There is no such thing as poverty, folks.

[Anonymous]

...and if poverty does exist, it's called the default human condition. We are born on this planet with nothing except parents who raise us out their own voluntary goodwill.

Over the past tens of thousands of years, 'poverty' has worked very well for the human species. We rose from our primitive shelters, spent hours chasing game to feed ourselves or decided to harvest nuts and berries on a whim. However, most of all we WERE happy with these basic lives. We never felt entitled to anything more since we were born with the ability to sustain ourselves.

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery: to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

Life does not function like this. Most organisms do not engage in forced parasitism but symbiotic and voluntary relationships that absolutely advocate freewill on all parts. Birds do not engage in flocks nor mating rituals under gun-enforced mandates nor do wolves hunt in packs under the threat of injury or death. They do so because it is in the nature and freewill -- and remain it shall.

However, when it comes to us, Man has nearly reduced itself entirely to a ball and chain for its survival. Is this what we really want for our species? Do we really want to be the laughing stock of nature? A species that can only function under a constant ambiance of violence?

I'm done here.

[1713525842]

1713525842

[Basiley]

also there is no spoon.

p.s.
we're heard that kind of scientific fascism and being victims of corresponding eugenics "tweaks", for [countless]ages.
so, no, im not buy that. nor sell.

[whackedspinach]

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery: to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

While I agree with your post, I think the rotting in a ditch is a bit dramatic.  Where do the guns come in?  The government isn't actually going to shoot you (at least in the US) if you don't pay taxes.

[Anonymous]

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery: to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

While I agree with your post, I think the rotting in a ditch is a bit dramatic.  Where do the guns come in?  The government isn't actually going to shoot you (at least in the US) if you don't pay taxes.

If you refuse to submit to their audits and their imprisonment, they will inevitably kill you.

[nostrum]

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery: to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

By this are you then saying that those who advocate human rights are advocating slavery?

[Anonymous]

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery: to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

By this are you then saying that those who advocate human rights are advocating slavery?

The only right that can be defended without condoning slavery is an individual's right to themselves.

[whackedspinach]

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery: to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

While I agree with your post, I think the rotting in a ditch is a bit dramatic.  Where do the guns come in?  The government isn't actually going to shoot you (at least in the US) if you don't pay taxes.

If you refuse to submit to their audits and their imprisonment, they will inevitably kill you.

Ah, well yes.  If I fight back I suppose I might end up with a bullet in my head.

[AntiVigilante]

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery: to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

While I agree with your post, I think the rotting in a ditch is a bit dramatic.  Where do the guns come in?  The government isn't actually going to shoot you (at least in the US) if you don't pay taxes.

Ruby Ridge.
Kent State.
Waco.
Don't taze me, bro.
Ed and Elaine.
Student loans and SWAT.

What won't they shoot you for?

[benjamindees]

I'm guessing, even though you seem to be some sort of eugenecist, that this post means you don't find the reproductive traits particular to the class Mammalia particularly beneficial?

[hugolp]

I'm guessing, even though you seem to be some sort of eugenecist, that this post means you don't find the reproductive traits particular to the class Mammalia particularly beneficial?

Are you aware that the progressive founders were eugenicists (also Keynes) and the free market supporters were against it?

[benjamindees]

I am.  And I use "eugenecist" in the loosest possible way.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

...and if poverty does exist, it's called the default human condition. We are born on this planet with nothing except parents who raise us out their own voluntary goodwill.

And the law/society/government-- neglect is still illegal.

Over the past tens of thousands of years, 'poverty' has worked very well for the human species.

It is relative, just as being rich is. Here's where your analysis begins to break down.

We rose from our primitive shelters, spent hours chasing game to feed ourselves or decided to harvest nuts and berries on a whim.

Ah, idealized history. My favorite.

However, most of all we WERE happy with these basic lives.

Evidence, please.

We never felt entitled to anything more since we were born with the ability to sustain ourselves.

WE REQUIRE MORE VESPINE GAS EVIDENCE

To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery

Nice rhetoric.

to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor

Read up on social contractualism-- the only reason anybody helps anybody else, or is obliged to, is because everybody is expected to.

who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.

It isn't your choice, just as many things aren't your choice. I'm always wondering why people are so hasty to demand that they have absolute autonomy over what they do, wherein they lack that for most choices--what makes this one special?

Life does not function like this.

Generalized idealized claims about nature that aren't substantiated? I'm so surprised.

Most organisms do not engage in forced parasitism[/qupte]
Forced parasitism is redundant.

but symbiotic and voluntary relationships that absolutely advocate freewill on all parts.

If by engaging in photosynthesis without any sentience, and by getting mauled by a wolf, you mean freewill, yeah, you're wrong. A large hunk of animals don't engage with other animals except to kill them.

Birds do not engage in flocks nor mating rituals under gun-enforced mandates nor do wolves hunt in packs under the threat of injury or death.

This presumes that they have sentience/free will, and given the contested state that it has in human beings, I don't think the underlying premise is provable.

They do so because it is in the nature and freewill -- and remain it shall.

Nature isn't some indestructible, immutable substance or concept. The definition of what is natural and thus good has changed over time. You use of the word makes it seem as if it is some transhistorical value that e'rebody and their gerbil has access to. This isn't the case-- it is a historically based, and sociologically influenced idea.

