Dec
23rd
2020
Would you take the blue pill or the red pill? · 11:42pm Dec 23rd, 2020
You are forced to take just one of them, that part isn't a choice. The only choice you have is which one to take.
The effects of the pills are as follows:
- The blue pill instantly kills you. You become truly dead beyond saving. You will never be alive again. You will stay dead forever.
- The red pill makes you indestructible and immortal. Nothing will ever kill you. Not hunger, not the center of the sun, not a black hole, not entropy, nothing. You will live forever. You will never die.
So, which one would you take? Remember, you have to take one of them.
Report
Bad Dragon · 444 views
· Story: Princess of Friendship
·
#red pill
#blue pill
#life or death
#immortality good or bad?
#Princess of Friendship's dilemma
#Twilight's choice
What if I take both, do they cancel each other out?
5420981 You may only take 1. Not 2, not 0, just 1.
5420983
Is the death peaceful?
It never specified when you have to take it, the blue pill for sure.
From my POV I'd probably end up becoming too sad if I lived forever so blue pill it is 👍
5420984 The death is instant and painless. You just die the moment you take it.
5420986 Not taking a pill equates to taking the red pill, but also being forced to sit at the table for all eternity, watching the blue pill and the red pill before you.
5420987 Don't you want to live forever? Forever young.
5420990
I guess I wouldn't mind living forever young, but I'm a sucker for attention so I'd need to have a friend or something that would also live forever. Oohh plus I'd probably get sad watching the world I live in (eventually?) get recked sooo yeah :)
5420992 You've made your choice. You are now dead.
*puts another blue pill on the table
"Next!"
5420994
*choking noises* urggfdfi
It was nice knowing you all, fare thee well
*dies a dramatic death*
If I had to choose I’d probably take the red pill knowing that I will one day regret it (like if I become some government science project or especially when the sun goes supernova if we haven’t found a way to leave the star system).
I would have some questions, would I still age or would I be frozen at my current age? Would I be able to control my aging, let myself get older as the years go by and then fake my death at 80 and re-emerge as a long lost 20 year old nephew (and inherit the inevitable fortune I’ve amassed)? While not dying, would I still experience pain the same or would my pain centres and nerves be burned away if I was on the sun or something. If I can’t die from hunger, do I still experience hunger pains? Does the force that keeps me alive provide me nourishment if food is lacking, or does it let me starve and just provide enough to keep me from dying?
5420997
Why make a bad choice if you know it's a bad choice?
You'd stay the exact way as you are now. You gain salvation from death and aging but nothing more.
No. You stay as you are. You gain no super morphing powers.
You'd experience everything the same way you're experiencing it now. It just wouldn't kill you.
And if it was painful, you'd experience pain.
Yes. The only difference is that hunger doesn't kill you.
You'd have the same energy levels that you have now.
Eating food would take away the hunger, just as it does now. But other than that, food would serve no function for you.
5421003
It’s easy to say I’d take the blue pill, and I just might, but if I had the actual literal choice then I honestly think I’d take the red pill.
The reason I suspect I’d regret it is because fictional stories involving immortality typically portray it as a curse. How much of that is realistic and how much of that is a result of mortal writers contemplating their finite time on earth and rationalizing it by presenting the immortal existence as a form of torture? I don’t know. If there really was a highlander running around he might be happier than a pig in shit.
On the food front: if I don’t eat food for a while then I’d get hungry and weak and eventually die. I get that the red pill would prevent me from dying. Would I still have mobility (albeit reduced strength)?
5421016
It's not an easy question to answer, is it?
The majority of the people on Earth believe they'll get a red pill upon dying. Most are looking forward to being red-pilled. But I wonder if any of them are truly considering the implications of that.
Your strength would never get reduced no matter what. Even if you wouldn't eat anything for millennia, you'd have the same mobility and strength as you have now.
5421019
Ah, so I’d experience hunger but my body would still have strength. Gotcha.
