What really matters?

[Obvious Leo]

You're not talking about the right to die at all because we already have that right as well as that obligation.


Maybe so, but I've sure seen a lot of interventions and preventions and straightjacketing by people whose business it shouldn't have been.

OK. In that case you're talking about a totally different subject. I'm not familiar with Canadian law but anybody in Australia has the legal right to refuse medical treatment. If this is not a legal right in Canada then I agree you have a problem.

Neither are you talking about the right to take your own life because this is possibly one of the most basic human rights of all.


You may think so. The religious busybodies who make most of the world's laws don't.

Once again if this is the case in Canada you have a problem. Australia has a secular government and the religious busybodies in my country have very little lobbying power because they represent a vanishingly small minority.

What you're actually talking about is whether you should have the right to ask somebody to assist you to take your own life and that is by means a simple legal or ethical question.


Sure it is. Take your cancer-ridden terrier to the vet and he'll administer the merciful injection for $40 and sleep like a baby, with no fear of legal reprisal.

And you reckon you should be able to do the same with Mum. Are you sure these situations are analogous?

All the law needs to do is get the hell out of my way.

This I very much agree with. There are simply some aspects of the human journey where the law cannot and should not be. However it may surprise you to know that this is almost universally already the case.

[Skip]

"Take your cancer-ridden terrier to the vet and he'll administer the merciful injection for $40 and sleep like a baby, with no fear of legal reprisal. "

And you reckon you should be able to do the same with Mum. Are you sure these situations are analogous?

No, not analogous - identical. Compassion is compassion; continuous, indivisible, no great big spill-you-off-the-bicycle bump between species.

" All the law needs to do is get the hell out of my way."

This I very much agree with. There are simply some aspects of the human journey where the law cannot and should not be. However it may surprise you to know that this is almost universally already the case.

universally...? I do wonder. Law has not universally been accommodating of personal autonomy. In matters of birth and death, even governments that consider themselves secular tend to back off when religionists push their agendas. It's not been easy.

[Greta]

We aren't parasites, we are the biosphere reshaping itself. It is clearly undergoing undergoing metamorphosis. Just as tadpoles lose structures, whose material is used to make new ones, so does the biosphere. It's done it plenty of times before.

Yes we are parasites even according to our own definitions. Here is one such:
A parasite is an organism that lives in another organism, called the host, and often harms it. It is dependent on its host for survival - it has to be in the host to live, grow and multiply. A parasite cannot live independently. Although a parasite rarely kills the host, in some cases it can happen. The parasite benefits at the expense of the host - the parasite uses the host to gain strength, and the host loses some strength as a result. Parasites, unlike predators, are usually much smaller than their host. They reproduce at a faster rate than the host.

In this interpretation of "parasite" you are treating the biosphere as the host organism and humans as parasites. Yet what organisms grow their own parasites? We aren't aliens but part of a lineage of great apes and primitive hominids.

So, by your definition humanity is a cancer - a part of an organism that does not cooperate by limiting its growth like normal cells. However, we again run into the issue of order. Cancers are disordered entities but humans are the opposite.

Anything here not familiar in our relations to planet earth? The sentence 'They reproduce at a faster rate than the host' is also true as the demand for resources is exceeding supply as our numbers increase. The planet, as everyone knows, doesn't need us. We are thoroughly expendable as a species.

So you believe the biosphere would thrive without us? It could continue being beautiful without due appreciation, and continue being savage without abatement, and then the whole lot (maybe barring some deep living microbes) dies in a billion years. If an asteroid hits, maybe much sooner.

I don't find that vision as inspiring as the possibility of enhanced humans rising from the wreckage of the Earth before the Sun wrecks it and bringing life to other moons and planets.

We are also most definitely not the biosphere reshaping itself! Definition of biosphere:
Part of the Earth's surface and atmosphere that contains the entire terrestrial ecosystem, and extends from ocean depths to about six kilometers (3.7 miles) above sea level. Not precisely demarkable, it contains all living organisms and what supports them soil, subsurface water, bodies of water, air and includes hydrosphere and lithosphere. Also called ecosphere.

