Page 5 of 7 [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 88,948
Location: UK

21 Feb 2021, 10:57 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
I thought I had made myself very clear from the beginning. Seems people still misunderstand my posts so here's an update (clarification).

When I say "euthanasia" or mercy killing, it's not an execution. I thought I made myself clear on that matter by writing "Mass Euthanasia" and not "Mass Executions".

There's a multiverse in difference between Euthanasia and Execution. The major difference is that Euthanasia is completely voluntary, though tax money will be spent to cover this mass-euthanasia program as part of the national health insurance, like the covid-vaccines which are also voluntary (in most countries).

It will cost a lot of money to organize this mass euthanasia program, as I expect the majority of the human population to behave rational and accept the offer to be euthanized if facing major loss of quality of life in the near future.

The alternative is far worse. It would be mass suicides on a global scale, with all the mess and pain it creates.
I think it's far better to control it by allowing people get a painless, peaceful and orderly death.


I had to laugh inwardly when I read this. I love your thinking BTW. Just seems a bit grim though.

I think that if this kind of thing was to happen in the near or distant future then we will be fully prepared for it. Idk society at large has a way of grooming itself to a point where we just accept things. We do have our rebels and the ones who follow the rebels etc but these are few and far between. Yes I believe that if we ever did get to a point of mass and euthanasia then the world will be too fat, lazy, drugged up and/or brainwashed that we will have anaesthetised ourselves.


_________________
We have existence


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 11:23 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
I thought I had made myself very clear from the beginning. Seems people still misunderstand my posts so here's an update (clarification).

When I say "euthanasia" or mercy killing, it's not an execution. I thought I made myself clear on that matter by writing "Mass Euthanasia" and not "Mass Executions".

There's a multiverse in difference between Euthanasia and Execution. The major difference is that Euthanasia is completely voluntary, though tax money will be spent to cover this mass-euthanasia program as part of the national health insurance, like the covid-vaccines which are also voluntary (in most countries).

It will cost a lot of money to organize this mass euthanasia program, as I expect the majority of the human population to behave rational and accept the offer to be euthanized if facing major loss of quality of life in the near future.

The alternative is far worse. It would be mass suicides on a global scale, with all the mess and pain it creates.
I think it's far better to control it by allowing people get a painless, peaceful and orderly death.


Sign me up. :thumright:

I have already been a member of 'Exit'. 8)
https://exitinternational.net/



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 11:29 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in our grandparents' day, they useta say, now and then, "they shoot horses, don't they?"


I've never understood the need to be evil against innocent people and forcing humans to suffer, when it could all be ended without any pain.

I imagine the following procedure:

1. Be sure it is completely voluntary.
2. Given anti-anxiety medication and then Goodbye to the family, relatives and friends.
3. Given more anti-anxiety medication. Then sedated with gas to make one fall asleep.
4. Then some anaesthetic, to be sure one is knocked out, combined with EEG or brain scan/other scientific methods to confirm unconsciousness.
5. End of life.

What's wrong with this procedure?


Looks fine to me.
Like I said, sign me up. :mrgreen:

When I was a kid, I used to wonder why death had to invariably be a painful experience.
I used to wonder why we couldn't expire in a similar way that a battery runs out of energy.

Then I realised that god was a cruel bastardo, and I could have done a better job in designing the world, myself. 8O



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 11:31 am

toadsnail wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
I imagine the following procedure:

1. Be sure it is completely voluntary.
2. Given anti-anxiety medication and then Goodbye to the family, relatives and friends.
3. Given more anti-anxiety medication. Then sedated with gas to make one fall asleep.
4. Then some anaesthetic, to be sure one is knocked out, combined with EEG or brain scan/other scientific methods to confirm unconsciousness.
5. End of life.

What's wrong with this procedure?

Open up a history book and you'll know what's wrong with it.


I'd rather die like that than have a "death by a 1,000 cuts". 8O



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

21 Feb 2021, 12:51 pm

auntblabby wrote:
when i die i wanna be elsewhere.


What if you will be everywhere? 8)


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


toadsnail
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2021
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

21 Feb 2021, 1:00 pm

Pepe wrote:
I'd rather die like that than have a "death by a 1,000 cuts". 8O

I'm not saying there aren't worse and less-worse ways to die, but... Do you trust any government whatsoever to never misuse an explicit power to "mass euthanize" its own population?

If an entity has the practical power and lawful approval to readily do it with people's consent, then it has the practical power to readily do it without that consent. And if an entity has such an incredible power, it will abuse it. It's not even cynicism, it's human society 101.


_________________
earth is just a tiny ball


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

21 Feb 2021, 1:44 pm

babybird wrote:
Yes I believe that if we ever did get to a point of mass and euthanasia then the world will be too fat, lazy, drugged up and/or brainwashed that we will have anaesthetised ourselves.

There will always be a handful of other ones - just the nature of big numbers - ones willing to survive no matter what.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Feb 2021, 1:52 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
I thought I had made myself very clear from the beginning. Seems people still misunderstand my posts so here's an update (clarification).

When I say "euthanasia" or mercy killing, it's not an execution. I thought I made myself clear on that matter by writing "Mass Euthanasia" and not "Mass Executions".

There's a multiverse in difference between Euthanasia and Execution. The major difference is that Euthanasia is completely voluntary, though tax money will be spent to cover this mass-euthanasia program as part of the national health insurance, like the covid-vaccines which are also voluntary (in most countries).

It will cost a lot of money to organize this mass euthanasia program, as I expect the majority of the human population to behave rational and accept the offer to be euthanized if facing major loss of quality of life in the near future.

The alternative is far worse. It would be mass suicides on a global scale, with all the mess and pain it creates.
I think it's far better to control it by allowing people get a painless, peaceful and orderly death.


You mentioned the idea of nuking our own cities or conventional weapons to accomplish the mass euthanasia. I don't think that could be entirely voluntary as I doubt everyone in a whole city/town would collectively agree to be wiped out also nukes specifically do damage beyond just the immediate area they hit.

If there is a way to make it entirely voluntary than fine...since that leaves an option to opt out.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

21 Feb 2021, 4:32 pm

magz wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
The climate crisis is nothing compared to the fact that a gigantic asteroid could smash into Earth any moment.
Astronomers are watching for them all the time and current technology is capable of altering the asteroid's trajectory if really necessary.

thinkinginpictures wrote:
However, sometimes we can detect such objects but we might not be able to do anything about it.
Sending a nuke in a rocket and firing it on the asteroid should be sufficient to tilt it out of the collision course if done early enough.

I don't think that's correct. If you nuke the asteroid, you don't push it away. At best, you crack it a bit. At worst, you just have a lot of smaller, radioactive asteroids with the same total mass and therefore the same total force. We're talking about a rock potentially 5-10km in diameter. A 7m (yes, different unit) asteroid has the same amount of energy as the Hiroshima bomb, a 7km one would be beyond our power and would cause a mass extinction. We don't have nearly the space capabilities to do anything about it. It takes about four years to build a rocket, and we wouldn't have four years of warning, and we have never built a rocket big enough.

Humanity would probably survive the immediate impact, but chances are strong that society wouldn't. Doomsday preppers with large stashes of tins of food might last long enough to emerge. But frankly our best chance is developing self-sufficient colonies. I would put one on the south pole of the Moon (in the Shackleton crater) and then try to develop one on Mars that could eventually cover the whole planet. By the time we have developed the technology to re-direct asteroids, it will be time to start thinking about colonising Venus.

Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Will this be optional? 8O I'd certainly rather not prepare for that.

I'd rather not be killed in mass euthanasia on the premise of an asteroid could hit the earth. I think a mass euthanasia of all humanity sounds just as horrific as the asteroid scenario.

Also, space travel is becoming a more real possibility...so even with the sun eventually destroying the earth, we may have colonized mars by then.


Mars will be swallowed by the sun also.
I suggest Pluto. :P

I think it's still a matter of debate whether the Sun will even actually engulf Earth, but certainly it will end all life on Earth and probably make things very tough on Mars (maybe we could survive deep underground?). I also wonder about Ceres, although the lack of gravity might be a problem.

Pluto however would still be very deep in space, and has very low gravity. My suggestion would be moons, particularly Callisto and Titan. By that stage, if we're still around then we should have the technology to deal with the radiation problem that makes Ganymede and Europa uninhabitable, so they would also be options.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,801
Location: the island of defective toy santas

21 Feb 2021, 6:53 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in our grandparents' day, they useta say, now and then, "they shoot horses, don't they?"


I've never understood the need to be evil against innocent people and forcing humans to suffer, when it could all be ended without any pain.

I imagine the following procedure:

1. Be sure it is completely voluntary.
2. Given anti-anxiety medication and then Goodbye to the family, relatives and friends.
3. Given more anti-anxiety medication. Then sedated with gas to make one fall asleep.
4. Then some anaesthetic, to be sure one is knocked out, combined with EEG or brain scan/other scientific methods to confirm unconsciousness.
5. End of life.

What's wrong with this procedure?

my home state of washington legalized euthanasia a few years back, the doc prescribes the drugs and the patient takes them at home.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 7:42 pm

toadsnail wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I'd rather die like that than have a "death by a 1,000 cuts". 8O

I'm not saying there aren't worse and less-worse ways to die, but... Do you trust any government whatsoever to never misuse an explicit power to "mass euthanize" its own population?


As I have said on many occasions:
"My life, My choice". 8)

toadsnail wrote:
If an entity has the practical power and lawful approval to readily do it with people's consent, then it has the practical power to readily do it without that consent. And if an entity has such an incredible power, it will abuse it. It's not even cynicism, it's human society 101.


I am not advocating for government-initiated mass-euthanasia.
*That* is god's responsibility.

Planet Killing Asteroid pending. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 7:46 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
I thought I had made myself very clear from the beginning. Seems people still misunderstand my posts so here's an update (clarification).

When I say "euthanasia" or mercy killing, it's not an execution. I thought I made myself clear on that matter by writing "Mass Euthanasia" and not "Mass Executions".

There's a multiverse in difference between Euthanasia and Execution. The major difference is that Euthanasia is completely voluntary, though tax money will be spent to cover this mass-euthanasia program as part of the national health insurance, like the covid-vaccines which are also voluntary (in most countries).

It will cost a lot of money to organize this mass euthanasia program, as I expect the majority of the human population to behave rational and accept the offer to be euthanized if facing major loss of quality of life in the near future.

The alternative is far worse. It would be mass suicides on a global scale, with all the mess and pain it creates.
I think it's far better to control it by allowing people get a painless, peaceful and orderly death.


You mentioned the idea of nuking our own cities or conventional weapons to accomplish the mass euthanasia. I don't think that could be entirely voluntary as I doubt everyone in a whole city/town would collectively agree to be wiped out also nukes specifically do damage beyond just the immediate area they hit.

If there is a way to make it entirely voluntary than fine...since that leaves an option to opt out.


Obviously, there would be a "Community Announcement" which would direct people to designated euthanasia locality.
Have faith. 8)



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Feb 2021, 12:30 am

auntblabby wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
in our grandparents' day, they useta say, now and then, "they shoot horses, don't they?"


I've never understood the need to be evil against innocent people and forcing humans to suffer, when it could all be ended without any pain.

I imagine the following procedure:

1. Be sure it is completely voluntary.
2. Given anti-anxiety medication and then Goodbye to the family, relatives and friends.
3. Given more anti-anxiety medication. Then sedated with gas to make one fall asleep.
4. Then some anaesthetic, to be sure one is knocked out, combined with EEG or brain scan/other scientific methods to confirm unconsciousness.
5. End of life.

What's wrong with this procedure?

my home state of washington legalized euthanasia a few years back, the doc prescribes the drugs and the patient takes them at home.


Well certainly more reasonable than nuking a whole city because some people in it would rather die now than face what may happen beyond that. I do not have an issue with voluntary euthanasia I would certainly question mass euthanasia but if people wanted to willingly sign up I have to defer to:
'One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.'

So if people choose euthanasia I have no right to stop them. It gets a little more complicated with suicide specifically, like in response to depression and mental health stuff since some suicide attempts are certainly not a like thought out like choice made reasonably and a lot of suicidal people don't actually, actually want to die they just want a relief to the pain and that can sometimes seem the only way. but even so some people who are sound of mind certainly have decided to kill themselves, even one of the police officers that was there when the insurrection at the capital happened and killed himself after seems to be a case of that.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

22 Feb 2021, 1:13 am

The_Walrus wrote:
magz wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
The climate crisis is nothing compared to the fact that a gigantic asteroid could smash into Earth any moment.
Astronomers are watching for them all the time and current technology is capable of altering the asteroid's trajectory if really necessary.

thinkinginpictures wrote:
However, sometimes we can detect such objects but we might not be able to do anything about it.
Sending a nuke in a rocket and firing it on the asteroid should be sufficient to tilt it out of the collision course if done early enough.

I don't think that's correct. If you nuke the asteroid, you don't push it away. At best, you crack it a bit. At worst, you just have a lot of smaller, radioactive asteroids with the same total mass and therefore the same total force. We're talking about a rock potentially 5-10km in diameter. A 7m (yes, different unit) asteroid has the same amount of energy as the Hiroshima bomb, a 7km one would be beyond our power and would cause a mass extinction. We don't have nearly the space capabilities to do anything about it. It takes about four years to build a rocket, and we wouldn't have four years of warning, and we have never built a rocket big enough.
I didn't mean to destroy it but to push it out of collision course, in a manner similar to Project Orion propulsion. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_ ... ive_device


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,828
Location: Indiana

22 Feb 2021, 9:50 am

It is within the nature of man to survive.

Generally one needs a clear understanding of the threat and then to physically take appropriate actions to overcome the threat.

In the hypothetical of an asteroid impact. Asteroids and comet fragments come in many sizes. In general, if a threat appeared, the most likely avenue to survival is avoidance. It would be to evacuate the area near the impact. Essentially beyond the blast zone of 1 psi overpressure. This would be very similar to the techniques commonly used to evacuate an area along the coast when a large hurricane is expected to make landfall.


_________________
Author of Practical Preparations for a Coronavirus Pandemic.
A very unique plan. As Dr. Paul Thompson wrote, "This is the very best paper on the virus I have ever seen."


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia

27 Feb 2021, 2:40 am

magz wrote:
Based on the impact that killed dinosaurs?
In the impact zone - you have no time to feel anything before you die.
Further away - earthquakes, megatsunamis, fire storms. No fun but some would likely survive.
What finished off non-avian dinosaurs was planet-wide ecosystem collapse likely due to impact winter. Ecosystems that could be run of decaying matter (streams and rivers, insects and insectivores) survived better than those dependent on fresh photosyntesis (forests, oceans). Of larger organisms, either longevity (crocodilians, turtles) or ability to reproduce in cold conditions (mammals, birds) seems crucial.

Humans are omnivorous, can reproduce in cold and have been tampering with ecosystems for the last 10,000 years. While civilisations would likely collapse, survival of the species is very likely.
I would take my chance.

Depends on the size of the asteroid. Something like this could wipe us out pretty quick.


Image


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short