Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Some folks are just too thick to survive.

Some folks are just too thick to survive.
July 25, 2013, 10:26:06 PM
Two women became lost, while hiking.
After being rescued, and returned to their vehicle, they immediately drove down a boat ramp, and into the ocean, whereupon they both drowned.
There's just no helping some people...

http://news.sky.com/story/1120188/rescued-hikers-make-fatal-turn-into-ocean
Squawk!

Maybe it was their time to die. You can fool destiny for too long.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Sounds like they panicked. Maybe in another world, their deaths grant meaning. Or maybe not. Hard to tell, so we wonder.

The only part of that story that gets me is one of the women being five months pregnant. Who knows, he could have had a couple of good death metal albums in him.

That's a whole new take on the deaths of others:
The tragic and wholly unnecessary loss of potential entertainment-value.
Maybe that's why, in an overpopulated world, science strives to save every single individual.
Squawk!

Nature produces a  shitload of life forms which are incompatible with itself. It hardly seems fair, especially from an I'm connected to the other people in my small village perspective. In other words it's hard to even care anymore. Worse still to pretend.

You are right.
Squawk!

I don't even understand how something like fairness can apply to nature. It is a human, social way of looking at things. We are fair and unfair to each other, to apply this human behaviour to nature itself seems like the ultimate anthropomorphism. My buddy the universe. No need to even start caring if you don't expect fairness out of nature. All I expect is an organic order, and that it provides in abundance.

Maybe that's why, in an overpopulated world, science strives to save every single individual.

That is almost exactly the shitlib argument for their individual-saving everything-else-ignoring schemes. TYRONE COULD'VE BEEN A MICROBIOLOGIST!

I don't even understand how something like fairness can apply to nature. It is a human, social way of looking at things. We are fair and unfair to each other, to apply this human behaviour to nature itself seems like the ultimate anthropomorphism. My buddy the universe. No need to even start caring if you don't expect fairness out of nature. All I expect is an organic order, and that it provides in abundance.

You could look into the development of reciprocal altruism in the evolution of human society. The concept of "fairness" is not something so far removed from nature as you might think. It is one of the most elegant natural balancing acts that you can find operating on such a highly conceptual level as human thought.

You might consider explaining yourself a little more.
It would seem that the notion of 'fairness' runs directly counter to anything found in nature.
Squawk!

You could look into the development of reciprocal altruism in the evolution of human society. The concept of "fairness" is not something so far removed from nature as you might think. It is one of the most elegant natural balancing acts that you can find operating on such a highly conceptual level as human thought.

Unless you are simply making an additional point, there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here? Fairness is a real, natural thing; between human beings or perhaps even between other social living creatures. But what does reciprocal altruism have to do with say, an avalanche killing your dog? It can't be fair, or unfair, but it seems one way or the other from the human lens. I don't think that is a bad thing; this perception-coloured existence is normal human existence, but it should not cloud reality.

Sure, I'll be glad to explain but it might be one of those things that you can really only get the gist of from me; there are books I can recommend though.

Basically, primitive humans found that reciprocating favors and punishing cheaters allowed them to accomplish much more work in a much shorter amount of time than if they all worked as solitary individuals. They could build structures and retain language when they could count on others to pay back their favors in a satisfactory way. That is "fairness" according to nature. Now we even have physical objects to represent owed favors; money. It was a long time getting here but this is where we are now and we tend to forget how cooperation came about but the very notion of "you do this for me if I do this for you" was what got humans started on sharing names, tools, knowledge about plants and animals, as well as techniques for creating tools and eventually machines and medicines.

If there is another notion of "fairness" that is popular among people now, then it is a notion mutated from a very sound origin.

But what does reciprocal altruism have to do with say, an avalanche killing your dog? It can't be fair, or unfair, but it seems one way or the other from the human lens.

Such a thing is not related to fairness or reciprocal altruism by any means.

If you want to say so, though, you could call it "unfair" because you do not receive anything good out of the deal. That would be a "fair" assessment.

That is almost exactly the shitlib argument for their individual-saving everything-else-ignoring schemes. TYRONE COULD'VE BEEN A MICROBIOLOGIST!

I couldn't / help myself

(otherwise I do get your point)