[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')That limitless resource is love.

[mercurygirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'A')nd as I said in the previous posting, love is an unlimited resource, a positive-sum game. Though you may only have one spouse or partner, you can still have love for all members of your family both nuclear and extended, and for all of your friends and others who are near to you. Your love for your son does not diminish your love for your daughter. Your love of one friend does not diminish your love for another friend. In fact they are additive: each contributes to the others and strengthens them.

If we are seeking a place in our lives where we may exercise limitlessness without bringing about overshoot and dieoff, this is the place. Consumption is not limitless, nor is reproduction, nor is power, nor is thuggery. Love is limitless, as learning is limitless.

[threadbear]

The challenges of future resource depletion, demand that we reinforce our higher ideals, not undermine them. Every progressive social step forward, from the abolition of slavery, to the creation of a humane society for the proper treatment of pets, has been motivated by empathy and concern. In the developed world, human compassion for polar bears could do almost as much to reduce green house gas emissions as our personal fear of recent storms and floods.

We've come a remarkably long way, as a society, in terms of sensitivity. Recreating social norms that would put us all at risk of violence, including innocent children is short sighted and immoral. To use the justification that it's necessary to cleanse the planet and environment, is literally advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')LOVE?!

Love has the half-life of a cup of fresh Yogurt sitting on a sunny windowsill.

[medicvet]

Interesting convo here. May I interject? Exactly how many people here have actually watched someone die, let alone killed anyone?

And how many people that have done so can speak so lightly of what the fuck love can do. Love is the only reason there is for anything. Everything else is just a waiting around for a glimmer of a glimpse of love..whether from a creator or from a fellow being. period.

Now are we all going to die pretty soon? Of that I have no doubt, and I am heartily sick and sorry to death of the fubared world we have left our kids...but love isn't just all you need..in the end, it's all there is.

Hate doesn't win...death does. But hate is only temporary.

Of course this is just the ramblings of another crazy war vet you know.

[gg3]

Re. BW and his statement that love has the half-life of a cup of yogurt sitting on the windowsill:

I don't suppose he has children or knows anyone who does...?

Any parents here care to address that point? Did your love for your kids last longer than a proverbial cup of yogurt on the windowsill?

Anyone here been in a marriage or equivalent relationship longer than the life of a cup of yogurt on the windowsill?

Medicvet has it right on target. And most vets i.e. people who have seen the hell of war up close & personal, will agree. Including those who have pulled the trigger and used the bayonet, and those who did it on reflex and didn't puke the second time or thereafter, and those who would pull the trigger and use the bayonet again any time under legal orders of their chain of command.

This topic, as with others, turns into the fundamental debate between lawfulness and lawlessness, between the socialized and the sociopaths, and in the present case, between hunting & defense on one hand, and wanton thuggery on the other. Plain and simple. And everyone in the middle gets to choose.

One more thing about sociopaths. They have impaired neurophysiological development. That's a euphemism for a brain that hasn't grown properly and doesn't work quite right in subtle ways. You can see it on the cat scans and MRI. Doesn't bode well for their strategic & tactical ability.

Here's one small example. A guy holds up a liquor store, gets a big handful of loot. Before he leaves he demands a bottle. The shopkeeper says "you don't look 21." The robber hands over his ID, grabs the bottle, and leaves. Yes, leaves his ID on the counter. The police scooped him up in no time. Slam dunk case. Bye-bye baddie!

Love wins. Lawfulness wins. Defense wins. And thuggery ends up in prison or buried in a barbarian's grave on the outskirts of town.

The question I have for the advocates of wanton thuggery is, if we catch you trying to snipe our farmers or invade our property, would you rather end up in the sheriff's custody and on trial before a jury, or would you rather die fighting? We can proceed either way.

[seahorse2]

GG3,

I hear what you're saying. You're right. There's nothing I can add to what you have said. But, as you can see, you can't convince a "Jeffrey Dahmer" that they are morally wrong - they don't have any morals. Any comparison of love to yogurt is made by someone that has never loved, never been loved, and who only "loves" themselves. Probably, it gets back to their not being held enough when they were a baby. However, I'm not a psychologist and don't really care to understand why they are without moral conscious. Whatever the explaination, its too late to convince them now.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'G')G3,

I hear what you're saying. You're right. There's nothing I can add to what you have said. But, as you can see, you can't convince a "Jeffrey Dahmer" that they are morally wrong - they don't have any morals. Any comparison of love to yogurt is made by someone that has never loved, never been loved, and who only "loves" themselves. Probably, it gets back to their not being held enough when they were a baby. However, I'm not a psychologist and don't really care to understand why they are without moral conscious. Whatever the explaination, its too late to convince them now.

[loveandrage]

I believe mankind is evolving. Sometimes slower than others, with many impediments along the way. You cited originally the succession of violence and genocide. But I would say that the feelings today are different than they were 60 years ago about those killings. Today the consensus is that they were wrong. Sixty years ago i contend that more thought much of it was justified. Mass commuication is improving awareness and as the world continues to get smaller, so does our understanding of each other and our empathy of other so called enemies.