Btw, read up on free will debates before you go invoking it.

However, when it comes to us, Man has nearly reduced itself entirely to a ball and chain for its survival.

Why does everything else doing something necessitate us having to do it as well? Certain things are a necessity, but I'm wondering why we have to act just like the animals do. Presuming, for a second, that we have free will, and they do as well(which has been the only thing besides nature = good that you've argued) what in that argument necessitates us behaving like them?

Is this what we really want for our species? Do we really want to be the laughing stock of nature?

You're either misunderstanding Nietzsche, or misunderstanding the fact that nobody cares about what humanity is/becomes outside of ourselves, at least until we discover sentient life elsewhere.

A species that can only function under a constant ambiance of violence?

/Sigh, cause altruism doesn't exist.

I'm done here.

I noticed when the post ended.

[Bimmerhead]

Life does not function like this. Most organisms do not engage in forced parasitism but symbiotic and voluntary relationships that absolutely advocate freewill on all parts. Birds do not engage in flocks nor mating rituals under gun-enforced mandates nor do wolves hunt in packs under the threat of injury or death. They do so because it is in the nature and freewill -- and remain it shall.

And it amazes me one concludes this sprang up fully functional from the primordial goo.  Randomly.

And if it all is random, and is returning to nothing, why waste time talking about it or trying to make it better?  For on what basis would we define 'better' anyway?

[Anonymous]

Life does not function like this. Most organisms do not engage in forced parasitism but symbiotic and voluntary relationships that absolutely advocate freewill on all parts. Birds do not engage in flocks nor mating rituals under gun-enforced mandates nor do wolves hunt in packs under the threat of injury or death. They do so because it is in the nature and freewill -- and remain it shall.

For on what basis would we define 'better' anyway?

This is what this whole board is fighting about. You're right. There is very little value to gain from this besides the exchange of perspectives.

[Bimmerhead]

That's why I'm glad it isn't random.

[AntiVigilante]

And the law/society/government-- neglect is still illegal.

Who gives a shit if it's illegal? I take care because it's the right thing to do.

We rose from our primitive shelters, spent hours chasing game to feed ourselves or decided to harvest nuts and berries on a whim.

Ah, idealized history. My favorite.

However, most of all we WERE happy with these basic lives.

Evidence, please.

You truly need to get over yourself.

Read up on social contractualism-- the only reason anybody helps anybody else, or is obliged to, is because everybody is expected to.

Social contractualism is for cowards who can't hoose without the hive.

I'm always wondering why people are so hasty to demand that they have absolute autonomy over what they do, wherein they lack that for most choices--what makes this one special?

People create choices for themselves by getting ahead of the curve. They want autonomy so that they can have more energy for their own evolution and the improvement of their neighborhood. Your social straitjacket drains communities of vitality for security they can't afford to achieve because the system drain their resources so much.

This presumes that they have sentience/free will, and given the contested state that it has in human beings, I don't think the underlying premise is provable.

You can't walk straight without self-awareness.

Btw, read up on free will debates before you go invoking it.

Get up slowly. Step away from the desk. Go for a walk in the woods, alone, for a whole day.

You're either misunderstanding Nietzsche, or misunderstanding the fact that nobody cares about what humanity is/becomes outside of ourselves, at least until we discover sentient life elsewhere.

I'll take Plato, Machiavelli, and Leibnitz over Aristotle, Sarpi, and Newton any day of the week.

Sigh, cause altruism doesn't exist.

Altruism is its own disproof. Sentience exists, but I am feeling a bit of a draft in the room.

I noticed when the post ended.

You are fucking tedious.

[Jaime Frontero]

...and if poverty does exist, it's called the default human condition. We are born on this planet with nothing except parents who raise us out their own voluntary goodwill.

mmmm.

one of these days, you might want to spend a little time correlating statistics on poverty and birthrate.

it's almost enough to get one to the conclusion that good will has little to do with it.  children could actually (from a macro, evolutionary perspective) have more to do with a retirement plan than with the warm fuzzies...

[benjamindees]

You mean from the perspective of most of human history in which natural resources were effectively unlimited and children were forced to work for the family's benefit?

[Perof]

Didn't read op, not going to read your reply in the other thread.

Simply posting to tell you that while ignorance may or may not be bliss.

Poverty kills people. Every. Single. Day.

Sure, the cause of death : poverty. it isn't, but old age isn't real as well

coincidentally the people with more money surrounded by people with higher economic standing live longer

...


Unlike the child prostitutes in your area

they won't live very long that's practically a guarantee

nothing personal <3

[Jaime Frontero]

You mean from the perspective of most of human history in which natural resources were effectively unlimited and children were forced to work for the family's benefit?

not really - although you are correct as far as the change in resources.  but children were family - and weren't so much forced (by family...), as just a part of the chain of life.  there have always been good cultures in which to be a child - and bad ones.  non-family child labor is a different conversation though.

today however, it's not that much different.  where there's poverty, there's higher birthrates - even discounting the child mortality rate.  they pay off the debt of rearing with care for the elderly, and expect the same in their time.

* shrug *  we're not really as much like that anymore, in the US, as we were.  maybe it's resources?