Edit: I’m just picturing the Netflix film ‘Old Guard’ where the immortal Quynh was thrown into the ocean in an Iron Maiden where she drowned and regenerated and drowned over and over for centuries. If I was in that position I’d seriously wish I’d taken the blue pill!
i would take the blue pill cause i would not like to live forever
5421019
Upon reflecting on this, i can see the attraction to the idea. Living forever seems pretty nice to me. The reason I suspect I’d regret it is because in 100,000 years I would probably not be able to blend in with humanity. In a few million years the sun will go supernova and I’ll be stuck in space suffering from the ill effects of a vacuum (after the pain of the supernova).
If heaven exists then you don’t have to worry about stuff like that.
If I took the red pill, would my body regenerate itself from wounds? Say I got shot. I know the bullet wouldn't kill me, but would the wound it created heal (like Wolverine) or would I have it forever? If I lost a limb, would it regrow? If I had Wolverine's healing factor I would seriously consider taking the red pill. If not, then no, blue all the way.
I'd go with the Third option and try BOTH.
Didn't you ask that in the past already? Or maybe in another thread
?
Well anyway, given this is one of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situations, I think I would pick the blue one. All the 'immortality is a curse' arguments aside; the red one leads to too many uncertainties:
In case of death, at least you have a certainty that it's over and you're off the hook. I mean, you do have that certainty, right
? There are no strings attached here?
there is something definitively wrong with this picture
p.s. I fell very sleeping and my sholder hurts
if I tack the RED Pile, whose I be stick like that,
or is it what I have had my 9 hours of sleep ?
5421020 Yes, that Quynh scene is kind of unnerving. The thing is, you can't take blue pill once you took the red pill. In order to take the blue pill, you have to project yourself into a horrible future and take it in advance, even if you don't feel like dying at the moment.
While I agree that the prospect of safety in Heaven might feel better, I'm a bit disconcerted that some primal urges of the lower brain would what we base our most important decision on. If the meaning of life is really an avoidance of pain, then there was no point in evolving past the worm stage.
5421028
Most who believe in an afterlife look forward to living forever. Why wouldn't you look forward to living forever?
5421034 Indeed. You'd be like Wolverine. You could feel the pain just like you can now, but no wound would stay for long.
5421038 You try to take both. The blue one affects you first and you die. The red pill doesn't work on a corpse.
5421043 This thread is what prompted this blog:
https://www.fimfiction.net/group/200497/christian-questions/thread/457364/there-are-3-ways-to-defend-your-religious-beliefs-and-only-one-of-them-is-any-good
Then again, with my memory, I wouldn't be surprised at finding a similar blog somewhere. I know that happened with my fave music list and I ended up with two blogs about it.
Life itself holds many uncertainties, but you don't end it just because of that.
No strings attached.
5421068
There's something wrong with death. There actually is no 'death'. There's always a reason why you die. Nobody ever died of 'old age'. There's always a concrete cause. And we learned to cure many of those causes. I can imagine a world where every cause of death was curable.
People take it for granted that humans are mortal. I don't.
5421082
Taking a red pill would instantly grant you 9 hours worth of beauty sleep before immortality would kick in. Any injury you may suffer from would be healed.
5421177
If I took them at the same time?
5421180 Firstly, you can't.
Secondly, even if you would, only one would take effect.
5421182
Aw.
5421193 So, make your choice. It's either the blue pill or the red pill.
5421194
Blue..... I was hoping they'd cancel out.
5421217 You've made your choice. You are now dead.
*puts another blue pill on the table
"Next!"
5421239
HA!!!!!
5421177
then I tack the Red one, and get a job at the Suicide-Hotline
Blue pill. Rather take the chance of dying a painless death than dying of something else that is possibly painful in the future.
5421279 Why would you work at the suicide hotline if you were immortal?
5421282
You know, the red pill would also prevent that future. With the red pill, you would never die, nor painfully nor non-painfully.
5421284
Every story that I have read about an immortal was about them wanted to die
So...
Why do they always want to die ?
