If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Weird things people do.
User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby Gord » Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:18 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Gord wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Would that be the most good for the most people?

The most good is not always what's good for the most people. The needs of the one often outweigh the needs of the many.

Like up is often down or left is often right? That sort of simply nay saying? You usually do better.

No, like this:

There are five people who need organ transplants, otherwise they'll be stuck on machines for the rest of their lives. I could kill you and give them your organs. Is that "the most good" I could do? Or does your need outweigh theirs?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:08 pm

Hey Gord. Excellent challenge. But........under my proscription....at first look, yes, the individual should die and get harvested. We could formulate hypos where even you might agree? EG--the space crew on Mars?

but, I agree, under the autonomy rules currently in vogue, we can more closely evaluate whether or not the five people getting those organs actually is a "more good" than allowing the individual to remain intact. Ha, ha. "Generally" I am against organ transplants. Its goes against Darwin AND Gawd. People with defective organs by birth or life choices should live out their situation as best they can. Keeping the gene pool pure is the greatest good for the most people.

Arguments.

They can go both ways depending on imagination, facts at hand, limits exceeded.

Life is like that.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:46 pm

"Keeping the gene pool pure" ? Seriously?

wow - didn't know that was sill a concept nowadays....


the fact that so many humans grow up who under harsher conditions would have died in infancy is what makes the human race so resilient versus any possible outbreak: we have more genetic diversity than possibly any single species ever before in the history of life. Once we have a reliable method of gene therapy, this variability will be a smorgasbord of possibilities to cure us from basically all diseases.
Diversity, not purity is the greatest good for all people.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:17 pm

EM--thats a good example of taking a valid idea so far that it turns into a bad idea. I don't think the benefits of genetic variability will be found in prenatal infections or drug interactions that damage a fetus causing them to be born with only half a brain. The totality of genetic variation will continue in the next healthy baby born a year later who gets enough attention and money to grow up and succeed.

See the issues more clearly?

But lets assume there is some such benefit? Is it also worth the burden on the individuals who might wish to choose otherwise? There is a whole list of "choices" parents make in their own evaluations that harm kiddies, and we let it go for a variety of reasons. No difference in that respect to the current issue.

Oh............and most to the degree of nearly all of such aborted fetuses/kiddies never reach the age of reproduction, nor are capable of raising kiddies themselves should they do so. so...the genetic variability argument is ....... not applicable. Exceptions? of course. One more reason to let the individual parents decide. Not society............... individual morality. THAT effects the gene pool too.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:46 pm

sorry bobbo, but you mentioned 'purity of the gene pool', which only computes if you are talking about persons likely to reproduce in the first place. It does not even enter the discussion if we are talking about children with serious birth defects.
So that term is inappropriate both in general and in terms of this discussion.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:07 pm

EM---you know, I thought about that very issue after I posted. A great rhetorical point.

Now, let me re-read.

I won't think more on the point past agreeing with you as my main point has always been one of individual freedom/morals being applied/ of the parents..... flowing from kiddies as property to be dealt with as the owners wish (taken to my own personal admitted extreme but less than that the standards announced under Roe v Wade) and not individual people/citizens from the moment of conception which is the current far right tea party religio-fascist position of the Republican base.

You valid challenge still niggles at me. Seems valid only if you start by knowing which damaged fetuses will or won't grow up and reproduce? Well known to a certainty in many cases, borderline cases not known in every issue including this one. I'm not really a gene pool argument guy...even to whatever degree its true even here. BUT then I loop back as I think Darwin has brought forth hoomans who tend to be good life nurturing parents for their kiddies. Miscreants like me breed out absent breeding back in as "warriors" innovators and what not. Hmmm... that or the tendency to rape and leave woman and child on their own? Very primitive....still going on to a large degree under no-fault divorce and non-paternity allowances.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:01 pm

I agree that the topic is complex. For most of history, any child was worth having, even if only as a way to make a buck by selling them. Rape, especially in times of war, was more a rule than an exception. As was infant and any other kind of death.
Survival and procreation are no longer the only considerations, and that is a sign of massive progress: biological evolution has become secondary to cultural and technological evolution.
While the elites might have few children, the amount of parental attention, great healthcare and massive education and access more or less guarantees that they will do better than a hundred children from poor families combined.
Cynically, the rich might consider the vast genepool of the other 99% a strategic gene reserve, to be mined like rare plants in the Amazon.
But it is also an important buffer against whatever nature or technology run amuck might throw at us.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:07 pm

EM--thanks for characterizing my entirely self centered preferences as complex.

I don't think the Already Too Rich have any concern in genetic variability. JUST THE OPPOSITE as a matter of fact: CLONES to provide themselves with compatible replacements is where all the Bilderberg money is going today.

Fun to think about: how society will (ie: WILL) change when the Already Too Rich can live virtually forever.........or as long as their money will last.............which today is the top 1% around the world.

Well, AGW will get us just bout the time money would have meant something new on this Earth.

So close...................we coulda been something.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby Gord » Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:06 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hey Gord. Excellent challenge. But........under my proscription....at first look, yes, the individual should die and get harvested. We could formulate hypos where even you might agree? EG--the space crew on Mars?

Maybe, but it will be difficult.

"Generally" I am against organ transplants. Its goes against Darwin AND Gawd. People with defective organs by birth or life choices should live out their situation as best they can. Keeping the gene pool pure is the greatest good for the most people.

:facepalm:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:41 am

As an extreme case, take European royal families in recent decades: there has been a conscious drive for those from noble lines to marry ' commoners '.
This is to a significant part in order to create more genetic diversity.
On a more general level: intercultural marriage rates have probably never been as high.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10246
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby Pyrrho » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:41 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Pyrrho wrote:Half a billion? I'd buy a new water system for the citizens of Flint, Michigan.

