Innate vs Legal Rights, Respect, and Progress

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Humanity has accomplished great progress in many areas but with the great power granted by our knowledge comes great responsibility. We, as a civilization, have the knowledge of what inflicts harm, decreases harm, provides pleasure, bestows peace, propagates instability, bestows joy, and hastens the rate of progress. Those with the expertise in how to help humanity have a duty to share their knowledge (which most have been doing to the best of their abilities) but those with power and authority have a duty to listen to the experts, interpret the knowledge, and enact changes to make their jurisdiction a better place. Progress can be delayed and even prevented by adherence to traditions that no longer work in modern society, rejection of experimentation on larger scales with new techniques & philosophies that have been proven to work on smaller scales, and inertia at adapting and refining methods as they are continuously tested in the real world.

 

Thomas Jefferson, one of The Founding Fathers, once said "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." That is why the Constitution to the United States of America allows for amendments. The last amendment to be ratified was almost 25 years ago and it took over 2 centuries to be ratified. Traditionalism in the USA has caused the most strife in the 21st Century so far. The Republican Party holds onto ideals and traditions that, although worked in the past, no longer work today.

Discrimination is a type of harmful behavior arising from continued use of preconceptions about specific demographics after experience has proven those preconceptions to be inaccurate.

On the other end of the spectrum is the movement to enforce Politically Correct communication. This movement has propagated thanks to privileged (wealth, first-world citizenship, access to education and the Internet) youth complaining that their emotions are more important than learning, problem-solving, critical thinking, logic and even reason. Between the extremes of traditionalism & discrimination and the PC thought police is the vast middle ground occupied by the silent majority. Some members of the silent majority might view one extreme more favorably than the other but the vocal minority extremists view all outsiders (read: the majority) as threats to their ways of life.

 

In the civilized world, the vast majority of Negative Rights are universally granted (on paper) according to the law. A growing movement to force governments to provide things to its citizens has pushed for more Positive "Rights to be granted (on paper).

 

I believe that even more progress can be achieved in the areas of science, peace, prosperity, health and general happiness if Informed Consent (which already has perfectly strict definitions) allowed more to be done. I once heard about animal rights activists who violently free lab animals and believe that animals should have the same rights as humans. I think that animal testing should continue where optimal but "organs on chips" and expanded powers of Informed Consent to legally allow informed people to willingly allow researchers to treat them as lab rats (allowing all experiments allowed on rodents in the USA in 2000) with sufficient compensation according to risk (comparable to military members undergoing similar potential risks), harm to subjects (compensation to next of kin for medical expenses or death), and benefits to humanity (akin to a royalty authors get per book published).

 

Most Negative Rights are 100% Fundamental, such as the following:

• Right to liberty
• Right to due process of law
• Right to freedom of movement
• Right to freedom of thought
• Right to freedom of religion
• Right to freedom of expression
• Right to peacefully assemble
• Right to freedom of association

Many new Positive Rights are merely Privileges that are considered desirable nowadays such as provision of services, internet access and subsidies. Negative Rights tend to trump Positive Rights when the two conflict, as such Negative Rights are considered prima facie.

 

Privileges are benefits enjoyed for being a member of a certain exclusive group. There are privileges granted from being born in certain places, looking like people in power where you live, holding at least a certain minimum of wealth, holding a certain position, recognition for certain achievements, and ability to do certain things. Forcing a government to legally enforce more Positive "Rights" results in the privilege of citizenship (or legal residency) to outweigh other privileges both unearned (genetics and family wealth) AND earned (diplomas, degrees, certificates, elections, self-improvement, and economic success). Privileges are best when they can be earned and lost--such as through gaining and losing residency and citizenship for Positive Rights--which is why I believe that accomplishment should be actively rewarded and failure should be passively & indirectly punished. Your accomplishments measure how well you utilized your gifts (talents, opportunities, resources, etc) but doesn't directly measure quantity of gifts. Upwards Social Mobility in the absence of subsidies comes from extreme utilization of a small amount of gifts and downwards Social Mobility comes from squandering gifts.