5421285 Well, you can't have a story without conflict. And uniqueness is a Checkov's gun that calls out to be fired. So if you want to keep things simple, you have no choice but to make immortality part of the conflict. Something that the main character struggles with.
What immortality would mean in reality, however, is hard to say. We've never had a case of immortality before. Evolution programmed us to die.
5421288
I would eat the table
5421302 The Old Guard is pretty much what would happen to you if you took the red pill.
5421367 You try to eat the table but give up after breaking all your teeth.
I gently put the red pill into your palm, "You know, your teeth will grow back if you take the red pill."
5421177
Judging by the stuff I read about what the people who attempt suicide say, I believe that uncertainty of the future is one of the leading causes. So I wouldn't say people don't end their life because of that.
Whether that's a good or a bad thing is a different matter...
Blue pill it is then, but if I may suggest something - have each person taking those, sign his donor card first so his death wouldn't be completely pointless
This is another 'fun fact' (maybe fun is not the right word), but apparently, it's impossible to do that in the real-world right now. People have to go to great lengths to make sure their organs will be usable after they off themselves. Talk about unnecessary waste...
Yes, yes, I know! The 'morality'/'ethics'/bla bla bla... Who the f*ck cares? If I want to off myself, and save 10 people by doing so, they should just shut up and take my organs.
P.S.
bluered pill to paradise is not accurate at all. Any form of heaven is not just 'you'll stay young and never die' but rather 'you'll stay young, never die, never feel any pain, and be eternally as happy as if you were constantly on the heroine.' Some go even further and add that you'll gain abilities somewhat similar to God himself. This really makes it a hell of a better deal than just 'living,' as we know it5421542
Even so, the red pill doesn't make the uncertainty denser. 50 years under the red pill are essentially the same as 50 years without it, uncertainty isn't the factor in this instance. No more than usual, at least.
That is a personal decission. It's hard to say if donation of organs is objectivelly good or bad.
Personally, I believe organ donation is bad. The world where organ donation is possible is worse than the world where it is not, IMO. There are reasons why I think so:
-I don't consider China's organ harvesting concentration camps a good thing. Because of organ donation, people are loosing their organs.
-We only have a small semblance of natural selection left. We're already devolving plenty. Organ donation just exacerbates the problem.
-Organ donation doesn't make everything better. The person receiving the organs has to take pills all her life. The quality of life isn't as good as with the original organs. At some point, one has to ask oneself, wouldn't the creation of a new better life be easier than trying to keep something broken alive?
What I meant to relay is that immortality by itself is not inherently bad since so many people crave it. If the red pill is bad, it's not because it offers immortality but because of other reasons that you stated. That was the point I was trying to make.
That could be the case. After all, we have an example of that in reality. Black holes beyond the event horizon are a one-way street. Some consider them pockets of space detached from our Universe.
Personally though, I can wrap my head around black holes much easier than around an afterlife. Black holes make sense. Afterlife, not so much.
5421284
seeing everyone die while I live is considered painful, I'd rather die now than suffer a lifetime, which is forever.
5421753 You don't have to be immortal to see your loved ones die around you as time passes by. And when you yourself die, you become part of the problem, for it is you who hurt those around you with your departure.
Regardless, you've made your choice. You are now dead.
*puts another blue pill on the table
"Next!"
5421704
In both cases, there are uncertainties, yes. But the red pill makes the outcome of a possible worst-case scenario infinitely worse:
The second scenario sounds like hell to me. Frankly, given that you'll live forever, it seems pretty much guaranteed to happen sooner or later. Not an appealing prospect if you ask me
.
Ups, now I realized this sounds like 'force him to sign it,' and that wasn't my intention
. I meant have him consider it, give him that option - nothing more. It would probably skew the results somewhat, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
I don't see how you can compare someone's willingly giving his organs to China's harvesting operation? Unless you believe that in the west, doctors are willing to kill patients to harvest their livers
?
