Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra

[coberst]

A comment on the ''morality'' of this problem. To my knowledge, there are no moral animals except human beings. There are animals who care for their pack or pod, and who seem to grieve for their brethren, but can this be described as morality? The human being alone has the capacity to recognize and try to wrestle with questions of morality. Is this a blessing or a curse? Sympathy and empathy are laudable traits, but can they go too far? Dr. Death (Kervorkian) served several years in jail for asssisting terminally ill people to end their lives? Would it have been better to let these people die a long and painful death with no chance of living a normal life, with no dignity or hope, and depleting their families savings, or would it be better (with the patients aquiescense) to terminate their lives? For myself, I would prefer to die without torturous pain and with dignity. With people living longer and dying of the more painful degenerative diseases, what is the moral ground, and what does society owe to its citizens? How much should we spend to prolong the life of a person over 75 if it depletes the opportunity to save younger people?

 

 

 

Those who recognize the validity of Darwin's theories must also recognize the necessity that any theory of human behavior and biology must find in our nonhuman ancestors the budding source for those theories. As such there must be visible in nonhuman animals some source for the moral instinct. I am convinced that the moral instinct we see in humans is that same instinct that makes it possible for social animals to thrive. That is to say that the moral instinct is the instinct required to permit harmonious relationships.

[litespeed]

Reflections

 

Cobert, I agree with your sentiments. However, there is no moral delema of any kind; it is striclty financial. Specifically, even the rationed care in the UK is subject to voter political sentimentality. However, when end of life extravagent expenditures [$250,000 cardiac

procedures that yield ten tays additional heartbeat] begin to cut into middle life chemo funds that sentimentality will evaporate.

 

To date, the general financial wealth in the industrial world has been able to support many of these frivolous end-of-life expenditures. The worst culprit, of course, is American Medicare. This governmental system can and does pay truckloads of money into the medical system without reflection or remorse.

 

An example. My father-in-law suffered an aortal wall separation (?) at age 80. The attending physicians offered an 'experimental' treatment. When asked about the success rate they openly revealed it had NEVER been successful, even on younger, fitter patients. In my minds eye I could see these physicians salivating at the opportunity to practice this procedure on yet one more breathing cadaver.

 

The family agreed! I believe the operation took 12 hours, and prolonged (or shortened) the mans life by about the same length of time. At least $250 k, in my estimation. Hey, the money and the pysicians were readily available. Nothing will change until the money actually runs out through general economic collapse (current possibility) or simply bankrupt Medicare.

 

But moral delema? Hardly.

 

PS: My OWN father, on his own dath bed, was given a full colonoscopy in order to detect potentially life-threatening colo-rectal cancer. Hypocratic Oath My Hairy Butt.

[litespeed]

Craig - You wrote: "...the best way to regulate population change is by controlling the birth rate.... for example PRC..."

 

Your observation does not even rise to the level of being wrong. Nearly the entirety of Industrialized Civilization is BELOW replacement levels of fertility and has been for years. In addition, it is not clear financial incentives in such places as France and Itally will significantly reduce the need to import labor.

 

Islamists, incidentally, are thrilled by the prospect of reconquista in Spain, and straight-out conquista in the rest of the continent. I personally doubt the imported Muslims will fullfill the Islamist hopes.

 

Finally, you are correct the PRC has reduced fertility rate. The consequence of which will be visited upon the state in our lifetimes.

Specifically, the 'younger' generation will be in short supply, while the retirement generation is abundant in numbers. It will be an interesting situation. It could work out well. For instance, the subsistance farming 'peasants' may find open opportunities. On the other hand, will farm production be mechanized enough to replace these peasants with machenery in the short time available.

 

Very interesting.........

[questor]

For the sake of discussion, would someone tell me which global problem woild not be alleviated by a reduction in world population? Starvation? Shortage of oil? Pollution? Global warming? Lack of arable land? Destruction of rain forests?

[Essay]

For the sake of discussion, would someone tell me which global problem woild not be alleviated by a reduction in world population? Starvation? Shortage of oil? Pollution? Global warming? Lack of arable land? Destruction of rain forests?

Simply reducing population won't neccessarily reduce the stress on those factors you mention.

 

If half the people were not here suddenly, and the remaining half continued to strive for the consumptive Western ideal, there would still not be enough to go around and last.

 

To quote from Hot, Flat & Crowded by Thomas L. Friedman:

While the total population of the planet will increase by about 1 billion people in the next 12 years, the ranks of the middle class will swell by as many as 1.8 billion...

