Boiling Down the Meaning of Life 218
Shipud writes "A recent article in Journal of Biomolecular structure and Dynamics proposes to define life by semantic voting [Note: open-access article]: 'The definitions of life are more than often in conflict with one another. Undeniably, however, most of them do have a point, one or another or several, and common sense suggests that, probably, one could arrive to a consensus, if only the authors, some two centuries apart from one another, could be brought together. One thing, however, can be done – short of voting in absentia – asking which terms in the definitions are the most frequent and, thus, perhaps, reflecting the most important points shared by many.' The author arrives at a six-word definition, as explained here."
Monty Python (Score:2)
And if you "boil it down"... (Score:2)
Anyway, the article was (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well according to the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy the meaning of life the universe and everything is wait for it 42
And that boils down to:
6.48074069840786
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definition vs Meaning (Score:5, Insightful)
Life may have many definitions but no meaning at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Life may have many definitions but no meaning at all.
Yes, but "life" has both definitions and meaning.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but "the meaning of life" is to define.
Re: (Score:2)
Life may have many definitions but no meaning at all.
I think Sartre and George Lucas said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-uQWNd540I [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of spiritual paths built upon the concept of the Great Mystery: that was Zen, this is Tao, several Native American approaches, much of the resurgent neopagan movement.
An underlying theme is that part of the definition of the human experience is that we can never know what our purpose is; that this limitation is a part of who we are just as the amount of water a cup can hold is part of the definition of that cup. Embracing this concept of eternal self-doubt is an early step in recognizing t
Re: (Score:2)
recognizing that one can follow a good and righteous path without concern about where it is leading.
That kind of spirituality would seem to be at odds with the Nuremberg Defense [wikipedia.org], as well as a good chunk of common-sense law . Post WW2, the civilised Western world has at least technically held that having no concern about where your path is leading and what the results of your actions are going to be is the opposite of being good and righteous. And most ordinary people would agree.
"But your Honour, I was just following orders! I'm not responsible for what I was doing! I was merely being in the moment, livin
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree with you that what I have said is completely counter to the Nuremberg defense. Which despite your weird spin on it, puts me in thorough agreement with the "Western civilized world" and "common-sense law": that each individual is accountable for every step that he takes in his daily life. He cannot transfer that accountability to anyone else, and a self-imposed blindness to the effects of his daily actions is no excuse.
I take issue with you stating that I am opposed to the Nuremberg defense an
Purpose according to the book of Job (Score:2)
An underlying theme is that part of the definition of the human experience is that we can never know what our purpose is
At least in Christianity, the book of Job makes the purpose clear: Satan has bet God that he can make humanity turn away from God's rulership, and the purpose of human life is to prove Satan wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be clear to Christians who have chosen to believe in the Book of Job. It is not at all clear to anyone who has not abdicated his sacred responsibilities to figure out what the right thing to do would be, and then do it.
There are a lot of good Christians out there, who do the WWJD thing as they make the decisions of their daily lives. But those who always know what to do, because the Bible tells them so, are not particularly good Christians in the eyes of the world at large. That kind of abdication
Why do we need consensus? (Score:3)
Seriously, what's wrong with having a bunch of competing definitions?
Re:Why do we need consensus? (Score:5, Insightful)
because the passive aggressive culture we have today needs it in order to feel secure. it loves argumentum ad populum (among others).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
because the passive aggressive culture we have today needs it in order to feel secure. it loves argumentum ad populum (among others).
Most insightful comment I've seen in ages.
The need to distinguish life from non-life arises from the need to define will, which human society sorely needs in order to find stable footing in the void left by religion. It's a hopeless endeavor, as we witness in the article, since will is but a bunch of norms. There is no rigid barrier between "things that act by themselves" (conventionally animals, God, but not zombies) and "things that are devoid of motive". It ultimately boils down to where the norms of the
Re: (Score:2)
...the need to define will...[is] a hopeless endeavor, as we witness in the article, since will is but a bunch of norms.
Way to go, nullify your own argument by providing a definition for what you say cannot be defined.
But that's okay, since the rest of the comment has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Nor anything to do with any other subject, really. Post does serve as an example of how good spelling, an adequate vocabulary, and correct grammar can still sum up to something with no semantic value.