 

Respect is an English word often misused. Every living, breathing human being deserves love, understanding, tolerance and support. Admiration, appreciation, agreement, and the power of fame are earned through a different type of "respect." English has better words than 'respect' for what all humans deserve from the lowest rungs of nonviolent criminals to the wonderful people who nurtured and taught us. All people deserve Rights and Acceptance. However, Privileges and Admiration can only be earned (sometimes others earn them on your behalf) but are often called "Rights and Respect."

 

What do you think? Did I get anything wrong? Did I oversimplify anything important? What are your opinions?

 

Most importantly, what rights do you think humans innately possess? How often are these Fundamental Human Rights denied? Do you believe any Fundamental Human Rights can be lost (through atrocities), if so can they ever be regained through good deeds?

[AkemiAzula 280]

I am afraid Marco that you and I will never agree on ethics unless you use electromagnets to force my neurotransmissions to move my face and throat muscles in agreement.

For while I have free will I will never agree with humanism.

This is for the following reasons. 

One, I hate humans. Not as much as animals. But humans forced me to exist in this ugly universe and keep me alive to serve their ugly society. I find all live action realms ugly.

Secondly I will never afford a car or work in a office or marry and live in a house. I am destined to live out my life a worker in a flat cycling to work and drinking away thoughts of the girl I loved whose parents decided to move interstate fifteen years ago.

As I can never hope to be successful even to the extent of a middle class 'normal' for my demographic I despise any attempt to convince me to be philanthropic or considerate to the humans who force me to live in their hellish midgardian despairdom.

As I am rational and don't believe in souls and afterlives etc I have nothing to live for and hate other people because they are either ugly live action animals or are better off than me.

Also I have a penchant for evil and despise the notion we all have to play nicely and respect each other etc. The world can burn to a crisp for all my bitter heart careth.

Even if I was a house owning motorist and megan had never gone to Perth and I worked in a nice office in the city I would still think life in this world pointless.

 

That is unless all this madness is leading somewhere. I have yet to see any light at the end of midgards tunnel, but certainly if it be possible to escape it is through combined rational effort not through fighting and backwardsness.

The thing is that while it may well be advisable for humanity to combine forces and hug trees and save whales and kiss rainbows that this tunnel is not going to end before i die, it will take centuries to create heaven from hell.

So I have no personal motivation to do any more good and kindness than I am paid for.

I suppose that makes me evil but I prefer rational and enlightened. 

However one note is that I think if you want a society to go in any direction or achieve any great aim you need authoritarianism. Liberalism will not yield asgard but merely allow wallowing in midgardian hedonism. Order as well as peace are needed if you want to do what Korra does and balance the elements.

As for me I'll stick to conquering with firestorms and zeppelins of steel. Good day to you Sir.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A pair of interesting theses.  We have only one thing that is universally possessed by everyone and that is time.  One must remember that time wounds all heels.

Political theories aside, each person on the planet wants specifically food, shelter and privacy.  Any system worth anything should strive for these.  The very concept of freedom began to be hammered out in around 1210 CE with Magna Carta.  Before that the majority of humanity lived in a subject state.  Even after Magna Carta, which was condemned by the Vatican and other authorities of the time, this was an idea whose time had come.  There is no suppressing such ideas, and the Westminster Parliamentary System is the direct, if long delayed, outcome.  AFAIK, it is still possible to 'Cry Harold' in the UK and take your case to the Crown.  This supersedes even a vote by Parliament.  How's that for freedom?

Rights?  There really are none.  These privileges have to be earned.  All the declarations of rights in the world are only that, talk.  There are constitutional documents around that people agree to abide in, but what are they really?  I cited one of the most recent.

The present systems of government in the western world support the idea of capitalism, but capitalism appears to be in wreckage.  It promotes a division of people into have and have-not states and this division is becoming more and more severe.  Yet nothing has been brought forward to replace it with any success.  Time for some hand-wringing?  We'll soon be back to bartering.  What happens to all these highfalutin' principles when this happens and everyone is reduced to pay in kind or starve?

Boys, it doesn't matter in the long run what principles you espouse.

[AkemiAzula 280]

One of the main reasons I never seriously considered ethics or principles was owing to time.

