Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Jotapay wrote:

Ludi wrote:I guess I'm not sure what we would do with slackers/parasites as a society.

If they are stealing from you, like a banker or a thief, defend yourself.

So what have you done recently about this?

Bas wrote:according to that definition, are there really that many parasites in America? aren't receivers of unemployment benefits obliged by law to look for a job and are checked upon that? IMHO opinion the only real parasites in the system are those who commit fraud with entitlements still it can be a daytime job surviving on welfare. Also those people not needed by the system, who are unable to find a job should be just left to die or forced to steal their daily bread? I don't think so. Not while we live in a system where bankers run off with millions for running the economy into the ground.

Well of course the ultimate issue here Bas is a surplus of people. And given that said surplus is going to be winnowed in the not-to-distant future, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask ourselves the question, "Do we let Nature take its course, reasserting her 'red in tooth and claw' aspect so that we end up playing Last (or No) Man Standing, or do we look for more humane ways to aid the process, utilizing Nature's guidance as an aid toward determining how best to accomplish the task?"

I for one lean toward the second option, which means that somehow one must find a way to determine what gets pruned and what does not. And if one's desire is that the best possible chance of long-term species survival be a primary goal, then I don't believe simply drawing lots (i.e. 'leaving it to fate') is the way to go.

So how to decide? I suppose there might be any number of ways, but I for one believe that selecting a) obvious genetic defectives at birth, b) intentional grifters in all their myriad variations, and c) those that are no longer capable of self-support and lacking willing and capable familial support as the first to be winnowed is one of the more equitable choices. No racial or national biases, just selection made in line with the tendencies of Nature when left to her own devices.

Have you a better suggestion, given the goal of maximizing our chances as a species for long term survival?

TWilliam wrote:
So how to decide? I suppose there might be any number of ways, but I for one believe that selecting a) obvious genetic defectives at birth, b) intentional grifters in all their myriad variations, and c) those that are no longer capable of self-support and lacking willing and capable familial support as the first to be winnowed is one of the more equitable choices. No racial or national biases, just selection made in line with the tendencies of Nature when left to her own devices.

What if they don't conveniently die? Should they be killed?

Jotapay wrote:

Ludi wrote:I guess I'm not sure what we would do with slackers/parasites as a society.

If they are stealing from you, like a banker or a thief, defend yourself. If not, then do nothing and let them reap their own harvest. No one ever said one has to work, but no one ever said I had to help them either if they are lazy.

I for one don't find it difficult to pay my taxes. Have you stopped paying yours?

I have a question to pose - if a person is perfectly willing to work but is unable to find a job, even at minimum wage, should we guarantee them a job? If not, do we just toss them in the gutter and hope they don't steal in order to survive?

In normal times, you could say there's a job for everyone who's willing to work, although the work may undesirable, pay only min wage, etc. But these are not ordinary times. It's getting to the point that even the most desperate of job-seekers are unable to find work - even at places such as Wallymart and Micky D's. So what gives?

I say we quit bailing out every bank / corporation / greedy Wall Street scum that begs for a handout and actually use our taxpayer money to help those who need it the most. Talk about having our priorities mixed-up...

davep wrote:So what have you done recently about this?

Pay down debt, go to cash, get self-sufficient. Ignore complainers, whiners and freeloaders. Reduce consumption and the amount that I contribute to corporations and government to a minimum. Carry a pistol daily (for normal thieves).

Ludi wrote:I for one don't find it difficult to pay my taxes. Have you stopped paying yours?

Of course not.

But I don't contribute any more than necessary to the whole leech-f*ck game.

Ludi wrote:

TWilliam wrote:
So how to decide? I suppose there might be any number of ways, but I for one believe that selecting a) obvious genetic defectives at birth, b) intentional grifters in all their myriad variations, and c) those that are no longer capable of self-support and lacking willing and capable familial support as the first to be winnowed is one of the more equitable choices. No racial or national biases, just selection made in line with the tendencies of Nature when left to her own devices.

What if they don't conveniently die? Should they be killed?

Do you suppose that they're not going to be?

Which do you think would be preferable? That they be lynched? Or beaten to death? Or shot, or left to die slowly from untreated wounds, or ravaged by disease, or slowly starve to death, or... ? Or would a relatively benign and compassionate euthanasia be preferable? (Well personally, I think any of the former is preferable for the grifters, but apart from them... )

TWilliam wrote:Do you suppose that they're not going to be?