This reply is snarky since it is clear that the author of parent post has a strong enough mind that he can write quite
Re: (Score:2)
Popular belief is that argumentum ad populum is not an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have it on good authority that correlation doesn't imply causation!
Re:Why do we need consensus? (Score:4, Funny)
It would cost Apple more to patent them all.
To satisfy the first law of logic (Score:4, Insightful)
The first law of logic is that you must know what you're talking about. Without an agreed upon definition, any use of the word "life" invalidates logical arguments containing it.
Re: (Score:2)
The first law of logic is that you must know what you're talking about. Without an agreed upon definition, any use of the word "life" invalidates logical arguments containing it.
Logic, going wrong with confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, what's wrong with having a bunch of competing definitions?
Trying to link results from different scientific disciplines together to form a coherent scientific (or legal) argument would get awkward, I imagine.
But doing that would require some kind of globe-spanning computer network, and what are the odds of that ever being built?
My favorite definition (Score:3)
An entity that a) reduces local entropy, and b) came into existence via being replicated from and by another similar entity. Thus, you have the requirement of self replication, consuming resources, etc., which allows for those who can't reproduce, and rules out fire.
My favorite definition (Score:5, Interesting)
The definition I like came from NASA astrobio asking the question, what would be an observable indication of life on a remote planet. That what might exist in spectra, or surface photos or any remote observation that would be a hallmark of life.
One definition promoted by David Wolpert was the notion of self dissimilarity across scales. Consider that perfectly organized things (crystals) and perfectly disorganized things (gas) are both dead. So a hallmark of life is not entropy. Gas and crystals are dead because as you zoom out on them, their organizational simmilarity does not change (seen a small region of gas or a small region of a crystal, and you can extrapolate or predict all properties of the organization at a larger scale.). On the otherhand life has organizations that change as you zoom out. atoms become become proteins, become complexes, become organelles, become single cells. Single cells become organs. Organs organize into animals. Animals organize into packs. Different kinds of animals form an eco system. And so on.
At each scale, the organization observed remains predictable for a while as you zoom then it abruptly shifts to a new one. The idea is that a hallmark of life is that if you look how each scale can be predicted from the scales below it, that this predictcablilty, perhaps measured as information surprisal, is nearly constant over a range, and then abruptly goes to zero at some scale.
You should therefore look for this same scaling phenomena in spectra or sand dunes or whatever you can remotely observe. A planet that displays anomolies in this probably has some sort of activity that is partially organizing it.
Re: (Score:2)
This works well for finding signs of life, but I'm not sure we could actually extend it to being a definition of life. After all, wouldn't computers (especially modern ones) fit into the definition of self-dissimilarity across scales? A processor has layers upon layers of fairly different building blocks, from transistors to logic gates and so on. You could argue that the layers are not quite as different as organic life's layers, but then you get into the question of how different they need to be for it to
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so software running on a computer is alive then?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so software running on a computer is alive then?
it's a sign of life. Something created that software and computer. Whether one wants to say computer themselves are alive is another discussion,
Re: (Score:3)
Something created that software and computer.
- really?
How about a solar system - there are stars, planets, if you scale down, there is probably nuclear / thermonuclear activity, electromagnetism, thermal, volcanoes, tides, there is all sorts of chemistry going on on a small scale and all sorts of huge physical manifestations, like interaction among planetary orbits for example on large scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's to say it isn't or wasn't? For all we know, outside the observable universe is just more universe infinitely scaling up to a large organism that is fighting another large organism made up of like universes fighting each other with giant disintegration rays that make their target expand until they break apart. Maybe we are a particle in a creature who has been hit by such device..
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly enough, by your definition, my hive of neural networks evolved via genetic programming are considered alive.
Now, I'd like to hear your favorite definition of person. I'm sure they'll qualify for that soon as well; If not, then dolphins and apes will.
Re: (Score:3)
But you are also decreasing local entropy -- That is, you take in raw materials and form them into physical ordered structures (cells, brain material, etc). That's what I meant by "local" entropy -- extremely local.
Re: (Score:2)
A lion reduces its own entropy by increasing that of antelopes.
Ok ok...I'll tell you! (Score:5, Funny)
"Undeniably, however, most of them do have a point, one or another or several, and common sense suggests that, probably, one could arrive to a consensus, if only the authors, some two centuries apart from one another, could be brought together."
Forget water boarding: just use that sentence.