The fact no matter how succesful or unsuccessful your life is, no matter how good or wicked your deeds, your life inevitably is finite.

Possibly why a believer in a deity/afterlife can be moralistic earnestly.

While there are ideals I find pretty, and injustice is no prettier to me than to Batman, the mortality of things in this world leads me to having no motivation to seriously care about ethics beyond the necessities of diplomacy.

Of course in Simcity I am in charge and I take crime pollution etc seriously as I am making a work of art. But this world according to all present data is bound to fail at some point, unless we can somehow create a portal to a new world using science...

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I believe the most fundamental human right is life. Taking away fundamental human rights of innocents is the worst thing one can do. Murder is a willful act of killing living human beings against their wills. This is unforgivable, which means murderers forfeited their rights when they committed such atrocities. Whether a civilization (or rather its government) grants leeway is up to debate (as seen by differing criminal justice and punishment laws) but I group capital punishment in the same category as infanticide (late-term abortions and negligence of infants), slaughterhouses (factory farmed meat), involuntary starvation (whether actively starving a captive or passively making it hard for others to acquire food), and war.

 

Unfortunately, most data I have observed point towards the 21st Century being our (humanity's, or at least civilization's) last. If we make it through the 21st Century, we will make it through the 42nd century.

 

Many of our problems stem from the innate human characteristics of greed, prejudice, and fear/anger/violence.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Try the seven deadly sins on for a look at how ethical systems are formed.  Probably the biggest problems are created by Avarice.

[SteveMSim 275]

I believe that, next to life itself, that not being forced to labor against your will or be owned by another human is a fundamental right.  I recognize labor as a fundamental human responsibility but it must be of a person's free will and, if a person labors for another person, he must be compensated for his work.  Slavery has existed since the beginning of human civilization and, although it is banned under international law, it still exists in many parts of the world.  Slavery has been a major blot in human history and has been taken for granted until the Enlightenment, when people started to realize that involuntary servitude was against fundamental human rights.  European countries started to abolish slavery in the 18th Century but the United States, which was founded on the principles of basic human rights, continued to allow it to flourish for 80 years and didn't abolish it until after a savage war.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. Slavery is being forced to work against one's will. Compensation is not a factor. Some slaves were compensated more than free market workers doing the same thing in a different place. Anti-discrimination laws can be abused by RadProg Liberal government officials to force people to work against their will for the normal price. Anti-discrimination laws + price controls forces some entrepreneurs to choose between enslavement or exiting the market (whether they move, cease operations, or shift to the informal sector, the oppressive government no longer collects taxes)

 

2. If I could have 1 impossible wish granted in exchange for any cost, it would be the following:

Have my consciousness (soul/memories+personality) transported into a "designer baby" (which would have my parents being the best genetic matches for paternity and maternity tests but be much fitter (health, strength, beauty, intellectual capacity, and especially longevity) than myself) in Carthage cerca 800BC so that I could alter history to shift its course so that Enlightenment and Industrialization occur before 1000AD. Europe would encounter the scientific Mayans instead of the brutal Aztecs, certain diseases would be prevented from becoming plagues, aggressive expansion (that violently exploits natives and resources) would be diminished, sustainable technology would develop faster than resources would be depleted, and a healthy yet consistently peaceful civilization would arise.

[AkemiAzula 280]

The thing is that because of mortality and no evidence of any 'being' or 'soul' beyond memories and emotional states in the brain... All of this is pointless.

Until we can scientifically prove 'souls' exist then we are all just matter that can think and remember things and form patterns of behaviour 'personality traits'.

Consider this hypothetical scenario. In an alternate universe that is an exact replica of this one, but in no way connected to this one by any dimension, there exists a person who is an exact replica of yourself.

Is this a case of two objects of the same type and description, or of one soul with two bodies?

If 'souls' exist beyond dimensions like time and space then all conventional wisdom is beside the point because any observed laws of morality are based on our experience in this world.

Consider another scenario. A universe very similar to ours exists but in this world nobody feels pain, anger or sadness. Wars still happen. Death is commonplace and brutal bullies rule. But everybody is happy. A man beaten to death by an opponent smiles and accepts he lost the game.

Everything we believe, all our opinions and likes and dislikes, are subjectively formed. Beauty for instance. What if injuring yourself felt good and kissing someone hurt? What becomes apparent is that:

1. All morality is actually 'beauty', 'normality' or 'nice' in that it is a set of laws to please our ideas of fairness and rightness

2. Without any morality or beauty you have anarchy

3. With any more than one system of beauty or religion or culture you have conflict unless the two are compatible

4. Most ethics are resource based. In a world of unlimited resources nobody would need conflict to win said resources (incl land and time) so everyone would live where and how and with whom they wanted

5. Authoritarianism is the only way to enforce a culture. People do not choose to sacrifice their beliefs for others.

6. Gods are conveniently not part of our world hence their laws are not ones from fellow men who we can argue with and fight

7. Rational men do not require myth to be orderly and law abiding, merely the opportunity and motivation

8. Evidence so far indicates our universe is unthinking and predictable, hence all thoughts and actions were probably always going to happen, certainly probability is narrow. Thus unless we conquer the universe and make a new one all our bickering over morals remains a way to spend tea time.

9. In theory any set of events or situation could exist. 

10. It is possible to satisfy basic resource demands of competing religions and prevent extremism if all are treated fairly, and no religion or culture dominates. As soon as one set of beauty rules goes imperial many rebel alliances form.

11. Thus unless we can create a situation with no finite resources where everyonr can live in a world they wish to and do as they want there will never be full agreement regarding any laws.

12. The thing is that if we had no wants or desires life would be either dull or hedonistic. Is Asgard really a crackhouse for warriors? without a battle to fight there is no point in existence.

13. Yes I do not value life as much as you do. However I am not irrationally disposed against life either. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Faith is a personal matter.  Believe what you like, but don't fall for some set of answers that doesn't allow questions. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

On the other end of the spectrum is the movement to enforce Politically Correct communication. This movement has propagated thanks to privileged (wealth, first-world citizenship, access to education and the Internet) youth complaining that their emotions are more important than learning, problem-solving, critical thinking, logic and even reason.

The only people who think that are the people who accuse others of political correctness. 

Lets examine 'political correctness' for a moment. What is it? Well, basically its human empathy. What do 'politically correct' people propagate? Well, mostly that you should be mindful and inclusive of other people, take their perspectives into account, in particular the perspectives that due to their minority or underprivileged status don't get as much attention as they maybe should have. That is what 'political correctness' propagates. Is that such a bad thing? 

So why does it get used as an insult and a way to shut down discussion? Well, I believe it works as an insult because of our culture. Our culture is primarily individualist and places an absurd degree on 'authenticity'. People want to be perceived as authentic because thats essentially the way to show off what an unique individual you are. If you are not authentic, then you are perhaps not as unique and individual you think you are, but instead just follow mass marketed trends (of course, authenticity is itself a mass marketed trend). Anyways, the people who use 'political correctness' as an insult are essentially suggesting that politically correct people are not authentic, that their supposed concern for other people is just a mask people put on to look nice. These people have a very negative and cynical view on human beings, they don't believe in any innate goodness of people, they don't believe that people are just nice to other people, they believe that every human being is essentially a raging sexist, racist bigot. Of course, they themselves are, but they project that onto everyone else as well, so every one who openly opposes their hatred for others is deemed as putting on a mask, being inauthentic or 'politically correct'. 

So they can use 'political correctness' as a way to shut down discussions that deal with things like sexism or racism, because its really difficult for people who are accused of not being authentic to counter such an attack. Of course, it is little more than an ad hominem but outside of highly formalized or academic debates who cares that ad hominem's are logical fallacies? In any case, by suggesting that their opponents are being 'politically correct' what they do is oppose learning, problem solving, critical thinking, logic and reason. How? Well they essentially deny that sexism or racism are problems we need to be concerned with when they quite clearly are and we got scientific data to back that up. And rather than help find solutions, these people pretend that everything is fine and we can keep on going business as usual. Using 'political correctness' as a defense is always a defense of the status quo or worse, a defense of how things were in the past. Its an inherently conservative argument and therefor inherently aimed against progress. And by shutting these discussions down, they prevent the discussion from going anywhere, from actually covering the problem it was intended to discuss, and as such no one learns anything, people don't get a chance to share their viewpoints and discuss it like adults. 

