Earth's ability to sustain any more .

spacesailor

 

A start would be allowing people to go peacefully and at the time of their choosing, whether they have a terminal illness or not.

[spacesailor]

It's all GOD'S fault .

He gave the young , " bendy-bones, tireless energy , good ears & eye's .

EVERYTHING 

We Oldies " need. " .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

I don't think Suicide is a crime in Scotland. It was only done so you couldn't easily get out of paying your debt. Churches get into the matter by saying only Dog has the POWER to  decide when you "Give up the Ghost" although you wouldn't let a DOG suffer that way if you cared for it. The BIG threat is that you might be shamed into doing it because you aren't perceived as good for anything anymore. Well that path has been gone down by some in the Past. AFTER the Old is the gypsy's the Lame the Jews and anyone you don't like.. Nev

[spacesailor]

POLITICIANS 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Give Me strength.    Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

In various threads here we have vigorous discussion about car safety systems, rules of warfare and so on. Most are based on the modern idea that human lives are valuable and must be protected at great monetary and social cost. Any analysis of history before recent decades shows this was not true. Wars wasted millions of lives. Cars without complex safety systems caused more deaths. Miners died underground. People lived in cheap uninsulated houses.

 

The current cosseted generations expect their lives to be cotton wool protected. It is nonsense. Life was better when I could drive a VW beetle, have a few beers at a pub on Sunday before driving home, enjoy cracker night, afford an asbestos house. All the expense and constraint of the modern world do not stop people dying - there is only one way out of this world.

What an interesting perspective. Do you really think allowing drink driving makes life better? Knocking over innocent kids because you're not able to control a car thanks to voluntarily ingesting a mind bending substance? Give me a drink, hand me the keys and let me play the driving equivalent of Russian Roulette around your grandkids..  And that makes a happier life?

 

Do you really think these laws to prevent unnecessary suffering are designed to result in immortality?

 

Yes, I agree some probably go over the top and unnecessarily constrain freedoms to enjoy life.. 

 

I hope all is well and you haven't received bad news lately.

 

 

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

In Leviticus it says eat the fruit of your loins when you are besieged. and confound thine enemies with your good health.

This is what is written in the Book of Leviticus at 26:29

And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me,

then I also will walk contrary to you in fury;

and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.

 

It is a misinterpretation to say that what is written in Leviticus is a commandment to do something. In Leviticus 26: 14 to 39 Jehovah lays it on the line what will happen if the people don't  "walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them". 26:29 is what Jehovah says will happen if the people keep disobeying. By this time Jehovah will be well and truly pissed off.

 

 

[nomadpete]

58 minutes ago, old man emu said:

This is what is written in the Book of Leviticus at 26:29

And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me,

then I also will walk contrary to you in fury;

and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.

 

It is a misinterpretation to say that what is written in Leviticus is a commandment to do something. In Leviticus 26: 14 to 39 Jehovah lays it on the line what will happen if the people don't  "walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them". 26:29 is what Jehovah says will happen if the people keep disobeying. By this time Jehovah will be well and truly pissed off.

 

 

I can't see why a vengeful intolerant god would need to threaten his/her created favourite beings when he/she created every facet of those beings. It isn't a human's fault if it doesn't obey it's makers intentions. It is the makers fault.

 

The humans are operating (behaving) exactly the way they were designed to behave. Shouldn't the god just be annoyed with itself for making a faulty design?

[Litespeed]

5 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Consider this ! .

Now the ' government ' force's " compulsory " medication down out throat . Why doesn't it just terminate our, 

lives at a ' predetermined ' age . Hopefully at a much later age than " Logans Run " .

Say; in the ' next ' generation or two , when the population has surpassed ,the Earth's ability to sustain any more .

spacesailor

 

I note you seem to expect this to be okay for others ie your children and grandchildren.

 

We already have passed the sustainable level of population, that's why the planets screwed.

 

Spacey, please lead by example.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Litespeed

[Bruce Tuncks]

Spacy, please don't bump yourself off....  I like your posts too much

[Bruce Tuncks]

The carrying capacity of the planet is way too vague a notion to use it for population control, even though I believe in the idea to the extent of supporting " Sustainable Population Australia" as a political party.

