A cleansing [rar]

[K. A. Pital]

For pete's sake, you're going totally off. Human rights are measurable, but that is not the same thing as "objective". Natural material consupmtion is objective because it exists independent of human perception (human consumes resource X), but human rights were developed by humans. Things like healthcare werent always there, neither was there the right to live, to receive education, etc. Human rights were created by humans through psychologically perceived needs. And no, human rights are not bare biological needs. Bare biological needs are enough food and sleep.

No, because number of people meeting the DHR makes me happy.

Exactly as I predicted. Subjectivism triumphant.

So what is your argument then huh, the most material consumption for the most number of people would make the most people happy?

I never even used the fucking word "happy" anywhere. But yes, there are people whose moral code postulates that maximal material consumption gives the most possible happiness. Is that news to you? I'm not one of them, so? I merely said that there are moral codes, which you or I may find repugnant, which allow for such measures from an inner-logical point of view.

Not necessarily given they would have to kill or sterlize, violating our hardwired altriusm

Altruism is not hardwired into everyone, thus my point still stands that moral codes exist for other people which may wish to destroy the over-optimum humans to achieve the most possible material consumption. Why do you bring it up anyway? It's irrelevant for the discussion. I merely said that there are moral codes which allowed hypothetically for the extinction of humans - if that would not have caused a decrease in material consumption.

[brianeyci]

I never even used the fucking word "happy" anywhere.

Thank you for showing that you didn't even understand what you wrote. Utilitarianism is based on the concept of happy and unhappy, pleasure and pain. The idea that you have to promote happiness and prevent unhappiness is the basic definition of utilitarianism. My contention that altriusim is hardwired into human beings isn't subjective at all, nor is the idea of human rights. Just because it wasn't there before doesn't mean it was fine before, it just means it wasn't there.

I bring it up because this discussion seems pointless. You wanted it, more economic discussion but then it gets bogged down in defining "well-being" all over again like I predicted. Guess what, your apple conundrum I solved in junior kindergarten. I realized I could keep my apple for myself, but if I gave a piece to someone else I would be more happy. I promote happiness and prevent unhappiness. You lose.

But again like I said this entire digression was unnecessary, given enough discussion of economics was talked about on the first reply.

[K. A. Pital]

Thank you for showing that you didn't even understand what you wrote. Utilitarianism is based on the concept of happy and unhappy, pleasure and pain. The idea that you have to promote happiness and prevent unhappiness is the basic definition of utilitarianism.

Then I have been misintroduced to utilitarian morals. I remember Rye saying that as a utilitiarian, the death of some random person means much less than the death of a pet. If utilitarianism is about maximizing personal happiness, then what I said about a moral code which links it directly to the available material consumption stands, and there can be people for whom such a moral code exists and for whom this type of utilitarianism would be valid. It would not be you, or me, but persons like this most certainly exist.

My contention that altriusim is hardwired into human beings isn't subjective at all

It's objective that there are altruistic instincts. Their role in determining behaviour of various individuals is what's contended. One person may be strongly affected. Another may not give a fuck. Altruistic instincts are not that strong to totally affect the psyche of all humans in decision making. Otherwise we'd live in altruist humanity. I mean, would a person drived by altruistic instincts really plan to wipe out humanity in a nuclear exchange? These plans existed and could've potentially come to pass. They're much more violent than the contended sterilization. So assuming that there could not have been people for whom the decision to sterilize would be moral is wrong.

nor is the idea of human rights. Just because it wasn't there before doesn't mean it was fine before, it just means it wasn't there.

What is "fine"? Human rights as concepts were molded by human perception of what he personally has the right to. Is that not obvious to you?

[brianeyci]

So assuming that there could not have been people for whom the decision to sterilize would be moral is wrong.

Of course there are sick twisted fucks who would like nothing more than all of humanity to be their slaves. They would like a 200 woman harem, service at their fingertips, sit around having grapes dropped in their mouth and have underage children suck their cock and call them master.

That's not the point. My point in case you missed it was that altruism is hardwired into biology. Using the most people being happy concept, which last time I checked was utilitarnism (the complete opposite of egoism, it's not my fault you didn't know what it was or had it badly explained to you) then it's clear that the most people would be happy if the most other people would be happy. Humans are slow, have no natural weapons and are completely helpless for years. Our instincts are to work in groups, to help each other strive for similar goals, to be happy when other people are happy. Big deal, this is news for you? If you do not use instinct, then what do you use for some subjective measure of happiness? "The most people are happy if the most people have the most material wealth" is clearly a false premise and I couldn't give a shit whether you are playing devil's advocate or whether you really believed it.

I asked that well-being be defined by mathematics in one of two ways : 1. maximum number of people who can have the most income per capita and 2. maximum number of people who meet basic living conditions and you reject both of those premises. I am done here since it seems you want an endless debate over a problem that any half-wit can solve in seconds instead of a conclusive debate with ground rules. Your "problem" with the two apples and three people was childish, and you seem to be saying nothing except the obvious. As I predicted.

[Uraniun235]

Humans are slow, have no natural weapons and are completely helpless for years.

I seem to recall reading that one of our natural advantages is long-distance running; that while we may not be able to out-sprint many other animals, we could out-last them and eventually wear them down to exhaustion, at which point we could catch up and bash their head in with a rock or something.

[brianeyci]

Humans are slow, have no natural weapons and are completely helpless for years.

I seem to recall reading that one of our natural advantages is long-distance running; that while we may not be able to out-sprint many other animals, we could out-last them and eventually wear them down to exhaustion, at which point we could catch up and bash their head in with a rock or something.

Hey you're right.

Anyway Stats no hard feelings, I just don't know why you went "not enough economics!" when there wasn't even any need to talk about it. Maybe it's the nature of the topic that got me all riled up, but oh well you're wrong about the economics, you can't even take the scenario at face value because destruction like the op says would be bad for economies. If you want to talk about population control or the optimal number of people on the Earth that would have the highest standard of living, that's an entirely different issue, and I see no point talking about it unless there's some kind of numbers.

[K. A. Pital]

If you want to talk about population control or the optimal number of people on the Earth that would have the highest standard of living, that's an entirely different issue, and I see no point talking about it unless there's some kind of numbers.

You could technically calculate this standard and it's relationship to the number of humans: it's just that neither you or I have enough data and computing powers to do it. So yes, further discussion is worthless. If utilitarianism is the opposite of egoism, I find it strange that so many people revel in egoism which supposedly gives them happiness - but perhaps I am wrong.