If we are not part of the biosphere, what are we part of??

Again this is negativity bias blinding us to the obvious. A parasite reduces and kills off larger systems, reducing them to retrograde, simpler ones.

I would need to be educated in how we haven't already done this.

Once again you are painting humans as super special aliens screwing everything up. You forget the progress side - the fact that we have billions of intelligent beings capable of deep morality, creativity, imagination and kindness (even if not all do it). The other animals and plants are paying the price for our existence, yes, just as any prey animals unwillingly pay with their lives for the sake of predators. That's why I only eat meat occasionally, to lighten my footprint.

So nope, humans are born of the Earth. We are pieces of the Earth, just like every other critter. We are dominant because we are empowered and any other empowered species would do the same.

Take the Amazon rain forest and others like it, etc, in which the vast eroded tracts are doomed to become deserts due to the type of soil which nourishes it. It took overs a billion years to create. A source of pharmaceuticals beyond anything we have in our research labs not to speak of some of the most exotic editions of life ever encountered eventually reduced to sand.

The Amazon takes billions of years to make and we must save it. Humans take billions of years to make and you want us all dead? What for? So animals can bumble along just like "the good old days"- until an asteroid or the Sun gets them?

The "good old days" ... when humans lived to their early twenties, had high infant mortality, frequently died violently and spent their short painful lives riddled with parasites, exposed to the elements and living in constant fear of predators. Is that your idea of an ideal world? If you want the clock wound back, at what point in history would you like use to back to? If we regressed to a point that you wanted, would you want us not to progress any more?

Metamorphosis involves replacing simpler structures with more complex ones better adapted for the new life.

What new life would that be?

Um, humans. Last time I looked we were alive. Don't we count? If not, why?

Metamorphosis may be nature's way but in what way have we accomplished replacing simpler structures with more complex ones...? Our version of Metamorphosis seems more like turning Earth into Venus, a considerably less complex structure.
...but maybe I misunderstood!

Earth is turning into Venus in a billion years' time anyway. Why always focus on the destruction and not the construction? I wouldn't believe you if you claimed not to see value in the arts, morality, charity and our bodies of knowledge. You know we have done all these good things and no doubt appreciate them on a personal level - yet you focus on the negative, as though you think the price for those good things is too high.

I suppose the price for a caterpillar is too high as it relinquishes so much potential longevity to become a butterfly. But what are butterflies? A reproductive cycle. I think of humans as the biosphere's reproductive organs.

Our radio waves, light and space junk advertises our presence to our galactic neighbourhood and we are consistently sending biota into space, often despite our best efforts at keeping things sterile. We churn up masses of dust, propelling countless microbes into the air.

If the biosphere is going to persist after the Sun's expansion then humanity may well play a major role, at least greatly improving the chances of Earth-induced panspermia elsewhere. Life has a drive to persist and explores all possible options like water explores the cracks in pavement (hardy surprising since life is largely water).

[Dubious]

So, who said it has to be uniform? I just say it has to be my decision, not a priest's, not a judge's and not a doctor's. All the law needs to do is get the hell out of my way. I'm not even asking a doctor or nurse to go against their convictions. Just want the ones who already agree to stop having to be afraid that some busybody will make trouble for them.

...and that is the complete bottom line. Assisted dying should be just as much a function of health care as going forward in curing people.
A person's request to depart without having to pay in misery and pain for the privilege of dying should amount to the first directive of one's Last Will being perhaps the most important one. It is not the law's affair nor is it any Supreme Courts prerogative to comment on or preempt the final decision of a person on route to a slow death. It must be the medical profession's responsibility to perform the cure asked for when no other cure or alleviation is possible. It's as much of a responsibility as anything else a medical professional is asked to do.

There are too many hypocritical shitheads out there who think life is sacred, meaning only human life, and that we shouldn't play god though we do it all the time. I wonder how many people who are forced to experience the agony of dying still consider their lives as sacred. A body consumed with pain asks for release. Mercy and empathy as one of the ultimate signatures of civilization is not a subject for legislation.