[Litespeed]

Yes Bruce, it would be a blunt instrument.

 

I expect we could have 7 billion living a simple life and we might be sustainable, or  2 billion living life as rich westerners.

 

Or maybe 10 million if we all lived like billionaires, their overall consumption is incredible esp with private super yachts and jets.

 

Wealth is a huge determining factor on damage caused.

[pmccarthy]

For much of history human life has had little value. Enemies were killed in the most painful and prolonged ways. This was true for a thousand years in Constantinople, in Tudor England, in Spain during the Inquisition, and at other times and places too numerous to mention. In times of war, the policy was often for the victors to kill men, women and children, or sell them into slavery, then destroy the cities and sow salt into their fields. Pogroms in recent times, and genocides, show us that many societies have not valued human life outside their own tribe. Why do you think that our view is right and the weight of human history is wrong? If Stalin or Hitler had prevailed against the West, what would we believe today? What will our children believe in future, if our way of life falls to the Middle Eastern radicals or to Putin's schemes?

[nomadpete]

Well you are a glum lot.

Cheer up, Gaia hasn't finished with us all yet.

 

So I congratulate us all for surviving another year against all prevailing odds.

 

Merry Xmas-time to you all (and to your tribe members closest to you)

[Bruce Tuncks]

Merry xmas to you too nomadpete.

 

[onetrack]

On 19/12/2023 at 4:13 AM, pmccarthy said:

In various threads here we have vigorous discussion about car safety systems, rules of warfare and so on. Most are based on the modern idea that human lives are valuable and must be protected at great monetary and social cost. Any analysis of history before recent decades shows this was not true. Wars wasted millions of lives. Cars without complex safety systems caused more deaths. Miners died underground. People lived in cheap uninsulated houses.

 

The current cosseted generations expect their lives to be cotton wool protected. It is nonsense. Life was better when I could drive a VW beetle, have a few beers at a pub on Sunday before driving home, enjoy cracker night, afford an asbestos house. All the expense and constraint of the modern world do not stop people dying - there is only one way out of this world.

An interesting thought, and one that does produce a very large number of "pros" and "cons" in the arguments for and against.

 

Of course, the entire question revolves around the colour of your skin. In general, the darker your skin shade, the lower the value placed on your life by many people - especially those holding dictatorial powers.

 

In years gone by, the value of a persons life was relatively low, and with large families, people who were killed could be easily replaced with more family additions.

 

Wikipedia has an interesting article about the value of a life. I personally believe the value of a life has increased as our economic systems become dominated by lawyers, corporations, and accountants.

Life is measured today by pure monetary value, income-earning losses, and the cost of dealing with the deceased persons handling/care/damage they caused, and other measures.

 

My grandfather died in the early 1920's as a result of accident caused by a lack of care and regulation. He was walking to work at 5:00AM on a Winters morning in Portsmouth, Hants, and he fell into a 6m deep, unguarded, unlit, and unmarked excavation in the road.

The excavation contained some depth of freezing water (I'm not sure exactly what depth), and it was 2 or 3 hours before he was found and rescued.

 

He was 83 yrs old at the time, and he incurred pneumonia from the cold and immersion, and died as a result. Of course, antibiotics were unknown then, too, so the medical staff had no way to treat the pneumonia.

The family got no compensation for his death as the laws of the time didn't place any liability on the owners or constructors of the excavation to warn the general public of the danger. There was more thoughtlessness about in those days, too.

 

One could say my grandfather had lived a long and worthwhile life (he had 10 children), and his natural death was likely soon, anyway. That may be so, but he could've lived to 100, too, as he was apparently a very fit man and to still be working (he was an industrial chemist for a coal tar company) at age 83 was testament to his virility and usefulness. No doubt the coal tar company incurred some costs and losses in replacing him.

 

I guess the bottom line is - there's not a lot of value in a humans life when it only takes a couple of minutes of enthusiastic sexual activity to produce a new one! - which is what a very large proportion of the world does every day!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by onetrack

[spacesailor]

Lead by example. 

