Definitions of life, population/s & health, conspiracies

(Note from user Capable: this topic was split from the topic "Group ethics & selective "unfitness"", located here)

Aleatory wrote:

Where the black hole of physics is supposedly born from a collapsing star, I theorize our ethical black hole is born from (though now only an incipient form) the collapse of the natural order; an attempted hiatus from aeons of evolutionary engineering, a moratorium from the harsher side-effects of natural selection (or more like double interest but no payments for a century).

Excellent analogy.

But my way is to step over the mountain of past thought, beyond the Sea of turmoil to a place of inevitable future, then mark a path from there back to the present, thus avoiding the need for such mass calamity and horrendous and endless conflict and noise.

Aleatory wrote:

I ask you: Is preserving life inherently good? I’ll neglect the more ambiguous issue of genetic decadence and ask of our burgeoning, soon to be (if not already) turgid, population: what of them? Death, War, Famine and Pestilence: man has systematically domesticated not himself but the four horsemen. This is indeed a black hole that I will need hours to write something I’ll be satisfied with, but let us run through this ethical singularity with a fine-toothed comb and see where we arrive…if you feel so inclined.

Very precisely define exactly what Life is, imagine a means to ensure that such an entity is everlasting in its form, and you will have answered that question.

To stay on population for a moment, I’d like to know your proposition (as I assume you’re well aware that we’re at—or just below—7 billion right now and projected to exceed 10 billion by 2055 and the medical, social, political and economic issues this causes—especially when considering the ubiquitous computerization/mechanization of industry—I’ll spare you the sermon)…how do you plan to combat this, or do you just wait for it to solve itself by running full steam ahead into the growth cap where we can no longer house, employ, provide medical attention for, feed, educate, etc. a substantial (more so than at present) body of the populous? There’s only so many free condoms you can hand out…

But honestly, I’d be very interested to hear some ideas, as most of mine are…not something I’d like to do.

And of life, I think the answer is: Inherently? No. As you pointed out, life is alchemical in that some must be lost for another to gain. So another approach to the question would be that the preservation of life should be regarded discursively, which still is somewhat like contending that the preservation of life isn't inherently good.

Aleatory wrote:

To stay on population for a moment, I’d like to know your proposition (as I assume you’re well aware that we’re at—or just below—7 billion right now and projected to exceed 10 billion by 2055 and the medical, social, political and economic issues this causes—especially when considering the ubiquitous computerization/mechanization of industry—I’ll spare you the sermon)…how do you plan to combat this, or do you just wait for it to solve itself by running full steam ahead into the growth cap where we can no longer house, employ, provide medical attention for, feed, educate, etc. a substantial (more so than at present) body of the populous? There’s only so many free condoms you can hand out…

But honestly, I’d be very interested to hear some ideas, as most of mine are…not something I’d like to do.

And of life, I think the answer is: Inherently? No. As you pointed out, life is alchemical in that some must be lost for another to gain. So another approach to the question would be that the preservation of life should be regarded discursively, which still is somewhat like contending that the preservation of life isn't inherently good.

Always take care to consider the False Flag, the over emphasis of a specific possible target/cause so as to request and receive authority to control the situation.

In the 1960's it was clear that the population growth rate was merely 2.5:2.0, 2.5 children per set of parents. Yet the emphasis has been that the population is expanding exponentially at incredible rates and thus.. "we, the government, must institute control measures."

The truth is that every life form on the planet loses incentive toward reproduction as soon as it senses harmony in its life. Cut a branch from a tree that was merely beginning to bud, and the buds suddenly race to complete their endeavor to spawn seed. The threat of death is the more fundamental cause of the urge to reproduce, ask any Nietzschean. Remove the perception of need, and there is no effort to meet. Does a natural creature long for food if it feels no hunger?

Yet look at what has been promoted since the 1960's; sex, promiscuity, sexual rights, father's obligation to pay both the state and the children's mother, government control mechanisms for the rampant sex rage that magically never actually stop it.

So my first comment and note is that you have accepted a "clear and present danger" that is a False Flag, created so as to bring this very conversation of how the government should handle this "emergency".

I have already spelled out my solution. The Constitution of Rational Harmony inherently takes away the incentive to reproduce more than one can manage. And it does it without oppressive government or having to chose who lives or is exterminated for sake of an imagined future utopia under supreme rule.

The government's preferred answer is;
"life is alchemical in that some must be lost for another to gain. So another approach to the question would be that the preservation of life should be regarded discursively, which still is somewhat like contending that the preservation of life isn't inherently good. So what really matters is evolution of the species, our (not your) specifically chosen design of future life"

Lust for Domination, Evolution, and Mutations.

If they cannot see the firmament in the clouds of rampant chaos, they cannot blame it for our reign.

Two simple questions in one;

What is the incentive and fears of Eugenics?

