Now what? (Also the title of this beautiful song, which has nothing to do with this blog, but apparently is ridiculously hard to play)
Free will, does it exist? Rather than futilely try to draw definitions of an abstract idea, I leave interpretation of the phrase up to you. Ultimately it is your own understanding that determines the meaning you get from anything. Quite possibly, free will does not exist, but it is impossible to live under the presumption of its absence.
If free will does not exist, then fate must certainly exist. Everything that happens is simply a result of the state of physical forces arranged at the outset of the universe. Timelines are predetermined and nothing you do will change the way things happen. Accepting this concept would render people paralyzed from making decisions, giving effort, or choosing the way of their life.
Thus people are forced to delude themselves into thinking they have free will. Self delusion is a very important concept necessary for many people to see the world under a better light. They accept what the world has presented to them and try to pursue the best way to shuffle through the handful of decades their conciousness happens to exist in this world.
Fate is a funny thing. Actually it isn’t but I decided this was a good point to stick in this cliche. Fate isn’t all that funny.
This might all sound bitter and miserable, but that is what I tend to be. I make many justifications as to why that is a good thing, such as the notion that highly intelligent people are often depressed. They are aware of some of the simple truths and travesties in the world that go unnoticed by most others. Things that really could be fixed, but not from their own doing. Would I rather be happy and simple-minded? I say I wouldn’t, so there must be some value to this resentment.
I have never had much motivation to press continue, yet the prevailing world view discourages heading to the game over screen. We overwhelmingly value preservation, which is understandable given the evolutionary need for survival. Those with a mindset against that are clearly expendable deviants.
We set goals in life as a positive horizon to look forward to. Presumably they are things that make us happy. However, determining exactly what makes us happy is apparently an extremely difficult exercise. Nevertheless some goal must exist that makes us get out of bed in the morning.
So what are my goals? I am a dreamer, dwelling in imagination land and aloof to reality. World domination sounds good, and I would do it if I could. But it is too much work, and too challenging and troublesome a position to be in. So instead, I’ll go build a castle in the mountains of a faraway secluded island. It might get lonely after a while, but that’s the price to pay for privacy. I’ll go out to visit people once in a while maybe. Ever the pragmatist, I also worry about luxuries like fresh water, power suppy, hot water, sewage systems, etc. In fact I spend a lot of my spare time learning how to design and build such a system. This dream will give me all the power, wealth and prestige I’ll ever need. A very material goal, but emotional needs tend to be self-addressed and arise from opportunity rather than planning or effort.
I expect some of you would tell me to get real, forget about my silly fantasies and face the glum reality. But surely ambition is one key element to greatness. How could I climb my way to greatness without at least aiming for it? The downside to this pipe dream is the inevitable disappointment that awaits when I realize its absurdity. Accepting a life of mediocrity is not good enough for my power hungry disposition.
So to get there it looks like I need to get rich. In reality, I suppose, that is my true goal I do take seriously. What I decide to do when and if I ever get there is another story. There is no simple guaranteed road to riches, so I settled for a low risk high reward strategy. I defaulted towards the pinnacle of Asian professions: to become a doctor. I had no personal interest in this field, but then again I have no interest in any field of work.
Though I am confident I could step into that role and yield good results, I cannot say whether I would enjoy it. I do know, however, that in my opinion modern practice of medicine does not serve society efficiently. Far too much focus is given to prolonging lives and assisting the very weak. Especially given that health care in Canada is publicly funded, too many resources are committed to saving those who, put harshly, don’t deserve saving. They cannot contribute enough value back into society given their health and remaining life expectancy to justify the exorbitant costs required. Our culture is far too sensitive in addressing death, which really is not that big a deal in the first place. Before ending on this point, perhaps I’ll qualify it by saying I am only referring to expensive treatment to delay the departure of the severely handicapped or fragile. Yes, you can and should put a price on people’s lives. A doctor who’d much rather his patients die and relieve the society of their burden. Sound right to you?