So next time you see someone accusing others of political correctness, remember what such a person stands for, remember what tactic they are using, and if you care one bit about logic, reason and a good discussion, call these people out on their nonsense. 

  Edited December 1, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

On the other end of the spectrum is the movement to enforce Politically Correct communication. This movement has propagated thanks to privileged (wealth, first-world citizenship, access to education and the Internet) youth complaining that their emotions are more important than learning, problem-solving, critical thinking, logic and even reason. Between the extremes of traditionalism & discrimination and the PC thought police is the vast middle ground occupied by the silent majority. Some members of the silent majority might view one extreme more favorably than the other but the vocal minority extremists view all outsiders (read: the majority) as threats to their ways of life.

[snip]

Privileges are benefits enjoyed for being a member of a certain exclusive group. There are privileges granted from being born in certain places, looking like people in power where you live, holding at least a certain minimum of wealth, holding a certain position, recognition for certain achievements, and ability to do certain things. Forcing a government to legally enforce more Positive "Rights" results in the privilege of citizenship (or legal residency) to outweigh other privileges both unearned (genetics and family wealth) AND earned (diplomas, degrees, certificates, elections, self-improvement, and economic success). Privileges are best when they can be earned and lost.

I think I finally got this post's formatting fixed!

The only people who think that are the people who accuse others of political correctness. 

[snip]

So next time you see someone accusing others of political correctness, remember what such a person stands for, remember what tactic they are using, and if you care one bit about logic, reason and a good discussion, call these people out on their nonsense. 

I am all in favor of people voluntarily using polite and inclusive communication and never saying anything offensive. However, virtually everyone who hold strongly onto Identity Politics try to enforce Politically Correct communication to the point of shutting down debates and destroying the Safe Spaces they seem to care so much about. I never say anything offensive or tell any mean-spirited lies when I function above 50% brain capacity but even the most offensive of jokes aimed towards any of my demographics never cross any lines that would prevent me from finding them funny. I don't think I have any lines in my mind when jokes stop being funny, I'm just super cautious to make sure I never cross anyone else's lines.

 

PS: I'm a Utilitarian. I disagree with Traditionalists, Liberals, Greedy/Consumerist/Userist Tycoons, and Radicals. I agree with (but don't currently/fully identify as) consistent Pro-Life Pacifists, Ascetic/Generous/Charitable Libertarians, sympathetic Activists who practice Intersectionality, consistently modest/frugal/conservationist Environmentalists, and Pioneering Scientists, Engineers, & Inventors. I hold myself to a higher standard than the general population. My standards are strict enough that most of my friends fail criteria for "Best Friend" and no one meets my criteria for "Potential Fiancée."

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ever hear about the idiot who joined Al Qaeda and was sent out to blow up a bus?  Burned his lips on the tail pipe.

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"
                         Thumper's father in Bambi (Disney).  {BTW, how many of us have seen that film?)

[AkemiAzula 280]

My opinion on political correctness is in a nutshell that if it is enforced it is a bad thing but if it is encouraged it depends on what is currently 'correct', as politics change.

In the eighteenth century slavery, the oppression of women and imperialism were politically correct. 

The truth is the most important thing in any debate, because otherwise the debate is pointless and no better than a fist fight with words.

Debate is important because otherwise people accept whatever they are told or want to believe.

Any notion of good and evil, beauty and ugliness, arises from subjective feelings regarding things. Rocks and trees couldn't care less who won world war two.

If we are going to decide that humanity needs a single cohesive moral code and system of rights and justice we need to know the truth and we need to debate honestly how we feel about its facets.

Only if the system is either absolutely transparent and fair or absolutely enforced and authoritarian can this work, owing to the simple fact we all differ regarding what is right and wrong.

However we all agree what is up and down, left and right.

Political correctness forces us to avoid discussing topics that might offend. But surely if we have any belief in freedom of thought/speech we should not consider offense an issue unless I am shouting at a illegal immigrant through a megaphone or laughing at a disabled person.

