Reistance v. Founders (Security)

(Mr. Magikarp) #101

I don’t see why humanity should resign itself to extinction when it has the means to survive. It’s the same reason I support the sustainability movement. To say that a revolutionary project such as the Ark should not be made is the same as saying that we might as well continue killing the planet, imo.

(tokamak) #102

Extinction isn’t really the motive though. Global warming won’t let the human race go extinct. The worst case scenario is that our entire standard of living and development in the past two centuries will take a plunge. t will just cause a great deal of suffering in the century where the most people exist. That’s good mix for the biggest atrocity ever.

Which would be so if it wasn’t for edible crops still put more carbon in that you get out of it. Only with long lasting forests you can ensure that the fixed carbon remains where it is. And well, we all know that there’s no such thing as long lasting forests, not anymore.

I dislike arguments like these. Public indifference does not justify the apathy of the founders.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, sure. But it does make judging others while not doing the same pretty hypocritical. Why single this particular case out and say it’s wrong?

lol What was that?

It’s the analogy Singer uses. His example involves your expensive car parked on a rail and someone tied to a second rail. You see a train coming and can it will ride over the person if you don’t pull the lever, which will make it crash into your car.

It’s not a great example as it has too many complications. Expensive clothes and a muddy pond get the same point across.

I think the flaw is that it doesn’t account for the causes of the suffering that you theoretically would be obliged to ‘cure’. It doesn’t take into account that you might already be living a virtuous or philanthropic life.

(Seyu) #103

[QUOTE=tokamak;283082]
Two wrongs don’t make a right, sure. But it does make judging others while not doing the same pretty hypocritical. Why single this particular case out and say it’s wrong? [/QUOTE]
It would be hypocritical if we condoned our own apathy.

…It’s the analogy Singer uses.

Peter Singer, right?

(tokamak) #104

Yes.

I rest my case.

(Seyu) #105

Wait, who does?

(tokamak) #106

My point is that the founders already did more than we’re doing now. That makes them more ethical than us which puts us out of the position to be judgemental towards them.

(Seyu) #107

But they had considerably more resources too.

(DarkangelUK) #108

Do we know if they did it for ethical reasons or selfish reasons? Seems the Ark was catered towards the rich and famous, meaning they were going to profit from it (or make some of the cost back at least)… is there something ethical about letting the poor drown?

(tokamak) #109

On that moment their entire resources was the ark and nothing else. They welcomed as much refugees as they could.

I know that if I would spent all my resources I would be saving tens of thousands of childeren yet I won’t. That makes me far less ethical than the founders.

Do we know if they did it for ethical reasons or selfish reasons? Seems the Ark was catered towards the rich and famous,

The Ark mainly was an exposition of innovative technology, the extravagant living space is there for the founders and to lure fund-raisers to spread the innovations.

(Seyu) #110

To quote a previous post of mine,

[QUOTE=Seyu;283042]
…Still, that depends on what you define as ethical. If you believe your life has more value than those asking for help then it isn’t really unethical. Disregarding societal norms, the question is whether it’s ethical for someone to place more value to his life than that of others.

Let’s not forget though that the founders are also not allowing the refugees to leave the Ark.[/QUOTE]

(tokamak) #111

We’re not weighing lives against each other here, we’re weighing financial value against someone else’s life. And I believe the founders spent enough of that already.

(Seyu) #112

Eh, on that front I do agree with you. My point being that the refugees who already are on the Ark, deserve an equal share of resources.

(tokamak) #113

As I said, that’s because we’re generations further where nobody truly ‘owns’ anything any more.

(Seyu) #114

I don’t think that has anything to do with equal distribution of resources unless you’re suggesting that it isn’t for the founders to decide.

(tokamak) #115

We’re talking of the offspring here, they didn’t make the ark nor did they seek refuge on it. The founder’s children simply inherited a privileged position and wealth.

(LyndonL) #116

So they should. Why would they want to rub shoulders with the unclean. Yuck.

(Seyu) #117

Which doesn’t mean they are not obligated to share it.

(tokamak) #118

Based on what? Besides, who says they’re not already sharing? Texas is the biggest net recipient of government spending yet most Texans believe the government is costing them money. Same story for Ireland and the EU, huge benefits from financial aid and welfare projects yet the majority is vehemently anti-EU.

I was mainly interested in the history of the ark as the setting was more clear. Obviously the story is now much less clear. For all we know the Resistance are a bunch of spoiled entitled cretins who want more than their fair share.

(Seyu) #119

You don’t see Texans participating in an armed revolution.

I don’t think protests against rationing of water, crackdowns by the Security and not being allowed contact with the outside world stem from a false sense of entitlement.

(brbrbr) #120

[QUOTE=Seyu;283175]You don’t see Texans participating in an armed revolution.

I don’t think protests against rationing of water, crackdowns by the Security and not being allowed contact with the outside world stem from a false sense of entitlement.[/QUOTE]

if you watch/play GRAW2 more or less seriously you will notice that’s US will notice about [neverdying]Mexicans intentions/will to restore country integrity/consistency, ie TX, AZ recovery[for example].
same was about Indian tribes btw. sadly [nearly]eliminated for present days.
same was true about other countries, with[like Haiti]or without US interference.