Gov'ts are still aggressive, controlling, and expert killers. But they must increasingly be more sneaky and manipulative about it or the masses won't take it.

Civil liberties are improving over time, especially the more that participate in support of ... We are getting better, but slowly.

Just because we may have started out as cold blooded killers does not mean we will always be. I don't think we are that pre-programed.

I think the more crucial question is will we evolve fast enough to avoid our own demise. And again I believe that will be up to how many people get involved in the fight for progress.

[mercurygirl]

Lots of perspectives here, everyone has something interesting to say.

I think medicvet is right too, love is all we have finally. Love does win, because it seems to be the reason for life and death is just a part of life. The recycling of life is everywhere around us, it must follow that it's the same for us. I'm of the belief that this means more than just the molecules of our bodies being returned to "dust". I know others would not agree.

I've personally witnessed two deaths. As I age, there may be more. It's not a bad thing, especially for people who are old or sick. We've just become so insulated from it, and it is traumatic to lose someone you love, but the process itself is completely natural. Now I know nothing firsthand about violent death before someone's time, that must be different.

I would do whatever I could to avoid killing someone. Others would not. However, what if someone asked you to help them die and it were possible and in some way desirable? That's a tough question for us all.

[gg3]

Seahorse, Threadbear: Good insights, probably correct. The reason I've been taking a hard line around here is to offset the potential for contagion of the outlaw mindset. It's easy to push a boulder downhill, takes more effort to push it uphill, thus the necessity to spend the effort and go beyond the minimum.

It's never too late for someone to change. Regardless of childhood, regardless of loves lost painfully, regardless of the future tense or the fear of no future at all.

Me & mine will do OK. If our plans work even halfway, our region will do OK. We'll farm and hunt and gather, we'll build and we'll defend, and we'll conserve and preserve. I just don't want to see other parts of the country or the world go to hell in handbaskets. Somalia is a warning, Ecotopia is a dream, and better to steer the course for the latter than abandon the ground to the former.

===

Mercurygirl raises the interesting point about what can bluntly be called assisted suicide. Where to draw the line? When to help? When does helping cross the line to causing?

In Oregon the legal standard is that the individual has to be able to swallow the dose of death-inducing medications, swallowing being the most basic act of will to signify the intention to die. To me that's a good place to draw a line, as with the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade at the first trimester.

My parents were quite clear: No extraordinary lifesaving measures, no being kept alive as a vegetable on a respirator. My father's wishes were observed when he had his last cardiac event and lost brain functioning. My family would do likewise for my mother if that became necessary.

The fact of the availability of a dignified exit brings into sharp contrast the entire issue of pain relief for the living who are not in a vegetative state. Clearly it should be possible to alleviate pain, and the fact that opium poppies can be grown just about anywhere makes it possible to provide effective pain relief even after a major societal collapse. All other factors equal, this has got to be the first level of recourse.

On the other hand, dementia brings a harsh counterpoint: what to do when the body is functioning but the mind has gone?

And last but not least, what to do when resource shortages compel triage?

None of this would even be an issue but for the resource shortages, the prospect of widespread famine and pandemic and so on. Minus those factors the answer is obvious: keep people alive as long as they wish to be kept alive, provide pain relieving medications in whatever quantity is needed to relieve pain, and let people choose the circumstances of their death.

The mere removal of sustenance, in the form of food, water, and respiration, is probably a less peaceful death (even for someone in vegetative coma) than the use of an overdose of pain meds e.g. morphine. Thus compassion calls for the latter, rather than obedience to the dogma that a last-minute miracle might intervene in the former.

Under crash/shortage conditions, we can reasonably say that people in vegetative states, with no prospect of recovery (i.e. who have been shown to have a loss of brain tissue that is non-recoverable), should probably be "put to sleep" i.e. killed with overdoses of morphine. We may also expand the death penalty to include all serious crimes of force or fraud. But before we embark on a killing spree, we should take other less drastic measures to reduce population below the resource limits. Here I am talking about sterilization, both voluntary and involuntary.

I would go so far as to sterilize everyone at age ten, require a permit in order to reproduce, and require proof that a person can perform at the 75th percentile or better in any measurable category of human endeavor (i.e. even just one) before a permit is granted. Those who don't make the grade don't get to breed. And while that sounds harsh, it is hardly as harsh to prevent births as it is to induce deaths.

There is no right to reproduce, but there is a right to live one's natural life.

And we can thank all the soulless selfish a--holes who drive SUVs and keep their homes at contra-seasonal temperatures, or who breed like fruit flies, for getting us to the point in history when we even have to consider such measures.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')I would go so far as to sterilize everyone at age ten, require a permit in order to reproduce, and require proof that a person can perform at the 75th percentile or better in any measurable category of human endeavor (i.e. even just one) before a permit is granted. Those who don't make the grade don't get to breed. And while that sounds harsh, it is hardly as harsh to prevent births as it is to induce deaths.