That is a rough summary of my stance on that matter, but there are other reasons my personal philosophy may be at odds with medicine. But it doesn’t matter anymore because that aspiration has recently come to an end. I got as far as the waitlist from final acceptance at one school. Maybe it’s a good thing I didn’t get in. Though I only applied to three schools, I can say I gave it an honest shot and will have no regrets that I didn’t try.
Now what’s next? It looks like I’ll be heading to law school this fall. Only time will tell if this is a right fit. I assume this role will give me some very valuable powers and privileges, but I wonder if it will be the kind I crave. And so I plod along, waiting for my chance to start making some money and finance my dreams. It’s going to be downhill from here and I am leaving the steering to fate.
did you really say that money is more important than peoples lives? how is that ever justifiable? whether it costs a lot to keep someone who is terminally ill alive doesnt matter, its JUST money. you can like print more of that shit. these are peoples lives you are talking about and no you should never put a price on life.
On July 10 2011 16:28 Keldrath wrote: did you really say that money is more important than peoples lives? how is that ever justifiable? whether it costs a lot to keep someone who is terminally ill alive doesnt matter, its JUST money. you can like print more of that shit. these are peoples lives you are talking about and no you should never put a price on life.
This is exactly the kind of reaction and mindset I am talking about. You automatically jump to defend the notion we cannot put a price on people's lives. You draw lines with moral principles that are simply not so clear cut. Money is more than dollar bills. The underlying reasoning for my sentiment is not so devilish as you might immediately assume.
The classic example is the Ford Pinto debate. Ford made cheap cars that were prone to fatal explosions. They could have fixed the problem by installing rubber casings in all their cars at a relatively cheap cost, say $5 a car or something. They concluded that the cost to install was not worth the preventing the number of serious accidents and injuries that would occur. In this case they were heavily criticized for this seemingly immoral move. However, what if the cost to install were $100? $1000? $50,000? At some point the cost would be unbearable. All cars are inherently unsafe, and do collectively cause physical harm and death. We end up choosing to use cars and accept the inherent dangers they pose. At some point there will be a cost/benefit analysis on the price of life. It's all a matter of economics and scarce resources.
The thing is that due to improved healthcare people will grow older and older. The human body is not designed to get that old and around the age of 70 (varies a LOT) the human body starts failing preventing the person from doing basic tasks like lifting objects, walking, eating and remembering. The human body might not work properly but due to healthcare these people can be kept alive for a long time (even tho in a more "natural" world they would have died rather quickly"
The question is is it better for the person in question and society as a whole to keep these people alive? In the current situation a lot of elderly are put into a room where they get fed and cleaned and slowly start to forget who their family is and what the hell they are doing in that place. I know it is cruel to let people die but sometimes it's also cruel to let people live. If you add to that the cost of keeping them alive (there comes a point where the collective can't pay for this anymore as the number of dependent elderly grows).
I'm not saying we should just let them die at a certain point but immediately dismissing it as unethical or immoral is shortsighted imo.
The money spend at keeping demented and depressed elderly alive could be spend on saving thousands of families from starvation.
There will come a time when we don't have the means to keep them all alive as long as possible. Where do you draw the line who has to die and who gets to live?
Should we stop supporting these elderly before we hit a huge economic crisis calling for immediate action or should we address the problem now so there won't have to be drastic actions later on?
The earth can only handle a certain amount of humans, there will come a time when overpopulation requires us to make choices who gets to live and who dies. I feel it's a choice we can't make but we will have to make it at some point to prevent wars, starvation or maybe even total annihilation of the human race.
These are no simple questions to answer but we will be forced to answer them at some point. Keeping every human being alive for as long as possible is sadly just not a realistic option.
