While what I am opening the discussion up to may sound callous to the casual observer, it is a topic that humanity will need to cross at some time. Now or later. Personally, I vote for now. The issues are incredibly difficult and any ‘solution’ will clearly require actions that go against today’s ‘common sense’.
Yes Liz, to the parent or family or even the sensitive person, any suffering at all let alone death appears to be innately ‘wrong’. However, even though we all have an emotional component, to make such difficult plans and or ‘solutions’ while in an emotional state and/or based upon emotions alone will never produce either a rational nor a practical result. At least not if one’s goal is to prevent the death of all life on the planet. In 40 years the population will almost treble. Already the number of deaths per hour on a global scale due to lack of food or lack of water are beyond what I care to imagine, yet, they do happen…yes, even at this very moment. As ‘free thinkers’, if we do not examine the situation and probable outcome/result and just wait around for it to become inevitable with no options to change the end, who else will? While it is convenient for us who are fairly isolated from some of the more advanced groupings of humans who are suffering today in this way, perhaps we could take at least a moment to look more compassionately at the issue. Or, dispassionately if you wish. It matters not as long as we take the necessary jump to realize that the fact is that as the number of people expand on the planet, the suffering that has been and will continue to be will continue to rise. And, to hold onto what is innate in us, the very will to live, does nothing to change the number of people living and dying now and in the future (except perhaps to increase the population) Unless all options are examined so we at least have the chance of avoiding the growing and apparently inevitable global situation we are no better than those who say "It is the will of god!". Or, is that the general teleological attitude here? I didn't think it was. Yes, Liz, birth control is well known and has been well known and used as one necessary action. Yet, looking at the numbers, population growth continues to increase, almost geometrically. So, just having this one ‘solution’ in the arsenal is not enough. And, as crazy and inhumane as your hypothetical sounds, withholding medical treatment has long been discussed and has always been practiced in one way or another. From what I hear, even today in other cultures babies of the ‘wrong’ gender are still taken out into the elements and left to die. We know this practice has been going on for almost as long as humanity has existed, just that the reason(s) for doing so may have differed somewhat over time. Whenever this topic comes up, someone will say that it will all take care of itself due to war, or famine, or pestilence etc. Yes, that is the way it has always been and will continue to happen to some degree. Is this the future free thinkers want for humanity? Or, do you think the entire landscape of contributing factors could/should be at least discussed? So far, all I get on this very practical possible application of rationality is criticism for bring up the topic, claims that I want sick people to die, projections about my attitude, hyperbolic approaches to bring about the ‘inevitable’ along with more claims about my lack of sentimental balance. Perhaps the topic produces too much of an emotional reaction within members here to be able to rationally look at let alone discuss it. If this is the case, so be it. Others have, will and will continue to address it. I’m not sure I would like the decisions of some of the groups to ever be implemented. On Nov 29, 2:26 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it's population control that you're worried about, I can't help but think > that increasing the understanding and availability of birth control would > rank higher on the priority list than denying someone a new kidney. > > Why stop with organs? Why not deny all sorts of medical care to > individuals. The booming population crisis would benefit from the ensuing > decrease in humans. > > I don't think you are likely to be a non compassionate person, but I'm with > Taylor on this one. The comment sounds incredibly callous. > > Liz > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liz > Purkrabek > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: A Good Idea Abandoned > > That sounds very reasonable until it is my child who needs a transplant. I > would be quite willing to take an organ from a non voluntary living donor if > it would save the life of my child. > > Liz > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > ornamentalmind > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:13 PM > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > Subject: Re: A Good Idea Abandoned > > “…yes I believe that it is rational to assume that the body has only > one really useful purpose after death, and that is to possibly save > the lives of others….” – clog > > So Clog, you think that we need to assure that more people will > populate the planet? In other words, we don’t have enough people > living at one time here yet? The ‘rational’ result of ‘saving the > lives of others’ is an increase of population that otherwise would not > happen. > > A few thousand years ago or even a few hundred perhaps this wouldn’t > have made much difference. Today, I question whether direct actions > taken that increase the population, when examined more deeply, may not > in fact be ‘rational’. At least not when the ultimate result of such > actions is addressed…overpopulation and the clear result of extreme > suffering of more and more people. > > Those who live a rather provincial life in ‘civilized’ cities in the > USA may not think in this global sense often enough. A quick review of > how ‘we’ as a people use resources might help to clarify the point. > > http://www.dieoff.org/page27.htm > > Of course, the topic of using organs of the dead and/or dying to keep > those alive…alive is even more complex than this. However, to ignore > this aspect and attempt to impose some sort of ‘rational’ analysis to > a myopic view does no one any good at all, except perhaps for the ego > of the one presenting such an oversimplistic ‘analysis’. > > On Nov 29, 9:22 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi y'all - yes I believe that it is rational to assume that the body > > has only one really useful purpose after death, and that is to > > possibly save the lives of others. The implied consent law would be a > > huge boon to all those on the organ transplant waiting list, many of > > whom die waiting. Religious or other objections can be upheld by > > opting out of the system, thus satisfying the irrational. > > Many people don't even think of organ donation, and implied consent > > would either make them think, or if they choose to continue in their > > own oblivious way, help them provide a useful service to society. > > How do y'all feel? > > > On Nov 29, 1:39 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yes, all is one. > > > > On Nov 28, 9:29 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > They all describe the same thing. > > > > > On Nov 28, 10:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >http://www.onelook.com/?w=rational&ls=a > > > > > > On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > <<To assume that one's own brand of being 'rational' (meaning > whatever > > > > > > 'I' think is ok) trumps anyone else's view and/or rights is > 'rather > > > > > > irrational' too, no?>> > > > > > > > No. There are no "brands" of rational. > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 6:58 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > He probably is in favor of "presumed consent." I agree. To > be > > > > > > > > concerned what happens to your body after you die is rather > > > > > > > > irrational. My mother, for instance, is concerned that when > Christ > > > > > > > > returns, she will have pieces of her body missing when she > rises from > > > > > > > > the dead. > > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 8:41 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure which aspect you consider to be the 'good > idea'. I have > > > > > > > > > lived in states where a sticker is placed on the dirver's > license if > > > > > > > > > one wants to donate...and even what in some cases. This sort > of thing > > > > > > > > > is quite common already. However, IF you are suggesting that > everyone > > > > > > > > > should, with or without their consent, have to donate organs > a debate > > > > > > > > > would ensue. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 11:25 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all > -http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/chester-news/local-chester-news/che... > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
