[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 10709878 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null A Simple Question on Permanence - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #6 (isolation #0) » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:02 am
Postby PvtUrist »
In post 3, talah wrote:Well that's along the lines of the question I'm posing. If a person who had murderered someone could live forever, would they permanently be a danger?
So murder = 100% dangerous, and not murder = 100% not dangerous? Seems flawed.
In post 3, talah wrote:The other side of the coin is, if a person who had never up until now murdered someone, lived forever, would it be inevitable that they eventually murder someone?
It'll be more probably be (much?) more likely, but it does not guarantee.
Tomorrow morning, a vaccine is announced which is highly available and which provides effective immortality.
Anybody who wants the vaccine can have it without cost or judgement and therefore will live forever.
The vaccine halts the ageing process and removes all disease and entropy, but does not protect from external physical harm.
Humanity as we know it would rapidly become... well, something that's not as we know it.
So immortality is the "gift" we've been given. What's the price we pay?
How much does this vaccine affect on psychological levels?
In post 7, PvtUrist wrote:
How much does this vaccine affect on psychological levels?
i assume for thsi hpytheticcal experiment to work there is no negative effect
This makes it slightly more difficult to work with. It takes compromises to be making thoughts on an idea that by laws of nature isn't going to happen.
Post
Post #11 (isolation #3) » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:19 am
Postby PvtUrist »
In post 0, talah wrote:
How would this alteration affect approaches to "permanent" methods currently used to address actions such as murder - assuming the current approach is the death penalty or life in prison; is an infinite amount of time long enough to reform every circumstance?
The current method is fucked. It may or may not become unfucked.
Post
Post #12 (isolation #4) » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:26 am
Postby PvtUrist »
In post 3, talah wrote:Well that's along the lines of the question I'm posing. If a person who had murderered someone could live forever, would they permanently be a danger?
A person proven guilty of murder isn't enough context to prove whether they'd be a "danger", as the word "danger" itself is even more vague.
If people got immortal I'm sure they'll have no excuse to be able to do case-by-case and with context, as well as determine what exactly "danger" means to them, and what it means to others.
Post
Post #29 (isolation #6) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:00 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
With the comment on expendablility, here's an example;
2 villages both have exactly 50 male and 50 female, all considered equally healthy and fertile.
Village A loses 30 males, while Village B loses 30 females, and no further harming events happen for another 50 years, one village would likely end up with a far higher population than the other. A higher population meant more power, more resources and more likelihood of genetic survival.
Ofcourse, nowdays we have the priviledge to no longer care about this.
Post
Post #32 (isolation #8) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:15 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
Village A 20M 50F
Village B 50M 20F
Baseline 50M 50F
For simplicity (and me having no factual knowledge of it), we'll assume polygamy has no negative or postive effect on population growth in this statement.
Assuming the statement above, Village A and Baseline would have the same level of population growth, while Village B would have less than 1/2 of both counter parts, not counting expedition growth.
Post
Post #39 (isolation #10) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:27 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
In post 38, u r a person 2 wrote:if there are other villages, then surely the one with more men and less women would just steal women from the group with more women and less men
Post
Post #46 (isolation #11) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:57 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
In post 42, talah wrote:
What I'm asking is - what do we do with people we currently punish by locking up for life, if that life is suddenly eternity?
The alternative of lifers without parole are ofcourse lifers on parole. Executions in our "civilized" world are considered too "barbaric", so lifers without parole are the substitute to that. It's used not because it's the best option, but because it's the most convenient one. Life becoming eternal simply tips the scale in what we classify as ethical and unethical (permenantly locking up someone who lives eternally may be considered ethically unacceptable, for example), and the wiseness that comes from long lives simply improves our capabilities to utlize the better option.
In post 44, talah wrote:
Nature/nurture?
Spirit/soul?
Something else?
I suppose you might propose that a person of infinite longevity would always become wiser as time passed and be less and less likely to harm another.
(and I'm also using "you" in the "royal we" form )
What would need to happen so that somebody like you/me will be judged guilty of commiting such crimes?
"Infinite longevity" is an interesting one, because something like x amount of years is calculatable, infinite isn't.
Post
Post #47 (isolation #12) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:00 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
and talking 5 years, or 10 years, or 100 years after the vaccine are different cases.
We're speaking with the mindsets from "pre-vaccination", so it could be difficult to theorize how the world would turn out after say 200 years of this.
Hell, we could barely tell what would happen 200 years from now without this vaccine, so there's that.
Post
Post #48 (isolation #13) » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:11 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
I feel the issue is that it's either something we're not capable of (accurately) considering, or something that's with too little context to be accurate.
Say, the crime of murder. Aside from one person killing another (and not classified as manslaughter), that's about the extent of context we'd get.
Who committed the crime? What type of person are they? What were their motives? That's before mentioning every other factor that "murder" doesn't give context to.
Post
Post #52 (isolation #15) » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:59 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
In post 51, talah wrote:
To clarify - if the standard lifespan was 100,000 years, and you killed a person, would a just punishment be 100,000 years of imprisonment?
Post
Post #57 (isolation #17) » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:21 pm
Postby PvtUrist »
I'm saying that we're trying to put something static (price) on something dynamic ("worth" of human/"pay" of crime), and without context that's never gonna be something that's accurate.
We're also working with this massive gap that we're unable to fill. Are we working off our current mindsets and law systems? Because that don't work because our laws are used towards people with livespans of a century, not thousands of centuries.
Mindsets and law systems of those who've adapted towards 100,000 year lifespans? I don't feel that's something we're capable of properly calculating.
It's like comparing the ability to change psychological behaviours/patterns with the ability to change one's skin colour.
In post 73, talah wrote:or when doctor phil (sorta validly?) compulsively says that 'past behaviour is the best predictor for future behaviour'.
See argument #1.
Agree with the rest of the posts along the lines of "we could do with stop being dumbfucks and actually solve things".
We dehumanize because "righteously punishing"
something
"lesser" and "inferior" is much more convenient than treating things accurately. Once that's no longer case, things will change, quite possibly for the better.