A) Incentive - Control of all Life (thus promote the need; "False Flag")
B) Fears - That people will blame us for our designed changes. (thus create a cloud of changes/mutations to hide in)

But then what are the highest notions concerning the "proper Utopian society for Life"?
Socialism/Communism;
Total control of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie - even their genomes.

Health by designation of the State?
Survival of the Fitted?

.

I’m skeptical of bringing conspiracy theory into discussion predicated on accurate information, for if we are to take the conspiracy as plausible (any conspiratorial, clandestine, collusive act by the government) all information is rendered as equally true and false and all discussion thus made aleatory, hypothetical and more or less a form of intellectual masturbation. I say this because you are either speaking of just the US (where I am talking of the world) or are implying a ‘world government’. If just the US, I would feel obligated to point out a country whose judicial government is in utter imbroglio over a relatively innocuous issue such as abortion would be the last to enact totalitarian measures of population control—remember the outrage over China’s one-child policy? I'll analyze just the US situation in detail for now. If we are to believe the US government is feeding us nothing but agitprop, that figures from the Census Bureau etc. are wholly false, then by all means we should cease this discussion immediately to avoid otiose banter[1]. If however you think the Census Bureau may have some semblance of accuracy, you may want to read the following paragraph. Otherwise, simply skip to the 3rd and 4th.

2.5 is not a rate deserving of the term ‘merely’. If you have 100 couples, each of which has an average of 2.5 children, your succeeding generation (this hypothetical first group of offspring) will be 250 in number. They follow suit, so your 2nd generation numbers 625. By the 5th generation you’re already at 9765.625. The logistics of demographic predictions are obviously more complex than that: you must incorporate birth rate weighted by infant mortality v. death, emigration v. immigration, life expectancy, etc. almost all of which have inherent margins of error. However, from the CIA’s 2010 numbers, using just the factors listed above, we can generate a relatively accurate figure. A birth rate of 13.5/1,000 weighted by an infant mortality of 6.22 deaths/1,000 live births gives us a birth rate of 13.42/1,000. Subtracting migrants (4.32/1,000), (we’ll add the legally documented immigrants momentarily), and subtracting deaths (8.38/1,000) we still have a positive number (though admittedly small). Multiplying that figure by the 2010 census and adding the legally documented immigrants[2] gives you a ball park estimate of 1,258,746 net additional lives. This is, however, an incomplete analysis. Contrary to what I generated (about .41%) the actual 2010 US growth rate was .97% (2,994,831) —a far cry from the 2.5 you labeled ‘merely’. Still, just under 3 million additional lives in a single year is not to be taken lightly. Extrapolating that rate annually gives us 311,740,369 for 2012; 320,900,292 for 2015; 336,768,831 for 2020; 353,422,072 for 2025; 370,898,816 for 2030; 389,239,786 for 2035; and breaking 400 million in 2038 with 400,676,888 (the US Census Bureau projects 439 million in 2050). That’s at the lowest birth rate in a century. Now when you start to factor in things I’ve already mentioned such as medicinal supplies, the relegation of labor to computerization, housing, sustenance, etc. with a country in economic decline and no signs of improving, this appears as hardly a ‘false flag’.

I’m curious about your contending that life stops reproducing when “it senses harmony in its life.” I can see where you may say this from an angle of ascetic spirituality (we are transcendent, our goal is nirvana and thus we are freed from all burdens of the flesh) but I’m not sure why you think this applies to man and further how this presupposes a ‘natural solution’ to the population issue (you have yet to substantiate your claim that it is merely a false flag, a simulacrum). This issue is compounded by the double articulation of love—its content (emotion) and expres​sion(sex)—wherein the physical expression is deterritorialized, becoming at once both an expression of love and reproduction. My point is that I find it difficult to enlist axiomatics for an inherently discursive, and more over, theoretical position. Because I am not an amoeba, I can’t say if it even has the ability to sense harmony, let alone whether the relative state of such determines my reproductive instinct.

Your addition to my statement that you quoted shows you completely misinterpreted—or vitiated through some application of conspiratorial implications—what I was contending. “So what really matters is evolution of the species, our (not your) specifically chosen design of future life” in no way factors into my point here, and indeed I may note a trend from the reason this thread was made in the first place (to discuss your arguably invective denouncement of a few sentences of mine—to which the applicability of at least two of your objections were predicated on the misinterpretation of my words—in a separate tread dedicated to the tangent topic). The point I was attempting to convey is of the discursive nature of value judgments on something as variable as the multiplicities of life. In other words, that there can be no axiomatic answer to the question “Is it inherently good to preserve a life?”—that every case is incommensurable, digressing for instance to instance, strata to strata—ergo discursive. I say alchemical because life is certainly that. In order for you to continue living, other entities experiencing the qualitative state of life must necessarily forfeit that state.