Would that be the most good for the most people?

........................I don't think so.

Worthy and charitable........but not the most good. Almost, in context, a waste.

Note the challenge is "everyone" for the rest of time, vs, a temporary few.

...........................makes a difference.

Think about it. By the time the flow of money passed through the system, the usual siphoning via graft, corruption, and outright theft would enrich dozens of politicians and their cronies. There might be some money left for a few of those billboards that advertise which politicians are bossing the water system reconstruction project, and that will reassure the people that all will be well.

Maybe a better idea would be to pay for the citizens of Flint to move to Cleveland, Ohio. They can be just as dirt poor in Cleveland and get treated just as badly by the politicians, but they can drink the pure waters of Lake Erie. Plus there are casinos where they can squander what's left.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:54 pm

Pyrrho--you sound like you grew up in Michigan?...................... (joke!)

I think we see the "scope" of the issue entirely differently. I'm aiming at, trying to get at, something world wide that affects all people==>for the most good.

I think you have nailed what would be best for the People of Flint Michigan. OH---that could lead directly to providing safe water for all the people in the world? Another thread was talking about where "rights" came from and I thought about the current movement(s) most recently in South America to return water rights (ie: access) to the local people rather than keep it contracted out to Coca Cola.

I just saw a show on Flint. Rachel Maddow reviewing the $199 water bill for a poor resident. Made it sound like that was for one month. THAT can't be true could it? and that doesn't even get to getting charged for lead tainted water that you can't even bath in.

Ha, ha. The gubment. A good time to bring out the guns.............but nothing happens..........and they probably won't even vote him out of office.

.......................It's people. All brain damaged before they drank the water.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:58 pm

Gord wrote:
"Generally" I am against organ transplants. Its goes against Darwin AND Gawd. People with defective organs by birth or life choices should live out their situation as best they can. Keeping the gene pool pure is the greatest good for the most people.

:facepalm:

Go ahead and face palm. I'll put you down as thinking the most good is done for elderly rich white people who get fresh organs paid for by gubment support tax advantaged healthcare plans while kiddies everywhere suffer from: lead in the water, pollution in the air, not enough food to concentrate on studies while in school, basic healthcare and so forth.

My point: solve the problems of the masses before giving the Already Too Rich more than one fair go at life. Organ Transplants: healthcare for the rich............the poor can't eat due to no cheap dental services.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:03 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:As an extreme case, take European royal families in recent decades: there has been a conscious drive for those from noble lines to marry ' commoners '.
This is to a significant part in order to create more genetic diversity.
On a more general level: intercultural marriage rates have probably never been as high.

Was that it? I thought it was "love" or a desire to maintain their welfare checks by relating more to the common peeples?

Same with intercultural marriage, if by that you mean inter-RACIAL. That PC are we? Ha, ha. Its not for genetic diversity, but for love. Kiddies most often the very best looking of specimens too. I don't know why that happens so often..... pale this and that better than full on?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby Gord » Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:35 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Gord wrote:
"Generally" I am against organ transplants. Its goes against Darwin AND Gawd. People with defective organs by birth or life choices should live out their situation as best they can. Keeping the gene pool pure is the greatest good for the most people.

:facepalm:

Go ahead and face palm.

I will.

:facepalm:

I'll put you down as thinking the most good is done for elderly rich white people who get fresh organs paid for by gubment support tax advantaged healthcare plans while kiddies everywhere suffer from: lead in the water, pollution in the air, not enough food to concentrate on studies while in school, basic healthcare and so forth.

No, I'm Canadian.

My point: solve the problems of the masses before giving the Already Too Rich more than one fair go at life. Organ Transplants: healthcare for the rich............the poor can't eat due to no cheap dental services.

Your point is wrong. I'm Canadian.

Just look.

:facepalm:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:08 am

As the needs of the many are always sacrificed for the advantage of the Already Too Rich.....I wonder what the organ transplant criteria are in Canada? Probably not where the issue is demonstrated? Probably UNDERFUNDED so that the Already Too Rich can take their Capital Gains Taxed incomes and pay fee for service for organ transplants in the USA?

Its like Guns. Rational policy doesn't work in area A if A is next to area B that goes wacko in the other direction.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby Poodle » Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:09 am

He's Canadian!!!!

(Having said that, I know one Canadian who had such a good time in a pub in Derbyshire - famed for it's very misshapen bar - that he donated a brass plaque to be screwed onto the edge of the bar. It reads "In gratitude from the Cananda branch of the Old Warpy Appreciation Society". I kid you not. So what do Canandians know?).

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby Gord » Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:As the needs of the many are always sacrificed for the advantage of the Already Too Rich.....I wonder what the organ transplant criteria are in Canada?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277045/

Probably not where the issue is demonstrated? Probably UNDERFUNDED so that the Already Too Rich can take their Capital Gains Taxed incomes and pay fee for service for organ transplants in the USA?

It's "underfunded" insofar as it's illegal to buy and sell human organs, so the Already Too Rich go to other countries to break the law where they're less likely to be arrested for it.

Its like Guns. Rational policy doesn't work in area A if A is next to area B that goes wacko in the other direction.

Whut? :|
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: If you had ONE Billion $, what would you give half of it to?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:06 pm

Whut? :|

Guns highly restricted in Illinois but very available in the states just next door---so many say "guns laws don't work." Of course they do, but not in such a mix of laws so close together.

So many say Canadian Health care is equitable. But USA is so close and is very available.... to the Already Too Rich.

A parallel construction....... and reality.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Popular Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest