"The big question is what are the alternative futures, if any, for the mass of humanity now that a pair of hands is, in most cases, no longer worth its keep."
(1) "23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
Mark 2:23-28 King James Version
(2)
"An end-in-itself
An explanation of Kant's concept of "an end-in-itself", often put more informally as the idea that we should not "use" other people.
The word "end" in this phrase has the same meaning as in the phrase "means to an end".
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.
If a person is an end-in-themself it means their inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether the person is enjoying their life, or making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value.
Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it so formally. We say that we don't think that we should use other people, which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.
This idea applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends; instead we should respect our inherent worth. This can be used as an argument against euthanasia, suicide and other behaviours that damage ourselves.
The idea also shows up in discussions of animal rights, with the idea that if they have rights, animals must be treated as ends in themselves."
The computer was made for man, not man for the computer.
These people are literally playing God. They are, of course, not God.
Being a billionaire does not qualify someone to play God.
When Yuval Harari spoke of how "the great equalizer"-- death-- would no longer apply, as the rich are now in a position to buy immortality, I wondered. They don't have any idea what they are doing to themselves. This kind of immortality I see as eternal damnation for themselves.
For themselves.
In fact, "they" do not run things. Not really. I do not know how it is going to pan out, or what terrors await us, but I do believe "they" will not get their way: "their" will be done on earth, as it is in....Redmond, Washington?
"The big question is what are the alternative futures, if any, for the mass of humanity now that a pair of hands is, in most cases, no longer worth its keep."
ReplyDelete(1)
"23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
Mark 2:23-28 King James Version
(2)
"An end-in-itself
An explanation of Kant's concept of "an end-in-itself", often put more informally as the idea that we should not "use" other people.
The word "end" in this phrase has the same meaning as in the phrase "means to an end".
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.
If a person is an end-in-themself it means their inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether the person is enjoying their life, or making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value.
Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it so formally. We say that we don't think that we should use other people, which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.
This idea applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends; instead we should respect our inherent worth. This can be used as an argument against euthanasia, suicide and other behaviours that damage ourselves.
The idea also shows up in discussions of animal rights, with the idea that if they have rights, animals must be treated as ends in themselves."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/endinitself.shtml#:~:text=The%20philosopher%20Immanuel%20Kant%20said,human%20has%20value%20in%20itself.
The computer was made for man, not man for the computer.
ReplyDeleteThese people are literally playing God. They are, of course, not God.
Being a billionaire does not qualify someone to play God.
When Yuval Harari spoke of how "the great equalizer"-- death-- would no longer apply, as the rich are now in a position to buy immortality, I wondered. They don't have any idea what they are doing to themselves. This kind of immortality I see as eternal damnation for themselves.
For themselves.
In fact, "they" do not run things. Not really. I do not know how it is going to pan out, or what terrors await us, but I do believe "they" will not get their way: "their" will be done on earth, as it is in....Redmond, Washington?