Thus the average American consumes enough energy to meet the biological needs of 100 people.... By comparison, China and India currently consume approximately 9-30 times less energy per person than the United States.

 

...see, if half the people increase their consumption by 3-10 times, then the system still wouldn't be sustainable.

 

Lifestyle changes are needed; ...and so we might as well accomodate the population that we have here to deal with, rather than waiting for the population to plummet, before re-adapting.

===

 

But you're right, population is something to be considered in the big picture.

Demographics is an important factor in many regions. The ratios of young, old and middle-aged is vastly different, in different parts of the world and different countries. Some countries need growth, while others....

 

Immigration may solve some of these problems (or more likely, make them worse, if unmanaged).

 

~ :)

[Moontanman]

For the sake of discussion, would someone tell me which global problem woild not be alleviated by a reduction in world population? Starvation? Shortage of oil? Pollution? Global warming? Lack of arable land? Destruction of rain forests?

 

I certainly can't think of anything that would be made better by more people. I honestly don't think an argument could be made that the Earth needs more people. Very few people seem to be able to see past their own needs or wants. Economic situations would seem to be the major cause of large families but religion also plays a role in providing motivation for large families. Finding ways to get people to cut down on family size without using draconian methods would seem to the way to go.

[Moontanman]

Simply reducing population won't neccessarily reduce the stress on those factors you mention.

 

If half the people were not here suddenly, and the remaining half continued to strive for the consumptive Western ideal, there would still not be enough to go around and last.

 

To quote from Hot, Flat & Crowded by Thomas L. Friedman:

 

 

 

...see, if half the people increase their consumption by 3-10 times, then the system still wouldn't be sustainable.

 

Lifestyle changes are needed; ...and so we might as well accomodate the population that we have here to deal with, rather than waiting for the population to plummet, before re-adapting.

===

 

But you're right, population is something to be considered in the big picture.

Demographics is an important factor in many regions. The ratios of young, old and middle-aged is vastly different, in different parts of the world and different countries. Some countries need growth, while others....

 

Immigration may solve some of these problems (or more likely, make them worse, if unmanaged).

 

~ :)

 

I'm curious Essay, where do you live? Would you be willing to drop your energy consumption to the level of a third world person? How far down in energy consumption would you be willing to go? How much of a life change would you be willing to take? If you reduced your energy consuption by a factor of ten how would you have to live? I think that reducing the population of the Earth over the long term is the only way we can really go.

[Essay]

Hmmm, well yes.... Guilty as charged! I am a progligate USAian.

 

I am inclined to live like a European (the equivalent of only 50 people's bio-needs), so I feel a bit better; but the society is just not set up to value savings and efficiencies.

===

 

BUT... the real point here should be on my sloppy use of the word "lifestyle."

 

Of course we don't want to lose the quality of lifestyle that we enjoy (though some shifts would be healthier), but we want to find ways to have that quality without degrading the environment or the lifestyles of others.

 

It's not that I want to drop my energy consumption by a factor of 10, but that I want to generate energy 10 times more efficiently. ...just double efficiencies a few times.

 

It's not like we're asking for a 100-fold advantage!

 

...just dealing with wastes should give us one doubling of efficiency, IMHwild speculation.

===

 

I think that reducing the population of the Earth over the long term is the only way we can really go.

Especially for the long-term....

The same is true for sustainable consumption also.

 

But I thnk the point is that unless we do something short-term about energy and wastes, the population problem is going to take care of itself in a rapid and unplanned way, before we can implement long-range plans.

 

~ :)

 

"1.66 million cubic meters of timber/year ...for pairs of disposable chopsticks" -Hot, Flat & Crowded

 

p.s. Speaking of doing something about our wastes, the Viagra focus of this thread speaks to the need for a different way of managing our water resources ...regardless of population.

[mynah]

Four examples of medical investigation undergone by four people I knew, in South Africa:

 

1. Female, 28. Symptoms: Facial swelling. Treatment: Hospital admission and exhaustive tests. Cost: R60 000 (at the time, about R7 to the dollar). Diagnosis:Stress. Result: Patient recovered on her own.

 

2. Male, 47. Symptoms: Severe backache. Treatment: Patient airlifted to hospital for intensive tests. Cost: R125 000. Diagnosis: Back spasm. Result: Patient recovered with physiotherapy.

 

3. Male, 17. Symptoms: Dizzyness. Treatment: Patient admitted to hospital for intensive tests. Cost: R25 000. Diagnosis: Influenza. Result: Patient recovered on his own.