I agree with this to a point, but I don't think organ donations exaggerate that problem. From what I read, most people who get another heart/lung/whatever are grateful and have a very prosperous life afterward, even if that wasn't the case before. I think it's because the fear they lived with that was blocking them and terrifying them is suddenly gone. I wish there was some way to just pop a pill and have the fear erased like that...
I agree that we have limited natural selection to the point that units who would die in the past can now stay alive for way too long. But that's the price of progress, I guess...
Wasn't one of your arguments against suicide that even a life with some discomforts is still better than death? Or maybe Crimmar said that...
Anyway, two counter-arguments here:
OK, but your assumptions are flawed; that's what I was trying to say. We believers (at least Christian believers) don't seek 'just' immortality the way you described it. We seek the whole package - immortality + happiness + lack of pain. The last two are the most important there; without them, immortality could be a giant curse.
For some, it does make sense; for others, it doesn't. Frankly, after that long talk we had in the past, I started having my own doubts. But they're based on fear of a different matter. Now, I can see how people find comfort in believing there is nothing beyond death and that this life is not some test. It feels comforting.
5421965
If you're immortal, you gett o experience more of the bad. But then again, you get to experience more of the good, as well. If the ratio between the two is favorable within the span of mortal life, it is probably favorable in twice that amount, as well. But yes, after a certain period, the ratio might turn into unfavorable numbers.
I think it would be a bad think, because I see the result of it as bad.
Ask yourself, if there was no organ transplantation technology and the process simply wouldn't exist, would there be a reason for China to steal organs from people?
And that makes them more likely to reproduce, making children that will more likely need organ transplantation themselves.
If one has a heart as strong as horse, one is unlikely to need a new one. If one needs an organ, chances are there's something wrong with one's own organs, and if that's the case, chances are the reason for it is partially genetic.
I don't want to expose the new generation to bad genes. Let them have good genes, instead.
No, that's the price of decadence.
The state of decadence is usually reached just before the societal collapse.
So in my eyes, you're supporting decadence and the future collapse of everything. In my eyes, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. In my eyes, you're doing bad.
Yes when it comes to a personal decision, and no when you have to sacrifice a dozen people to keep one alive.
I hope that never happens.
I wonder though, where's the guaranty that an afterlife really does host a whole package? It sure sounds nice, but nice things are often not true.
What is your fear again?
I find it ironic that some believers find comfort in the exact opposite view.
I would take the red pill just because it sounds more entertaining than death.
5423171 Enjoy your immortal life, until someday you find yourself floating in the empty space for all eternity. You shall never die. No matter what, you shall live on, forever.
*puts another red pill on the table
"Next!"
5421993
I guess it all comes down to how much you like to gamble. For me, the mere possibility of eternal torment pretty much nullifies any advantages the eternal life can give. Whether this is a good or a bad approach, I have no idea.
Result bad as in 'because transplants are bad' or bad as in 'because people will be more likely to take the blue pill' bad
?
Still, I would rather have a car, an industry that allows us to make one and improve it, and maybe even some humans to build it (until we can replace them with AI, at least), because all in all, it does more good than harm. Same with transplants, same with everything.
That argument only holds water IF the organ failure was due to a genetic defect. As far as I'm aware, that's usually not the case. Unless you want to stretch that to infinity and say:
'You got COVID, you need new lungs; therefore, you must have crappy genes; otherwise, you would not get COVID, OR it would not have eaten up your lungs!'
But to even consider such an argument, you would need some backing evidence that there is something wrong in someone's genetic code, and not that they just pulled the short straw. There are conditions where that argument is valid, but it's a slippery slope for the general population.
I never said I support it, but I don't see a realistic alternative. Do you?
In the past, wars were used as a 'Darwin Cycle' - purging the weakest, leaving the strongest. But I wouldn't want to get back to that 'tradition' - especially since it came with problems of its own.
What we can and should be doing is to minimize the number of people who will never be productive members of society. But even with best efforts, such people will always exist.
So, what should society do with them
?
