[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
There’s an island in the middle of the ocean somewhere. It produces just enough food and fresh water to feed two adults and a kid.
…
Please explain the trading/cooperative process by which you choose which three people will have to die.
Survival is still a cooperative effort.
Nature may only produce enough to keep a certain number of people alive but the productive capabilities of man trump nature – agriculture, industrialization!
Eventually everyone dies if they cannot produce food – just because it exists doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be produced first. Killing someone only helps preserve resources in the short run.
Cooperation would still be better because maybe someone can fish and the others can produce potable water, for example. If I kill someone to keep more for myself I in fact end up depriving myself of more water or fish in the long.
More hands mean more productivity. I am rational enough know I would be better off with someone’s help than their dead body I might be able to eat for a few days.[/quote]
Unbeknownst to you, the other guy sneaked up on you mid speech and cracked your skull with a big coconut.
Your wife and kid die of dehydration a few days later.
Congratulations. Your family now understands what “Limited resources” means.
[quote]etaco wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The same conditions apply. Need does not necessitate violence anymore than want.
There’s an island in the middle of the ocean somewhere. It produces just enough food and fresh water to feed two adults and a kid.
You’re taking a nice vacation cruise when the boat capsizes and sinks. You, your wife and your kid end up on the island, along with another identically composed family of three.
Please explain the trading/cooperative process by which you choose which three people will have to die.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Congratulations. Your family now understands what “Limited resources” means.
[/quote]
Killing doesn’t make resources more available and the rational person understands that. Productivity makes them available.
And the irrational person who kills is now alone and at the mercy of tripping and falling and having no one to care for his own family should he die of infection.
It is very unlikely it would happen the way you say because it would be very hard to even know how much nature can produce in any event. There is no way for anyone to know how much is available or could be available otherwise the problems of scarcity would not exist anywhere.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wow. The peanut gallery has spoken. I rest my case.
You ARE the peanut gallery. I certainly hope you rest, and try not to embarrass yourself further.
I am waiting for an intelligible argument from you that doesn’t just involve ad hominems – not to say I don’t enjoy the attention from you. Please just do it once. Tell me why VIOLENCE IS NATURAL…
Because we have to kill things to eat them, same as every other animal on the planet.[/quote]
QFT, I guess you guy’s missed this on discovery channel?
Killing doesn’t make resources more available and the rational person understands that. Productivity makes them available.
[/quote]
Killing makes more resources available to you, and that’s what matter’s in survival ye? Seems quite rational to me that if you kill an animal, you now have more food available to you then you would have had if that animal was strolling around.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Killing makes more resources available to you, and that’s what matter’s in survival ye? Seems quite rational to me that if you kill an animal, you now have more food available to you then you would have had if that animal was strolling around.[/quote]
Follow along please. We are talking about violence to other people. Killing an animal is not aggression against another humans being.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Killing doesn’t make resources more available
Sure it does. Six people with food for three. Removing three people solves the problem.
[/quote]
But there are only three sets of hands available to produce it. More hands mean more stuff in the long run. Cavemen didn’t understand this that is why they died off.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Killing doesn’t make resources more available
Sure it does. Six people with food for three. Removing three people solves the problem.
But there are only three sets of hands available to produce it. More hands mean more stuff in the long run. Cavemen didn’t understand this that is why they died off.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But there are only three sets of hands available to produce it. More hands mean more stuff in the long run. Cavemen didn’t understand this that is why they died off.[/quote]
I can think of another situation where violence is useful:
Tell me where you are and I’m coming down there to beat some fucking sense into you.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Cavemen died off? Please do tell…[/quote]
Homo erectus was still groping for roots and berries in their little tribes while modern man was learning to cooperate and get more stuff. Homo erectus was displaced by H. sapiens and because he had no concept for cooperation (language etc.)
he died off as a result of decreased resources (hunting territory, etc). No amount of violence to the other species would have saved them without a concept of cooperation in these events.
The continent of North America supported a few million hunter gatherers and that was all it could support. We know that our capabilities for production has changed this.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cavemen died off? Please do tell…
Homo erectus was still groping for roots and berries in their little tribes while modern man was learning to cooperate and get more stuff. Homo erectus was displaced by H. sapiens and because he had no concept for cooperation (language etc.) he died off as a result of decreased resources (hunting territory, etc).
No amount of violence to the other species would have saved them without a concept of cooperation in these events.
The continent of North America supported a few million hunter gatherers and that was all it could support. We know that our capabilities for production has changed this.[/quote]
That is because you are illogical. What does it matter that someone has something you want? You may be strong enough to take it the first time but why should you? Does that also not open you up to being attacked again and again? It doesn’t take much to see that violence just begets more violence.[/quote]
Should or should not has nothing to do with it.
We are animals. Deep down men are hunter/gatherers. You can no more take violence out of our make up than you can lions, tigers, bears, elephants, or meerkats. They are quite violent when it comes to protecting their young, or protecting their territory. They don’t just kill when they are hungry.
Why don’t you go fuck with a bear cub, and try out your bullshit on his mama?
We are no different.
[quote]
Production, trade, cooperation – those are necessary.[/quote]
Those are necessary for a peaceful existence. There has never been a day since we crawled out of the mud that there hasn’t been violence perpetrated on someone.
So…we have pretty much the entire animal kingdom, plus the entirety of human existence against your made up, stupid fucking definitions.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cavemen died off? Please do tell…
Homo erectus was still groping for roots and berries in their little tribes while modern man was learning to cooperate and get more stuff. Homo erectus was displaced by H. sapiens and because he had no concept for cooperation (language etc.) he died off as a result of decreased resources (hunting territory, etc).
No amount of violence to the other species would have saved them without a concept of cooperation in these events.
The continent of North America supported a few million hunter gatherers and that was all it could support. We know that our capabilities for production has changed this.
Uhmmmm…No.[/quote]
Ummm yeah…see? i can make valid arguments like you too.
You can post links but you cannot post an original sentence to back up your “Uhmmmm…No?” That is first rate argumentation. Since I don’t have time to read thru it all right now (but will) you can find the part for me that states how H. erectus died off.
I’ll agree that my overall idea is only an opinion – it is a logical one – that hasn’t been disproved to my knowledge – unless you have some physical evidence that supports something more concrete.