0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 11:36:14We have such lists, from general heath and safety requirements not to create hazardous working conditions, speed limits, and environmental pollution laws.What do you think about vaccine mandate, safety belt for car driver, or helmet for motorcyclists?
We have such lists, from general heath and safety requirements not to create hazardous working conditions, speed limits, and environmental pollution laws.
It is a reasonable conclusion from the observation of evolution, that "normal" behavior, i.e. that which is statistically the norm, is generally beneficial to the species and by Bayesian principles, is also a priori that which is most likely to benefit the individual (except for bees).
It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.
Anyone who refuses vaccination (other than on genuine medical grounds) should be treated as a social outcast and a potential threat to everyone else. Segregation of conscientious objectors in a time of conflict is perfectly normal in a civilised society, and accepted by those who object. No reason to change the principle when the enemy is a virus.
2. Safety belts have significantly reduced the impact of motoring on emergency and rehabilitation medical services but also the availability of cadaver organs for transplant. Now there's a better moral conundrum than any runaway trolley!
Artificial organs are expensive and unreliable.
Human cadaver organs are free waste products, with millions of years of R&D behind them.
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/12/2021 11:13:55It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.What do you expect to happen if humans go extinct in near future?Will other species that survive stay how they are now indefinitely? Will some of them evolve to replace the ecological niche left out by humans? Will they follow the path of human evolution and develop science and technology? Will they repeat humans' mistakes? What makes you sure that they will be wiser?
The questions have been answered by the Chernobyl "experiment" I mentioned earlier. Re-wilding happens quite quickly in the absence of humans and we can observe the rebalancing of the ecology in real time.
The problem with humans is their ability to invent obstacles to progress, like religion and politics, and the fact that they measure progress by their ability to survive in hostile environments, whilst intelligent animals just stay where the climate suits them, and enjoy life.
"Human level consciousness", if it means anything, is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies.
Not sure what you mean by the "great filter".
The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.[1][2]The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universe implies that something is wrong with one or more of the arguments (from various scientific disciplines) that the appearance of advanced intelligent life is probable; this observation is conceptualized in terms of a "Great Filter" which acts to reduce the great number of sites where intelligent life might arise to the tiny number of intelligent species with advanced civilizations actually observed (currently just one: human).[3] This probability threshold, which could lie behind us (in our past) or in front of us (in our future), might work as a barrier to the evolution of intelligent life, or as a high probability of self-destruction.[1][4] The main counter-intuitive conclusion of this argument is that the easier it was for life to evolve to our stage, the bleaker our future chances probably are.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.
The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.
Quote from: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 00:31:54"Human level consciousness", if it means anything, is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies. I've proposed it's definition as the ability to determine one's own future. What makes you think that human's consciousness is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies?
Quote from: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 00:31:54There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.Does the sun alive?