Surely adult discussion should not be limited by the fear of offense. 

Regarding Infernus's notion of being tolerant and progressive it is certainly pointless in being intolerant of minorities when we can not agree what majority is correct.

Until Jesus appears in the flesh and says 'This is right, that isn't' and proceeds to prove who he is by turning the moon into a giant cupcake, there shall inevitably remain dissent from majority opinions and lack of agreement within the big faiths and culture blocs.

Science tells us tolerance and progress is logical and that if you believe in the greatest happiness of the greatest number but not in enforcing morality and drugging the free thinking population into line that it is wise to allow anything that does not threaten the said majority.

Mind you I personally would be a tyrant if given a nation but of course nobody would ever elect an evil man like me. 

I think democracy will inevitably win unless some third party force such as climate change halts progress.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Interesting that you would think that climate change could halt progress.  As far as I am concerned, climate change is simply a new challenge to get off the dime of the status quo, and get with it.  The forces of nature will wipe us out like any other unfit species unless we find a way to fit.

All the engineering in the world will not change the oncoming cosmic forces one iota.  Delay may be possible, but in the end even the sun will become a red giant and consume the earth.

[AkemiAzula 280]

It is for this reason of wordly mortality in addition to individual mortality that I would remain largely cynical even if I was well off and happy.

It seems to me that unless we can create a new world either by using this one like mud to make bricks or through some interdimensional scientifickery by controlling timespace itself that we and our world are destined to expire at x point in time.

Probability suggests there are infinite similar worlds/universes growing and fading, as all we can see follows patterns. Nothing is abstract or distinct in this world from the patterns, it is like a perfectly harmonious symphony of trillions of particular instruments. Not a flute or piano rebels.

Thus if we are to create heaven and all our morality is to serve any lasting purpose it must be either destined to transpire or not so. As I am going to die by 2100 most likely being born in 1991 I doubt I shall be around any more than Newton or Einstein will for it to affect me. Even at the present rate of curvature of progress in technology I do not foresee an escape from midgard in my time.

For me morality is just a set of laws of beauty. I find most immoral things ugly. But I feel it is pointless to judge those who do not see as I do. Beating a tree for not being a rock is a waste of effort.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This is getting rather philosophical, don't you think?  Let's look at the title of this thread "Innate vs. Legal Rights, Respect and Progress".

I think we can say that there are no Innate rights.  Innate means intrinsic or built-in.  I don't think any member of H. Sap. has any built-in rights.  A baby is about as helpless as anything, and without some support would quickly die.

Legal rights are invented by us.  Now we come to the crux of the matter.  We invent legal systems because of earlier bad behaviour on our part.  Good laws always result from bad behaviour.  A code of laws that a group of humans agrees on can be a constitution of a nation or simply a criminal code which defines which actions can be punished.

Respect is an earned attribute of an individual.  Respect of a group of individuals is also a possibility.  Respect is another word for admiration.

Progress depends on context.  Progress in what?  In ethics?  Ha, ha!  H. Sap is only interested in shelter and a full belly, and maybe a herd of accepting females.  We are a predator species, but thankfully, in most cases not the top predator.  If you want to meet a top predator, go play with the polar bears.  You won't be coming back.

Progress in civilization?  Meaning we suppress our urge to prey on each other.  Let's not kid ourselves, this is something we dream up to give ourselves the appearance of doing good.  Current 'civilization' has the top 1% preying on the rest.  This is the honest situation.

And I hope this exhausts this topic.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

It is for this reason of wordly mortality in addition to individual mortality that I would remain largely cynical even if I was well off and happy.

It seems to me that unless we can create a new world either by using this one like mud to make bricks or through some interdimensional scientifickery by controlling timespace itself that we and our world are destined to expire at x point in time.

Probability suggests there are infinite similar worlds/universes growing and fading, as all we can see follows patterns. Nothing is abstract or distinct in this world from the patterns, it is like a perfectly harmonious symphony of trillions of particular instruments. Not a flute or piano rebels.