Again, ignoring Chinese organ harvesting, it is a personal decision of the donor and donee, so I fail to see your point. It's not like we're capturing people off the streets to steal their kidneys because wealthy John Doe needs them.
There is no guarantee of anything - there can be no afterlife, or the afterlife may suck, or it may be a chore similar to life on Earth. No one knows for sure; that's why it's called faith. If someone tells you, 'I'm 100% sure there will be this or that!' he's either a liar or an idiot.
Let me answer by quoting one of my favorites episodes from House MD:
So the scare is that this life is just a test, and not only of basic good vs. evil but a deeper meaning, and if you play it safe, you're fucked. The 'Parable of the Talents' suggests that:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14%E2%80%9330&version=NRSV
The guy who decided to play it safe got the short end of the stick. This can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, but the most basic suggests that the 'powers that be,' expect certain actions (or outcome) from you. If you don't deliver - eternal suffering for you, boy.
Since by nature, I'm a coward who prefers to play it safe, I find it more and more comforting to believe that there is no afterlife but also no test. it is rather pathetic, but if God is there and expects some quota of... something, I don't think this is gonna end well for me
What if there's an eternal bliss for you in-store? You'd be missing it.
Maybe it's like mortal life. If 100 years are worth it, ∞ years are worthed it as well.
That's the one. Medicine made humans worse than they were before (genetically speaking). Transplants are a contributing factor.
If there was no candy, maybe everyone would be better off.
The thing is, other things don't threaten the very survival of the species. Devolution does.
I'm okay with medicine and transplants if we compensate for the harm they're doing. But we're not doing that. And that throws a dark shadow on the whole system. Until I see the negative effects countered, I'll be against the whole system.
It's either a physical injury of an organ or something went wrong within the body itself. I don't hear many stories of people piercing their kidneys. Most of the time it's an organ failure. Often because the organism starts fighting itself.
I guess I'm taking a red pill on that one. If one with good genes generally survives and one with bad genes dies, it means that the one with better genes was better off, no matter how many steps were in between.
I'd go the other way. If no one could survive the ordeal, then maybe genes weren't the reason. But if some people wouldn't have these issues, it means that the person has crapy genes.
We should explore how deep the rabbit hole can go.
I do.
One doesn't need an organ transplant if one's organs don't suck.
Right now, we don't have any system that prevents crapy generations. Until we do, I'll be against transplantation. It's a small remnant of the natural selection we used to have. Natural selection got us where we are today. We can't just be done with it and act as if there won't be any consequences.
Not really. It was the capable ones who went to war, and many of them died off.
During the war, it's often beneficial to be a cripple, as far as survival goes.
Nobody has to die. All we have to do is monitor reproduction, like the Chinese did, just more focused and targeted.
Genetic screening could help with that.
We can offer them Heaven on earth as far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't infect future generations.
It's not very cheap. You could save a perfectly valid human for the same price instead of saving a cripple.
Why do people keep describing Heaven if they don't have a clue about it?
That's like wishful thinking, right?
Well, if Heaven is a real place, I can imagine there being a real proof. I've yet to see one, though.
If it were a test, I'd expect it to be different than the reality around us.
Tell me, when a baby is born and dies the next minute, did it pass the test or did it fail?
My answer: If this was a test, the test is stupid.
I'm not so sure anymore that people should use the Bible for guidance. This story seemed pretty f***ed up
If it is just a test, maybe you'd be better off taking the red pill.
When I find something comforting, I immediately designate it as a lie until it's proven not to be a lie.
Haven't scored enough points for the afterlife?
5423318
Woo-hoo!
5423441
You forgot to tag me, dear sir
I don't think I would have taken such a risk even if I lived in the Star Trek universe with their tech level.
Perhaps, but here is a thing. Who is more beneficial to society in the long run - 10 healthy 'average' human males, or one not so healthy man but with a mind equal to Stephen Hawking? My money is on the latter. If a transplant could help such a guy live longer, then even with his frail genes, it seems like a better idea than letting him die to purify the gene pool.
