Shame I missed it. I would have liked to bring up the point that while “Lucy” the oldest fossilized hominid was discovered to be around 3.2m-years–old, only barely 130,000 years ago the amount of homo-sapiens left standing after that ice age is estimated to have been roughly 600 - yes that’s six-hundred individuals of whom we are all descended from, leaving us so genetically bankrupt and endangered that at the time our species had “less genetic diversity than a single troupe of West Africa chimpanzees.” [https://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/content/iceage/135k/index.html?platform=hootsuite],
with a huge loss of genetic evolutionary data to the species we regressed into inbreeding for far too many generations than should have us at-all comfortable with the foolishness that the “fear of overpopulation”,
propagated by the same wealthiest business owners of the World Economic Forum who benefited most out of everyone from industrial waste through planned obsolescence of product and the stonewalling of all efficient and green technology which doesn’t generate constant customer return and dependence on their companies.
Hearing the members of the World Economic Forum like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab talk about their concerns for “overpopulation” is like hearing a crack-addict mother who only has $20 to survive the weekend go and tell her children that she needs to sell them off to human trafficking because she can’t afford their “eating habits.”
We have enough empty homes to provide every homeless person in the world with 8 and that number of empty homes is only growing, not due to disease—but suicide—which likely is due to a certain ideology advertised—the belief that there’s “too much people in the world”...
...which is a concern that tends to occur historically stemming from the very same tier of society which of course inevitably projects their denied emotions of shame and guilt over their ridiculously inhumane practices of structural violence every time the witnessing of their irresponsibility becomes tipped to being more undeniable to their guilt than their waking consciousness can quarry excuse of in order to deny.
I’ve really enjoyed reading this topic and reading the comments here as well. I’m really excited to join the community and although I find myself vastly under-educated in the terminologies and brilliantly contrasting epistemological memes I do hope to add some Earth to the arena.
One of the most dangerous fallacies in the practical applications of social ethics and structured altruism an issue that tends to occur in the quantification of third-party experiential qualia which weeatquince, MichaelPlant, and Richard Y Chappell beautifully highlighted, and the specific point I’d like to substantiate is the sunk-cost fallacy that becomes almost a default of a happenstance when any quantification of a third-party’s hypothetical experiential valued outcomes to the charted and plotted undertakings of a presupposing individual or party.
That presupposition being—that they, the individual or party that is doing the quantifying of the third-party individual’s values, do actually care about that individual which their oversight and conjecture by all means is going to impact (assuming there is a actual real-world application which the hypothesis is being formulated for, whether the individual is precise or hypothetical themselves.)
Notice the extreme difference in the amount of actual consideration to all aspects and dynamics we attend to when the consideration is of a loved one in mind. With a loved one in mind whom we care about we do not leave room for any variable to arise and cause harm to them, and we are committed to the safety and well-being of them as was we can very well consider a universally human virtue, as we do take responsibility for those we love and care for.
If we look at the characters in the old tale of Cain and Abel, the projected shame denied facing by Cain is elementally psychological in the depicted scenario through the expression “Am I my brother’s keeper?”—which is the very sunk-cost fallacy that is the whole of my point.
We are “our brother’s keepers” when we sincerely care. We take ownership of the risks and the dangers personally and we put ourselves responsible and accountable for all possible dangers and damages that may occur to or upon another—when we love another.
That is the only valid quantifier which can be attributed scientifically procuring, as it is the only stance which allows for the continuance of accounting of all data.
A third-party stance conjecturing hypothesis does not account for all data by the very nature of it’s outside-party perspective, ergo, forms of itself a sunk-cost fallacy in the terms of its limits by the dimensions it can quantify values from.
And we can see this is a default to the process in every application of it we find in history, so much so that it’s been the very reason we created terms like “socially immoral” and “community guidelines” to begin with, because there is a inherent understanding that when it comes to the application of ethics coming from a policy where the authors of the policy are alien to it’s subjects -there is a X-factor of unknown immoral infliction (or just as likely, a known immoral infliction) that is due to the policy makers being alien to the subjects over which they are policing.
To me this does not leave us at an impasse, the impasse we’ve so-far carried over this clearly defined and outlined structural flaw is the shadow of the denial we’ve ironically deflected ownership of, and there is a vast amount of uncharted grounds which we could invent and create off of it if we ever did commit to the admittance if these factors and the sincere actuation, and sincere application of those illuminated avenues and realities arisen from what implications we’re left with.
Here’s one example of use-case I can think of just off the top of my head: upon the first sign of a politician lacking care for what harm and damages their actions had caused- they should no longer be entrusted with governance of that area and criteria which they were not seen holding themselves accountable to.
That should be common sense, it should be law, and in fact I might argue that it’s even a threat to national security to not have that as a deterrent to protect the innocent.
Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe I’m shortsighted even somewhere, but that was just off the top of my head and I do hope someone more knowledgeable and better educated than I am can either take this to practical application or teach me how, because I care enough to want to see it through.
No one should be entrusted with care over things they do not care about, and the verification of care is as simple as measuring the actions taken in responsibility over the care of it, not just words. Anyone can say any words. The proof is in the actual real world pudding.
The difference between a person who actually cares for the individuals of a matter and a person who doesn’t care for them is as enormous the difference between a native Alaskan Eskimo being asked to map out a valley’s frozen lake and a blind flat-Earther from New Mexico who’s never seen snow before in his life and thinks you’re talking about “hypothetical” things that only exist in his imagination but are completely non-existent to him.
And that’s what it is like every time when we think our 2-dimensional conceptualizing can somehow grasp a 5-dimensional reality impact, which accounts for ongoing-time with our inarguable accountability unquestionably married to the answering-for and managing of all risks and interrelating aspects including all interpersonal impacts caused by, from, to, and with -what influences over the ultra-personal values of the lives of others we plot to tread on.
It’s always hypothetical to the CEO until it’s money in the bank -and then it becomes “proof of concept” for them, while it’s called structural violenceto us.