[1]I tolerate conspiracy theorists about as much as creationist Christians; they’re interesting to listen to for about five minutes but attempting extensive discourse is inadvisable. Point being, your implication of—in the US?—approval of full on eugenics being disseminated surreptitiously, subliminally by the Government just doesn’t coalesce with any trends in the juridico-social infrastructure, unless of course you’d care to provide convincing citations. Now I’m in no way declaring you to be a conspiracy theorist; I’m merely noting an afflux in your ideas.

[2] 1,042,625, Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics: 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics

Aleatory wrote:

I tolerate conspiracy theorists about as much as creationist Christians; they’re interesting to listen to for about five minutes but attempting extensive discourse is inadvisable.

Therein lies the issue. You have already prejudiced your perception. If you didn't do that, you would have seen that in these presented "conspiracy theories", the USA hasn't been the focus at all, merely a point of origin for many aspects. The UK and Israel play a heavy part in that origination, but Iraq was the current center for the DU radiation problem. The GMO displacement of foods is world wide and significant in Europe. Neither can be stopped by political borders.

This issue was raised by Capable's concern of a government healthcare system. Thus it only makes sense to see what a government views as "health". Everything I have presented is strictly focused on that issue. I presented what health actually means in the sense of a harmony of a system, your life. I have now presented only a small portion of what governments around the world have already decided is "the proper state of health". As Bill Gates recently announced, "science has shown us that it is immediately urgent that we substantially reduce the population" even though Science has absolutely no means for actually doing that.

If the population is to be immediately and substantially reduced, it only makes sense that we see by what means it would be reduced "for sake of health". How can you justly ignore conspiracy theory? The truth is that no nation has ever risen without substantial conspiracy being its backbone. In light of the 800,000 agents of Homeland Security legally required to keep all activities secret, how can anyone be dubbed a "conspiracy theorist"? The conspiracy is not only legally required, but very well proven to exist, thus hardly a mere theory. But of course, in the eyes of the intolerant, such obvious facts are at best merely wild guesses because they (you) have no tolerance with which to examine the evidence.

So okay. You don't want to see or hear anything but what you preach. How would this then constitute a "discussion"?

Do you want for me to just accept your statistic of which I am already aware and go along without counterpoint or objection? I am seriously not the guy for that. I am a solution seeker, a "trouble-shooter", seeking resolution to even the most condemning of realities. I don't look for existing dominations with whom I can join, but rather I look for unresolved problems that might have hope.

You are skeptical of conspiracy theories and should be to a degree. I am skeptical of same-ole-same-ole preachings of how all people should go along with this dominating, "lets surrender to our masters" thought.

Frankly, I would have no problem surrendering to those masters if I could find even one of them that seemed to actually understand even WHAT life is, not even hoping that they could comprehend how to manage it to the advantage of life instead of trying to dictate it. Life WILL NOT be dictated, else it is not life.

Life happens to have a rather unique properly, somewhat mystical in that it defies entropy and does so beyond anything else. It does not need to be dictated to by the small minds of men. It will, once cornered, remove those men and go its merry way with or without homosapian. At least Life knows what health means.

So go ahead, preach your speech. But stop asking questions if you don't want the answers.

Firstly, if we are to discuss something, please do me the favor of dropping the erroneous presumption on my intentions and your generally bellicose attitude. If you wish to quarrel, I want nothing to do with it. That said I will address each paragraph as a numerical point:

I) Who is it precisely that you are addressing? To my knowledge, I have yet to comment on depleted uranium.

II) DU ammunition is not a statement on various governments definition of health. It’s a statement of myopic/unethical wartime practices.

III) I said nothing of immediate reduction of the population. What I think are necessary are methods to reduce the rate of growth.

IV) I clearly state that I would like you to instantiate your points. My objection is not to another perspective but to one that is composed only of claims with no supporting evidence provided. I’m asking you to give me a reason to believe that what you’re saying is accurate. Is that wrong to ask of a discussion?

V) If you’re already aware of the Census Bureau’s statistics and you find that evidence inadmissible to the point of labeling the issue of population growth as a false flag, then I have no evidence to back my claims with and thus any point I make would be pure conjecture. Because I entertain some semblance of intellectual honesty, I’m not going to contend a point on something as paramount as this issue is on pure conjecture. I asked for solutions and you said “there’s no problem”.

VI) Again with the straw man—and I cringe to have to use that term. What exactly is “same-ole-same-ole” about what I am saying, and where am I talking of dominating? Sure, I’ve mentioned some possible methods that could be accurately construed as dominating, but I in know way extolled them; quite the contrary.

VII) I’m not sure where this “master” issue applies to what I’m talking about.

VIII) Please provide some sort of comprehensible exegesis here.

IX) Refer to the last sentence of section V.