Which do you think would be preferable? That they be lynched? Or beaten to death? Or shot, or left to die slowly from untreated wounds, or ravaged by disease, or slowly starve to death, or... ? Or would a relatively benign and compassionate euthanasia be preferable?

I won't be killing them. That's what you seem to want to do to them, so you tell me how you plan to kill them.

Jotapay wrote:

davep wrote:So what have you done recently about this?

Pay down debt, go to cash, get self-sufficient. Ignore complainers, whiners and freeloaders. Reduce consumption and the amount that I contribute to corporations and government to a minimum. Carry a pistol daily (for normal thieves).

Boo! I thought you were referring to a more active form of defence against the Bankers

davep wrote:Boo! I thought you were referring to a more active form of defence against the Bankers

Being a Rambo tends to have acutely negative medical consequences.

Jotapay wrote:Being a Rambo tends to have acutely negative medical consequences.

Best quote of the day.

Ludi wrote:

TWilliam wrote:Do you suppose that they're not going to be?

Which do you think would be preferable? That they be lynched? Or beaten to death? Or shot, or left to die slowly from untreated wounds, or ravaged by disease, or slowly starve to death, or... ? Or would a relatively benign and compassionate euthanasia be preferable?

I won't be killing them. That's what you seem to want to do to them, so you tell me how you plan to kill them.

'I' don't 'plan' on killing anyone, apart from self-defense perhaps.

The point you seem to wish to keep avoiding here Ludi is that a 'culling of the herd', as some like to call it, is going to happen, regardless of what our personal opinions of the matter may be. The question I have been addressing here is, "Is it preferable to allow said culling to proceed in a manner that will likely maximize pain and suffering and could lead to our complete extinction as a species, or do we instead seek a more thoughtful and humane path that simultaneously maximizes the chances of our species surviving ?" Given that I for one prefer the latter choice, the second question is then, "What might be a reasonable criteria for choosing who is first to be culled?"

You keep trying (it seems) to divert this into a discussion about the morality of making the choice. That is an irrelevant issue in this context, given that said choice will be made, either deliberately or by default. The relevant issue is which choice is the moral, or at least preferable one. As I've said I nominate the latter, and given that, I've articulated the question that then naturally follows, along with what I consider to be an equitable answer. I have yet to hear anyone offer a better one...

So you're going to hire someone else to kill them, I guess.

Ludi wrote:So you're going to hire someone else to kill them, I guess.

While 'death controls' are going to come into discussion; we do have to decide whether a life after institution would be worth living.

This idea would make every family guilty of murder, sooner or later& mainly function to insulate the rich& powerful.

Is that better than what Hitler did?

SeaGypsy, how do you decide whether someone else's life is worth living?

These conversations are not abstract for me. Several members of my family are old or disabled.

Ludi wrote:So you're going to hire someone else to kill them, I guess.

I don't have to. Hospitals are already staffed, and many already know which is the humane choice. All that is lacking (and hugely so) is sufficient public compassion to call for a political mandate to encourage and permit (please note that I did NOT say 'compel') its being made.

Ludi wrote:SeaGypsy, how do you decide whether someone else's life is worth living?

These conversations are not abstract for me. Several members of my family are old or disabled.

I cannot& will not decide.

I work with disabled& have family& lifelong friends who are disabled.
If it came to a choice, I would not know.

I have some clients who will be dead within days or weeks if a rapid crash scenario takes place.

They are brain damaged car accident victims.

They are outcast from their Aboriginal society because people were killed by their actions behind the wheel.

I love these people, but when it comes down to survival I won't be anywhere near them; as I work thousands of km from my retreat areas. I can't take them with me. They will die.

This is what makes my job extremely secure.

The shame on the Government IF they let this happen.


I think people should have an informed consent clause; but it has to be made by a person of sound mind& must be suicide effectively.

Not Murder.

So you advocate hospitals kill "grifters"?

So how to decide? I suppose there might be any number of ways, but I for one believe that selecting a) obvious genetic defectives at birth, b) intentional grifters in all their myriad variations, and c) those that are no longer capable of self-support and lacking willing and capable familial support as the first to be winnowed is one of the more equitable choices.

SeaGypsy wrote:
Not Murder.

Thank you. It is quite popular to advocate murder - "culling" "cutting the rope" - here on po.com.