Thus if we are to create heaven and all our morality is to serve any lasting purpose it must be either destined to transpire or not so. As I am going to die by 2100 most likely being born in 1991 I doubt I shall be around any more than Newton or Einstein will for it to affect me. Even at the present rate of curvature of progress in technology I do not foresee an escape from midgard in my time.

For me morality is just a set of laws of beauty. I find most immoral things ugly. But I feel it is pointless to judge those who do not see as I do. Beating a tree for not being a rock is a waste of effort.

Those born in the 1990s (I was born on August Putsch) might become immortal if the following conditions are met:

1. Civilization continues in our timeline until Time Travel is invented

2. True Longevity Treatment becomes available in our lifetime

3. We become candidates for Longevity Treatment through health and wealth.

 

Mark Kochan is unlikely to meet the wealth criteria and Marco Meza is unlikely to meet the health criteria though we're both 1991 boys. We're just "crotchety old paupers" at age 24 though I have more opportunities for wealth.

I have my doubts regarding Criterion 1 but optimistic futurists predict Criteria 1 & 2 to be likely.

 

This is getting rather philosophical, don't you think?  Let's look at the title of this thread "Innate vs. Legal Rights, Respect and Progress".

I think we can say that there are no Innate rights.  Innate means intrinsic or built-in.  I don't think any member of H. Sap. has any built-in rights.  A baby is about as helpless as anything, and without some support would quickly die.

Legal rights are invented by us.  Now we come to the crux of the matter.  We invent legal systems because of earlier bad behaviour on our part.  Good laws always result from bad behaviour.  A code of laws that a group of humans agrees on can be a constitution of a nation or simply a criminal code which defines which actions can be punished.

Respect is an earned attribute of an individual.  Respect of a group of individuals is also a possibility.  Respect is another word for admiration.

Progress depends on context.  Progress in what?  In ethics?  Ha, ha!  H. Sap is only interested in shelter and a full belly, and maybe a herd of accepting females.  We are a predator species, but thankfully, in most cases not the top predator.  If you want to meet a top predator, go play with the polar bears.  You won't be coming back.

Progress in civilization?  Meaning we suppress our urge to prey on each other.  Let's not kid ourselves, this is something we dream up to give ourselves the appearance of doing good.  Current 'civilization' has the top 1% preying on the rest.  This is the honest situation.

And I hope this exhausts this topic.

A)  This thread is in "General Off-Topic" and I'm rather philosophical.
B)  I think that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are innate Negative Rights of civilized humans. All legal rights and many legal privileges stem from those 3 .
C)  Laws exist only to prevent bad behavior from reoccurring after a precedent of problems.
D)  Respect has 2 flavors: Admiration and Acceptance. Please read the last paragraph of my 1st post in this thread.

 

This whole discussion started when a (former) friend (I still communicate with over facebook) shared an "inspirational" picture quoting Ahi Wi-Hongi of tumblr (in)fame(y). The quote is "Some people say "we're not all sex workers" or "we're not all HIV+" or "we're not all on {chemically altered cocaine} but so what isfwe are? All Trans people deserve Rights & Respect."

See, I accept all human beings and tolerate all actions that are not harmful. However, I have no admiration for {coke} whores who spread HIV because cocaine has killed many innocent lives south of the border and HIV has ruined the lives of many. Neurodiversity has no impact on my respect for an individual. I only judge persons by their deeds, not their thought processes.

E)  My definition of progress is beneficial contribution to the knowledge-base of humanity.

F)  Parasites die with their hosts and predators die after they exhausted their supplies of prey. Simply put, the Elites will disappear once they run out of suitable hosts/prey. We can make ourselves unsuitable for exploitation or destroy each other. I try to go the first route but the trends point towards the second route.

  Edited December 5, 2015 by OcramSeattle  
typos

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Marco, parasites do not necessarily die with the host.  Ever heard the expression "Rats left the sinking ship."?  Fleas, for example, will transfer quite happily from a dead dog to a living one.  Flea infestations can easily kill a small dog due to exsanguination.  Puppies easily die this way.

Various animal tics behave the same way.  As for internal parasites, well, that's on them to encyst and escape.  These can often persist in the environment for several decades.