 

4. Female, 45. Symptoms: Severe weakness, fatigue and breathlessness. Treatment: Two visits to doctor, no tests, decongestant prescribed. Cost: R500. Diagnosis: Sinusitis: Result: Patient died of an embolism two days later.

 

The first three patients belonged to a major medical aid, the last had no medical cover...

[questor]

The question here is: at what point does a society exhaust its responsiblity to a citizen? For example, suppose you are paying 50% of your income for taxes. How much more are you willing to pay to cover all members of your society? Suppose the uninsured members all smoked or were heavy drinkers or took drugs? Would you still be willing to take from your family and give to them?

Let's also suppose you had sick children, would you still be willing?

Suppose a plague occurred and there was only enough medicine available to save 50% of the people, which age group would you pick?

I'm asssuming here we all agree that money comes from the pockets of people, not the government.

Does your morality demand that you pay whatever it takes to save everyone, or is there a limit at some point?

[mynah]

I certainly can't think of anything that would be made better by more people. I honestly don't think an argument could be made that the Earth needs more people. Very few people seem to be able to see past their own needs or wants. Economic situations would seem to be the major cause of large families but religion also plays a role in providing motivation for large families. Finding ways to get people to cut down on family size without using draconian methods would seem to the way to go.

Improvement in socioeconomic status appears to be the most effective way to curb population growth, as, paradoxically, the wealthy cannot afford as many children as the poor can (rich kids need expensive clothes and toys, privacy, TV, computers, a good education, etc. whereas poor kids just have to find a way to make do with what there is). Wealth, however, does not curb consumption of resources.

[mynah]

Ouch, just noticed I missed a few posts that had already said basically what I said now... :phones:

[coberst]

”A 70-year-old woman in India gave birth to her first child, a girl, after undergoing infertility treatment, according to a report in the Daily Mail.

 

The mother, Rajo Devi, had been trying for 50 years to get pregnant with her 72-year-old husband, who had failed to become a father in two prior marriages. It was undetermined whose egg and sperm were used in the treatment, the newspaper reported.”

 

70-year-old in India gives birth to IVF baby - Pregnancy- msnbc.com

[pamela]

yikes! and I thought I was pushing it at age 28! I know the desire for children can be strong but what is this chick's life expectancy? Will she live to at least 90 and see her child graduate? Or worse, she dies soon.....and the child has no mother and maybe no father as well. I have to wonder if her motives were rather selfish and did she think ahead as to what her child's emotional needs might be. Giving birth, is just procreation, a mother is born out of love...

[coberst]

yikes! and I thought I was pushing it at age 28! I know the desire for children can be strong but what is this chick's life expectancy? Will she live to at least 90 and see her child graduate? Or worse, she dies soon.....and the child has no mother and maybe no father as well. I have to wonder if her motives were rather selfish and did she think ahead as to what her child's emotional needs might be. Giving birth, is just procreation, a mother is born out of love...

 

Technology meets morality.

 

Morality meets almost all aspects of our life and that is why we must develop a science of morality. Morality, i.e. how we relate to one another, is too important to be treated in such a casual manner as to leave it to the priests, rabbis, preachers, and imams.

[coberst]

Christians in the US accept both reason and revelation as sources of truth. The Bible is the source of revelation for Christians.

 

For Christians reason provides knowledge about material matters such as physics and chemistry and bridge building and business practices. In matters of values and morality the Bible furnishes their truth.

 

Those individuals in the US who are not believers, or are believers but not so fundamentalist, accept reason as the source of truth for all matters. Such individuals accept reason as the human faculty that makes it possible for us to ascertain truth.

 

I would guess that in the US at least 80 % of the population are acquainted with the Bible to the extent that they can speak of it with some small understanding. I would guess that in the US less than 5 % of the population could speak with some small understanding of reason. I suspect that in the US at least 30 % of the population might be considered expert in the Bible and less that 0.1 % to be expert in understanding the science reason. (I use ‘science’ here to mean a body of knowledge). I suspect that more than 10 % of the US population studies the Bible more than once a week. I would guess that almost no individual in the US studies reason once a week.

 

Did you know that 78 % of all statistics are made up on the spot? However, you can choose your own statistics but I suspect it will not vary dramatically from my own.

 

Under such a condition is it reasonable to expect that reason can outrun revelation in the contest for acceptance as a foundation for living. Those who promote revelation are well informed, smart, hard working, tenacious and well organized. Those who promote reason are smart.

[questor]

In this discussion, how does reason differ from revelation? Do you think that reason contradicts or obviates religious teachings concerning morals and/or values?'

If so, do you have examples?