[Dalek Prime]

No Leo, you are being a shit. Stick to physics. You know that well.

I'll bet I know a hell of lot more about assisted dying than anybody you've ever met before, dalek. My wife has assisted thousands of people to die and I know EXACTLY what the score is in such matters.

Actually, I doubt you do Leo. But fine, go stroke your ego. Just leave me out of it. You sound like a physicist trying to protect your domain. Sound familiar?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm not being a jerk about this, skip. This is a complex ethical question for many people and it is unhelpful to refer to it in such a euphemistic way.

What's euphemistic about it? Killing old folks? Euthanasia? Assisted Suicide?
It doesn't really matter what words you use, the problem remains one that isn't complex at all.

You're not talking about the right to die at all because we already have that right as well as that obligation.

Maybe so, but I've sure seen a lot of interventions and preventions and straightjacketing by people whose business it shouldn't have been.

Neither are you talking about the right to take your own life because this is possibly one of the most basic human rights of all.

You may think so. The religious busybodies who make most of the world's laws don't.

What you're actually talking about is whether you should have the right to ask somebody to assist you to take your own life and that is by means a simple legal or ethical question.

Sure it is. Take your cancer-ridden terrier to the vet and he'll administer the merciful injection for $40 and sleep like a baby, with no fear of legal reprisal.

My wife has been a palliative care specialist for decades and we have a large number of friends and acquaintances who work in the field of geriatric medicine. Most of them are horrified by the quality of the public debate on this question because there simply is no "one size fits all" solution to it.

So, who said it has to be uniform? I just say it has to be my decision, not a priest's, not a judge's and not a doctor's. All the law needs to do is get the hell out of my way. I'm not even asking a doctor or nurse to go against their convictions. Just want the ones who already agree to stop having to be afraid that some busybody will make trouble for them.

I agree Skip. I did a paper in college back in '93 about Euthanasia and was for it then and I'm for it now. One's life ONLY belongs to them and NO ONE ELSE!!! When it comes to people on life support however, it becomes a different animal, if they don't specify what should be done in their will, in such a case. If their family members have anything major to gain by pulling the plug, then no! Unless they decide to give the proceeds to charity, or any other measure that precludes them pulling the plug for self serving wants and desires.

Bottom line, bringing about ones death should (only) ever be contemplated/actualized so as to benefit (only) the one dying. (redundancy for the sake of stressing the point, making damn sure it's clear)

Ones planned death should 'only' ever be for them, and them alone!

[Obvious Leo]

Let me make it clear that I never said I was opposed to assisted suicide because I'm not. I'm opposed to people who use the issue as a political platform to grandstand a position that they demonstrably don't understand.

...and that is the complete bottom line. Assisted dying should be just as much a function of health care as going forward in curing people.

I agree completely. Assisted dying is a medical question, not a legal question or a religious question and most certainly not a political question.

[Skip]

.....There are too many hypocritical shitheads out there who think life is sacred, meaning only human life, and that we shouldn't play god though we do it all the time....

Usually, those who most fervently oppose abortion and suicide (also, of course, vaccinations and lunches and decent housing for poor children) on the grounds that we have no right to usurp God's decisions, at the very same time support the death penalty and any number of bombs dropped on foreign populations. This religious stance was never about the sanctity of life; it was always about power. How long can you work and starve and whip the peasantry if they have a free pass to heaven?

[Dubious]

In this interpretation of "parasite" you are treating the biosphere as the host organism and humans as parasites. Yet what organisms grow their own parasites? We aren't aliens but part of a lineage of great apes and primitive hominids.

The biosphere is responsible for the existence of every organic entity which includes parasites according to its definition. Where else is it supposed to come from?

So, by your definition humanity is a cancer - a part of an organism that does not cooperate by limiting its growth like normal cells. However, we again run into the issue of order. Cancers are disordered entities but humans are the opposite.