If you want to make an argument that his disease may screw up his children, then may be true, yes (but with emphasis on 'may.') But that doesn't change the fact that keeping him alive with transplants and letting him work would be beneficial for all of us.
And how would you suggest to do that exactly at the moment? Or are you suggesting we should wait 10-20-50-500 years when the gene therapy will be able to fix everything
?
This is organ-dependant. Some are due to some underlying conditions or diseases, others not so much.
If you're looking to breed perfect humans with zero defects, you gonna be looking for a looong time cause our genes are a mess. Heck, we don't even know if a combination of two genomes from two 'perfect' humans won't end up creating some undesirable effect. IMHO, technology and gene therapy are the only realistic ways to maintain the gene pool's quality in the future.
Except, again, it's not that simple. For example, in the case of a cytokine storm those with the best immune systems will be most likely to die. At the same time, those people will be the first to get better in case of other infections.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the strength of the immune system is driven by genes alone (which is not true as far as I'm aware, but...) - if in one case their genes were helping them, and in the other, the same genes were killing them. Are those genes good or bad
?
Here is another take on it - transplantology is part of natural selection. Since there is no way to guarantee that the organ will work or for how long it will work, one could argue that if it does, your genes are 'OK enough.' Not everything has to be perfect - most things are not.
And again, there is Stephen Hawking's argument that we should have let him die according to natural selection. I'm happy we went against natural selection in his case.
Well, according to the logic of natural selection - if they went to war and died, they weren't exactly capable enough, were they
? After all, it is survival of the fittest, isn't it? I guess you could argue that in the case of modern warfare, that may not be the case anymore, but all the way to WWII, it pretty much was...
I agree with all three, but I'm not sure what does it have to do with transplants and natural selection
? Frankly, preventing someone from procreation instead of letting the cripple child die seems like a definition of an unnatural selection...
If we were just looking from the pure resource-management perspective, we should be killing all the old people too, because they're a drain on resources. Thankfully we're not Ferengi...
For me, the reasonable compromise here is to abort fetuses with know conditions but to try to keep alive people that are already here.
Certainly.
I already told you why they may never be scientific proof. There are, however, signs like unexplainable miracles that correlate with prayers. To a believer, they do suggest that something more is out there (don't really show the Heaven, though).
That's actually an excellent question. I would like an answer to it as well. From what I read and asked - if the child was baptized (even after death), it passed; if not, it did not pass.
The problem I have with this - and one of the reasons for my doubts - is that it goes again the whole notion that God is a forgiving, benevolent, and just creature that loves all his children. If a child did nothing wrong, denying him access to Heaven would be a dick move.
It gets even more complicated in the case of gay people and such - if you're a good gay person and next to you is an a-hole straight catholic drunk that beat up his wife regularly but repented each time, which one of you should get to Heaven? And if the gay person should go to hell for his orientation, isn't God the one to blame ('You created me like this! Why should I be the one punished
?!')?
There are more such paradoxes in there, and they paint God more like a tyrant than a benevolent entity. However, the thing is... the Bible itself can be interpreted in a billion ways, and the Church is known to spice things up. The tale of Onan is a perfect example. According to the Church, it's about 'masturbation bad!' when the context clearly says that Onan uses his deceased brother's wife like a whore and tries to get his inheritance
.
Not to mention that the entire Bible is a book written by people, not by God or whatever. You can bet your ass each writer had their own opinions and biases on stuff. And people forget about that
Odd... I mean, for a guide to paradise, it is a mess, but for everyday life? Useful people get the price, people who play it safe/are cowards lose. Seems like the thing that is pretty much happening right now in the world, don't you think?
Don't know what those points are, and that's the problem. The more you live, the less you know whether you're doing the right thing or not
.
5424005
Apologies, friend. Not sure how that happened.
Well, drugs come pretty close to that. And they're getting even better at it.
Life can be worth living even if one fucked up thing occurs during its span. If you live twice as long, two fucked up things should be acceptable. And if you live forever, infinite fucked up things should be acceptable.