I do !.

That's why I don't get a  " solar subsidy " , our bills are too small .

I keep my vehicles too long . Then I repair everything I can .

spacesailor

 

[pmccarthy]

I think the Israelis have about got it right.

[Litespeed]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I think the Israelis have about got it right.

Can you extrapolate that for us?

 

Truly interested.

[onetrack]

Just eliminate anyone who offends you? That's straight out of the Nazis and the Mafia playbook.

[pmccarthy]

Depends whether you want to win and survive. The allies would not have won WW2 without destroying much of the industrial capacity of Germany, with tremendous civilian collateral damage. Ditto Japan and the atomic bombs. It is Putin's policy too, he knows what he thinks has to be done in Ukraine. The Israelis know it too, they are certainly no worse than these examples.

 

Placing a high value on human life is a recent, possibly Western, construct. It is part of the Christian faith, but Christians have always been at the forefront of execution, torture and mass slaughter. We in Australia have the great luxury of having destroyed a majority of the previous inhabitants a long time ago, without subsequent wars on our soil. Most countries have more recent experience of war, famine and death.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I can't disagree the value of human life is more or less a western construct but I would suggest it is a relative term and that it is at least a few centuries old In studying English and Welsh laws, at least in non-wartime, the courts were very much aware of the value of life. I understand OT's grandfather did not receive redress, but I would be very surprised if he was not able to pursue redress under the law of tort as there have been similar cases where redress was available that happened in the mid 1800s. There is the concept of not being able to sue in the public interest where government departments and agencies are concerned, but even then, it was narrow, and on what OT described, the local council would not have been able to avoid it. I wonder if it was that the exercise of those rights and therefore the attribution of value of life was only available to the very wealthy?

 

As society has progressed, the recognition that the value should be more applicable to all members of society has prevailed.

 

I agree it is a predominantly western concept. Just look at some of the more conservative societies, Even in Australia, Pakistani parents of an 18 year old girl were jailed for life because they killed her for not accepting an arranged marriage. In India - their caste system devalues lives of some and values lives of others; In South America, it is relatively lawless. Africa and Asia? Some value life and others absolutely don't.

 

Is life over-valued? I think it is subjective. But it can be a vexing question. When my father took ill and was on a life support system in intensive care, in the third  week, the ICU doctor sat us down and said they can keep him alive forever, but at some point a decision has to be made. I can honestly it was one of the most gut-wrenching moments of my life. His life was certainly valuable to my brother and i, but so was the quality of his life. We spoke to the consultant who said my father  came through, which was a big if, my father lived more than three months he would eat his hat. I said they don't know what a stubborn old bastard he is, and as we don't know his wishes, let's wait and see. Well, within a week he was out of ICU and he ended up living another 4 years. And those 4 years, while weakened slightly, still gave him quality of life; he continued to drive (he was such a bad driver, there was no discernible difference), lived an independent and relatively active life; he would tire more easily, but he wasn't holding you up walking behind him. The consultant developed and affinity to my father, and at the funeral, I offered him a hat.

 

The ICU doctor was valuing what the remainder of his life would have been against freeing up resources for the next person. And I get that; to her, his life was not quite as valuable as to us; and I think objectively, in my father's case, that extra investment was worth the value of an extra four years of a happy life.. if we was to be in a vegetative state, I would have said it wasn't. But I get if other people think differently, but I wouldn't think differently it it was someone else's father or brother or sister or mother or friend, etc.

 

But I think as society has progressed and our understanding of things such as asbestos, smoking, etc, has taught us these things are not bad, substituting them to preserve health and allow us to lead happier, healthier, and hopefully longer lives is objectively a good thing and does not over-value life - I think it values life as worthy of living well.. It makes life better for all of us.. The question is finding the balance.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

I'm not sure about the English and Welsh laws valuing life. Up to the late 18th century people were still being executed for small thefts, there was a long list of capital crimes. Transportation was the alternative when available.

[facthunter]

To me the answer to thinking life has little value is would you like to live in such places?   Nev