There is no right to reproduce, but there is a right to live one's natural life.

[Chaparral]

I will give BW's argument the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is referring to a situation where there are no ties that bind; no family, no highschool or army buddies...nothing. Only strangers caught up in the times. That is not a fertile ground for love to germinate. An intentional community may find itself with a lot of strangers on board, not all of which might be inclined to cooperation and teamwork. That is my concern; love may have a powerful grip but a finite reach. I had always figured that enlightened self-interest would have the weaker grip but the longer reach. Given the Hobbesian world I found myself in, I'd always devoted more time to studying enlightened self-interest.

My other concern is that after the initial founders pass on, will subsequent generations continue to cooperate or will they degenerate into infighting and then internecine warfare? How can we create an institution or a community that will be immunized against rot from within long after we are gone? How do we prevent the Cesare Borgias and the Claudiuses of the world from taking the rest of our progeny back to that part of history from which we're trying to escape?

[gg3]

Re. immunizing community against rot-from-within: Very difficult to get things right to the extent needed to prevent it entirely. The Founders got it right-enough that 225 years later we are still in pretty good shape (even the excesses of the present administration are less than those of some previous, and the pendulum is starting to swing back to the middle ground as it has in the past). Checks & balances, division of power, inalienable rights, private property: the key here is to provide multiple means of cooperation, competition, and symbiosis, and balance all of the contending interests under a uniform system of law.

The other necessary component is universal education that includes not only literacy and numeracy, but scientific and historical literacy and civic philosophy. Whether this is provided via public sector, private sector, or home schooling, there needs to be a common set of cultural memes that are transmitted from one generation to the next. In fact the risk of the home schooling movement is that it may tend to break down the common meme-set in favor of sectarianisms that erode the culture. If you want a real scare, web-search the term "dominionism" and keep reading, but be warned it may be difficult to get to sleep that night.

---

Penultimate, it is an ethical stance. What do you call it when someone has enough food to support three people and deliberately creates a fourth, fifth, and sixth mouth to feed? I call it child abuse and they're not fit to be a parent. What if they send out their offspring to raid others' food? I call it piracy.

Sure, starting a family is a fundamental right. But growing it to the point where it causes others to starve is merely genetic selfishness raised to the level of a virtue. You can still have all the kids you like by adoption. Is there a problem with that..?

Six and a half billion humans, on a planet that can support at most two to three billion sustainably, will not stand. The only question is how to get the balance sheeet back in balance. Either we do it voluntarily or Ma Nature will do it for us with ferocious thoroughness. And we can do it voluntarily either by reducing births or by increasing deaths.

Meanwhile, here we are discussing the conditions under which it's acceptable to kill someone, and I suggest it's more humane to spay & neuter, and somehow that is considered more controversial...?

Overpopulation threatens life, erodes liberty, and usurps the pursuit of happiness. The so-called freedom to breed is the biggest threat to all other freedoms. And as long as we're constrained to one habitable planet, this is a zero-sum game. As with the swinging of fists and the limit of noses, one man's right to swing his testicles stops where another's food supply begins.

[Ayame]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Overpopulation threatens life, erodes liberty, and usurps the pursuit of happiness. The so-called freedom to breed is the biggest threat to all other freedoms. And as long as we're constrained to one habitable planet, this is a zero-sum game. As with the swinging of fists and the limit of noses, one man's right to swing his testicles stops where another's food supply begins.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', ' ')
Penultimate, it is an ethical stance. . .
Sure, starting a family is a fundamental right. But growing it to the point where it causes others to starve is merely genetic selfishness raised to the level of a virtue. You can still have all the kids you like by adoption. Is there a problem with that..?

Meanwhile, here we are discussing the conditions under which it's acceptable to kill someone, and I suggest it's more humane to spay & neuter, and somehow that is considered more controversial...?

[AWPrime]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Overpopulation threatens life, erodes liberty, and usurps the pursuit of happiness. The so-called freedom to breed is the biggest threat to all other freedoms. And as long as we're constrained to one habitable planet, this is a zero-sum game. As with the swinging of fists and the limit of noses, one man's right to swing his testicles stops where another's food supply begins.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Overpopulation threatens life, erodes liberty, and usurps the pursuit of happiness. The so-called freedom to breed is the biggest threat to all other freedoms. And as long as we're constrained to one habitable planet, this is a zero-sum game. As with the swinging of fists and the limit of noses, one man's right to swing his testicles stops where another's food supply begins.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Overpopulation threatens life, erodes liberty, and usurps the pursuit of happiness. The so-called freedom to breed is the biggest threat to all other freedoms. And as long as we're constrained to one habitable planet, this is a zero-sum game. As with the swinging of fists and the limit of noses, one man's right to swing his testicles stops where another's food supply begins.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')When six billion people are sitting at the same dinner table, background music, is important. And more than that...polite conversation. The crucial thing is using the right fork. Who would be so coarse as to suggest that too many people are being invited to dinner? Dear me, it's all soooo apppaaaalling.