I'm actually on your side with this one. I know how the Universe will end, and I don't want to be there when it happens.
Why not both? Ten people reproduce while Stephan does whatever it is he's doing. Well, he's not doing much nowadays besides rotting in his grave. We can blame his bad genes for that.
I prefer to have a healthy Stephen Hawking, and we can make that happen.
If sterilization was involved, I'd be on your side.
Everything is statistics. A car may hit you when you cross the street on the green light and it may not hit you if you jaywalk. Still, it's better to stop at the red light and cross at the green one.
The resurses we use could be use to educate a young healthy mind.
You see it as saving a person. I see it as sacrificing two people in order to save one.
Free transplants for everyone who is sterile.
Another solution would be genetic screening. Those who score enough points, get free healthcare.
I'm not okay with injecting bad genes into children. Yet that is exactly what we're doing, with every child who is conceived.
If we don't implement one of the solutions to the glarring problem of devolution, then yes, waiting is also a solution.
If you want to stop the harm, then not doing the harm anymore is a valid solution.
I'm okay with those translpants. That could be another solution. If these transplants were free while genetic failures would be costly, it would be a partial solution to the problem.
They can only be triggered in bad genes. If everyone had good genes, we wouldn't have this problem.
One bad solution would be to just focus on the phenotype. If you see someone is ill, you know one has crappy genes, even if you don't understand the genotype.
All the more reason why we should start fixing them.
If recesive genes are the problem, we breed them out of the genepool. Problem solved.
We already have the technology, we're just not using it.
If you ask me, this means that both populations have crappy genes. In fact, a human with good genes has yet to be born. I believe a person with good genes wouldn't have either of the problems.
Bad.
I'd even go as far as to say genes as a concept are bad. I'm not a fan of the whole organic beings. They're energy inefficient. I believe it can all be improved upon. But... one step at a time.
Yes, you could argue that. But I'd argue that an even better solution would be a person who doesn't need a transplant.
I'm not promoting death, btw. Let them eat cake for all I care. Just don't let them infect innocent children with their bad genes.
As I said, the wars reward criples.
In Sparta, all the good men became warriors. They were dying so much that they had no choice but to use slaves for reproduction. In this case, warriors died off in the long run. Being illequiped for war was the evolutionary way to go.
Wars don't reward the strong. Wars kill the strong and leave weak in peace.
Not in wars, no.
No, it wasn't.
Those solutions would solve the devolution problem. After that, we could alow ourself to slip up a little with transplantations.
Indeed, I'm a proponent for artificial selection.
I'm all for humanity and solidarity.
What I don't like is when people are talking about saving a life while sacrificing ten lives. That's not 'saving life' in my book. So if solidarity demands sacrifices, let's be honest and call them what they are.
We're in agreement.
But would you be willing to tell a pregnant woman that her child is not good enough and has to die?
We can agree that wishful thinking is bad, right?
I've seen many cases where prayer didn't work. Is that a counter-argument then?
If that's true, then God is a moron.
Then again, maybe God is a dick and Heaven is actually Hell.
At one point, one should ask oneself: If this life was an honest test, would reality of things really look the way it does?
Maybe one is better off following Harry Potter than the Bible.
Which begs the question, why didn't God write the Bible?
At least 5 people owe me money and the reason for that is because they didn't play it safe. The story could just as well be about the person who returned 1 coin and the rest returned nothing because they lost it all. From my experience, that would be more akin to everyday life.
Personally, if I owed someone $10 and I had $10 on hand, I wouldn't go playing Loto with those $10. I'd put them aside and returned them at the first opportunity.
Can you imagine school working like that? All the books would contradict each other. If you studied a book and answered everything 'correctly', you'd fail for unknown reasons. If you asked teachers a question, they would never answer you. If you reported a fight between two students, they'd tell you to kill the boy and rape the girl. And if you did that, a different teacher would burn you at the stake.
There's a reason why such a school doesn't exist. It would suck.