On July 11 2011 01:56 Marsupian wrote: The thing is that due to improved healthcare people will grow older and older. The human body is not designed to get that old and around the age of 70 (varies a LOT) the human body starts failing preventing the person from doing basic tasks like lifting objects, walking, eating and remembering. The human body might not work properly but due to healthcare these people can be kept alive for a long time (even tho in a more "natural" world they would have died rather quickly"
The question is is it better for the person in question and society as a whole to keep these people alive? In the current situation a lot of elderly are put into a room where they get fed and cleaned and slowly start to forget who their family is and what the hell they are doing in that place. I know it is cruel to let people die but sometimes it's also cruel to let people live. If you add to that the cost of keeping them alive (there comes a point where the collective can't pay for this anymore as the number of dependent elderly grows).
I'm not saying we should just let them die at a certain point but immediately dismissing it as unethical or immoral is shortsighted imo.
The money spend at keeping demented and depressed elderly alive could be spend on saving thousands of families from starvation.
There will come a time when we don't have the means to keep them all alive as long as possible. Where do you draw the line who has to die and who gets to live?
Should we stop supporting these elderly before we hit a huge economic crisis calling for immediate action or should we address the problem now so there won't have to be drastic actions later on?
The earth can only handle a certain amount of humans, there will come a time when overpopulation requires us to make choices who gets to live and who dies. I feel it's a choice we can't make but we will have to make it at some point to prevent wars, starvation or maybe even total annihilation of the human race.
These are no simple questions to answer but we will be forced to answer them at some point. Keeping every human being alive for as long as possible is sadly just not a realistic option.
Okay, this is simply not true.
The body does break down as it gets older but neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimer's, parkinson's, etc. (along with cardiovascular and metabolic disease) and immobility/orthopedic insufficies, etc. are a direct result of eating horribly and not exercising respectively.
Prevention is 100% less costly than treating after the fact, and since most of the crippling "diseases" people get at ages 40,50,60,70, etc. are preventable there's no reason people cannot be living healthy productive lives until 80s and 100s like some of the oldest living people are on the planet today.
On July 10 2011 16:28 Keldrath wrote: did you really say that money is more important than peoples lives? how is that ever justifiable? whether it costs a lot to keep someone who is terminally ill alive doesnt matter, its JUST money. you can like print more of that shit. these are peoples lives you are talking about and no you should never put a price on life.
This is exactly the kind of reaction and mindset I am talking about. You automatically jump to defend the notion we cannot put a price on people's lives. You draw lines with moral principles that are simply not so clear cut. Money is more than dollar bills. The underlying reasoning for my sentiment is not so devilish as you might immediately assume.
The classic example is the Ford Pinto debate. Ford made cheap cars that were prone to fatal explosions. They could have fixed the problem by installing rubber casings in all their cars at a relatively cheap cost, say $5 a car or something. They concluded that the cost to install was not worth the preventing the number of serious accidents and injuries that would occur. In this case they were heavily criticized for this seemingly immoral move. However, what if the cost to install were $100? $1000? $50,000? At some point the cost would be unbearable. All cars are inherently unsafe, and do collectively cause physical harm and death. We end up choosing to use cars and accept the inherent dangers they pose. At some point there will be a cost/benefit analysis on the price of life. It's all a matter of economics and scarce resources.
This is misinterpreting the weighing of life against money. The problem is that the "expense" of car safety is not a guaranteed trade-off between life and money, but rather a RISK. At that point, it becomes a probabilistic consideration of whether or not the prevention of the most minimal risk is necessary. The car analogy doesn't make sense because a car dealer obviously knows there's fundamentally something wrong with the model if it'll cost some tens of thousands of dollars to prevent a major disaster to life, they'd simply make a new/different one.
Consider grave illness and injuries, a clear instance of when you know that the risk to life is huge/almost a guarantee, people will pay almost anything.
I understand your general position, however, you're phrasing it incorrectly. Your argument is against an absolutist stance on life, which does not mean that money is more important than life, because your justification for this is that some lives could be lost to save the money needed to protect more lives, which is just the utilitarian versus deontology debate.
EPT