Cancers as a process are very organized and adept in killing its host which is the reason it hasn't yet been defeated. How many times have humans been compared to a virus or a cancer since the behaviour of humans fit the description almost perfectly.

http://www.livescience.com/26473-david- ... lague.html
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S20 ... cancer.htm

I'm no fan of Deepak Chopra but here he makes a good summary of our affinities with cancer as an agent:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-ch ... _7092.html

So you believe the biosphere would thrive without us? It could continue being beautiful without due appreciation, and continue being savage without abatement, and then the whole lot (maybe barring some deep living microbes) dies in a billion years. If an asteroid hits, maybe much sooner.

Absolutely it can thrive without us. Is there any serious doubt in your mind about this? Since when have we become its insurance policy?

If an asteroid hits, maybe much sooner.

Give us some credit. We're on route to accomplishing the same thing in slow motion.

I don't find that vision as inspiring as the possibility of enhanced humans rising from the wreckage of the Earth before the Sun wrecks it and bringing life to other moons and planets.

All very nice but in the meantime let's not screw-up this one before we get to the others. It remains supremely uncertain whether your noble destiny for the human race has any chance of working out but one thing is for sure, we're HERE in the meantime. Screw that up and you can park this wonderful Ray Kurzweil dream in the nearest landfill.

If we are not part of the biosphere, what are we part of??

I believe I mentioned ..."We" are only a very tiny segment in the theme park of planet Earth...

So nope, humans are born of the Earth. We are pieces of the Earth, just like every other critter. We are dominant because we are empowered and any other empowered species would do the same.

No argument here. Every empowered species creates its own complications. The question becomes how empowered are they to control it?

The Amazon takes billions of years to make and we must save it. Humans take billions of years to make and you want us all dead?

Your analogy makes no sense at all, but, NO, I DON'T WANT US ALL DEAD! Also, I think even you – had you thought about it a little more - would acknowledge the vast difference between a thoroughly unique ecosystem which hosts millions of species in flora and fauna vis-a-vis a single species contained in almost all environments.

What for? So animals can bumble along just like "the good old days"- until an asteroid or the Sun gets them?

There were many more animals that bumbled along in the “good old days” than exist now. We've been very prolific in culling the animal population throughout the ages. A power equivalent to an asteroid has hit them already. We call it the human race. In the nature of things as confirmed by geology and paleontology they would have waited eons longer and it would have been more sudden.

The "good old days" ... when humans lived to their early twenties, had high infant mortality, frequently died violently and spent their short painful lives riddled with parasites, exposed to the elements and living in constant fear of predators. Is that your idea of an ideal world? If you want the clock wound back, at what point in history would you like use to back to? If we regressed to a point that you wanted, would you want us not to progress any more?

What are you talking about If we regressed to a point that you wanted and the whole litany of allegations that were never made? Why such nonsensical assertions that somehow you inferred and blame me for?

What I emphasized is that unless we get a whole new perspective on behavior on this planet moving forward may be far less of a priority than damage control. Being the über intelligent creatures we believe we are, if we can't manage that then go ahead and croak. It's no loss to the planet and/or surroundings. Stripped of any stupid idealism, is there any doubt about that? If humans are to be creatures of destiny then that process should have been started long before now. Unfortunately, even NOW is not a promising catalyst for the future you envision.

Metamorphosis involves replacing simpler structures with more complex ones better adapted for the new life.

What new life would that be?

Um, humans. Last time I looked we were alive. Don't we count? If not, why?

Having evolved along with everything else on the planet, cotemporal even with the Amazon, as you mention, 'new life' would be a misnomer. I didn't get how the term applies, so I asked.

Earth is turning into Venus in a billion years' time anyway.

True but that doesn't mean we should attempt a head start on the process if we aspire to the kind of future you mention.

I think of humans as the biosphere's reproductive organs.

Must say a bizarre thought indeed. This would infer humans as being the creators of everything contained in the biosphere. In fact as it's reproductive organs we actually become the biosphere!

If the biosphere is going to persist after the Sun's expansion then humanity may well play a major role, at least greatly improving the chances of Earth-induced panspermia elsewhere. Life has a drive to persist and explores all possible options like water explores the cracks in pavement (hardy surprising since life is largely water).

Life certainly has a drive to persist but this refers to life as a whole in its complete manifestation not some infinitesimal part whatever be its shape or form in which its individual instances turn on and off like fireflies...we being merely one of those instances.

[Dubious]

.....There are too many hypocritical shitheads out there who think life is sacred, meaning only human life, and that we shouldn't play god though we do it all the time....

Usually, those who most fervently oppose abortion and suicide (also, of course, vaccinations and lunches and decent housing for poor children) on the grounds that we have no right to usurp God's decisions, at the very same time support the death penalty and any number of bombs dropped on foreign populations. This religious stance was never about the sanctity of life; it was always about power. How long can you work and starve and whip the peasantry if they have a free pass to heaven?

Unfortunately, for the human race, what you say is all too true. Religion, self-righteousness and the tendency of the elite to centralize power have always been indispensable for every form of hypocrisy, deceit and corruption to flourish. But in all fairness these miserable mutilations of justice wouldn't be as rampant as they are without a whole lot of the great unwashed believing what their "superiors" tell them.

As in most of the old westerns and war stories told by Hollywood, the Cowboys and the Allies kept on winning not because they were so bright and brave but because the Indians and the Nazis were so stupid and cowardly.

[Obvious Leo]

Dubious. You're quite right when you say that homo sapiens is responsible for the next mass extinction which will beset our planet but I'm having some trouble understanding the more general point you're making. Such mass extinctions have occurred many times before and they always lead to INCREASED biodiversity and more more complex lifeforms. In fact a species as smart as us could evolve and then become extinct as many as a dozen times before the planet becomes uncomfortably warm, so to think of homo as a cancer is a very anthropocentric way of looking at it. The biosphere will keep on evolving with or without us and our presence here is more akin to a fleabite on the biosphere than a cancer.

The real difference on this occasion is that a species has evolved as the uber-predator of an entire planet and this species has the capacity to directly influence its future evolution through the use of forward thinking and intelligence. If we're not smart enough to use this intelligence correctly then we'll become just another one of nature's failures. She won't give a fuck and neither will the rest of the universe. Our destiny is in our own hands and if we don't want a destiny then we don't have to have one. It's no big deal and it certainly won't make any difference to you and me, who will have long since returned to stardust.

[Skip]

Unfortunately, for the human race, what you say is all too true. Religion, self-righteousness and the tendency of the elite to centralize power have always been indispensable for every form of hypocrisy, deceit and corruption to flourish. But in all fairness these miserable mutilations of justice wouldn't be as rampant as they are without a whole lot of the great unwashed believing what their "superiors" tell them.

Christianity is a special case. The bill of goods sold to the masses (I'm not sure they were unwashed, back then; clean water didn't really become scarce until after the industrial revolution... except in cities... Yeah, okay, the earliest xtian converts probably didn't wash much.) was based on 1. a god who loves everybody and who 2. grants eternal life to everybody through the sacrifice of his son. It would seem plausible to them, from the perspective of previous European religions, with their dynasties and cults of sacrifice - except that this one sounded a lot less cruel.

Then comes the pope with a Cotcha! encyclical.

[Obvious Leo]

You can blame it all on Saul of Tarsus, skip. He was the misogynistic psychopath who concocted the clever idea of using the gruesome execution of Christ to corrupt a simple message of redemption through forgiveness and then transform it into one of redemption through suffering. The more suffering a Christian showed willing to endure the closer to salvation he would become, and a more immoral yet effective tool of political oppression is almost impossible to imagine. The man was a Machiavellian genius.

[Skip]

Paul and Rene are top of my hate-list.

[Dalek Prime]

You can blame it all on Saul of Tarsus, skip. He was the misogynistic psychopath who concocted the clever idea of using the gruesome execution of Christ to corrupt a simple message of redemption through forgiveness and then transform it into one of redemption through suffering. The more suffering a Christian showed willing to endure the closer to salvation he would become, and a more immoral yet effective tool of political oppression is almost impossible to imagine. The man was a Machiavellian genius.

Correct. It wasn't like that under James. It was warped afterwards.