Re:Ok ok...I'll tell you! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Undeniably, however, most of them do have a point, one or another or several, and common sense suggests that, probably, one could arrive to a consensus, if only the authors, some two centuries apart from one another, could be brought together."
Forget water boarding: just use that sentence.
Will it get you elected to the Water Board?
(and) six-word definition, as explained here: (Score:5, Funny)
"Service Temporarily Unavailable"... nah, its just three words based on my definition of counting :)
But if we look deep into the message and add "try again later", i think author is spot on.
Here's mine (Score:5, Funny)
"it's like a box of chocolates"
Re: (Score:2)
What is life?
Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
My working definition... (Score:3)
Life: something which defies the apparent path of least resistance (which would be to sit down and do nothing/die.)
Conciousness, of course, is much more involved.
A recent quote I read (Score:3)
I like a quote I read recently:
Life is... (Score:2)
It's all explained here (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZXAA5YQ0Js&feature=related [youtube.com]
Seven, according to the author (Score:2)
But he's counting "self-reproduction" as two words.
Re: (Score:2)
But he's counting "self-reproduction" as two words.
So are or aren't viruses "alive" by this definition? They don't reproduce by themselves, they require a host environment... much like the first reproducing chemical chains required a primordial soup, or how Humans require another human along with their ambient environment, or how my neural network machine intelligence requires a computer system to breed within.
Re: (Score:2)
So are or aren't viruses "alive" by this definition? They don't reproduce by themselves, they require a host environment...
We don't reproduce by ourselves (whole lotta knuckles) and we require a host environment (air, gravity) too. But that's not the "self" that he meant.
"Life is self-reproduction with variations." (Score:3)
Guess how many characters there are in the above sentence? (between the quotes)
Okay, you don't have to guess... you can count them.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry for the self-reply, but I had to mention this too:
"Life is autonomous self-reproduction with variations." (the final version from the article) clocks in at 53 characters, which is unfortunately one short of the correct total of 54 (which, of course, is what you get when you multiply 6 by 9, in base 10)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess how many characters there are in the above sentence? (between the quotes)
Okay, you don't have to guess... you can count them.
I didn't have to guess or count. I suspected, then estimated, and now your question has verified my suspicion. I may never know for sure, but I'm quite satisfied in thinking that I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Viruses and other "parasites" are not necessarily self-reproducing. They con the host into doing some or all of it for them. Males are usually not self-reproducing also.
Reality (Score:2)
... is not obligated to supply phenomena that fit neatly into our preconceived ontological categories.
It is quite possible that any possible definition of life either includes things we don't think of as "alive" or excludes things we do.
Life is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusing, but...
sexually transmitted
Except for all those asexual life-forms, like amoebae and bacteria--the vast majority of life on this planet.
100% fatality rate
Unless you're talking about the heat-death of the universe, then the 100% fatality thing is pretty much limited to sexual creatures. If you are talking about the heat-death of the universe, then carbon atoms are as close to being alive by your definition as E. Coli.
Happy Darwin Day everybody! (Score:2)
Blatant agenda? (Score:2)
Life is: from evolution.
I don't object to evolution, but I don't think it's correct to define life by this existing process. Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Since the human genome differs from individual to individual, you'd have to kill every human but one and make clones of that last one forever. Genetic mutations aren't necessary for variations with the size of our population pool.
However, you're entirely missing the fact that most if not all definitions of life include reproduction. How else would you define life, considering reproduction is one of the few things that are wholly unique to it? Can you name something you consider to be "alive" that cannot rep
Re: (Score:2)
Mules and other sterile offspring, for starters.
Life on Earth is essentially biomolecular cells powered by ATP.
Can something that resembles life on another planet be made up of something different? Theoretically robots that manufactured replicas of themselves and otherwise behaved like an intelligent being would normally have to be considered a form of life, except that we know from our own experience that it is software and hardware that replicates the life experience and was created and put into place by
Re: (Score:2)
His definitions require replication with variations. So if someone found a way to suppress genetic mutation in humans, we would not be alive right? An artificial creation can also not be alive unless it can reproduce? Does factory production count? It seems we can shorten his definition even more if we embrace his bias:
Life is: from evolution.
I don't object to evolution, but I don't think it's correct to define life by this existing process. Or am I missing something?
There IS a blatant agenda here, and it has nothing to do with defining life.
This type of paper is what I would call "borderline scholarship". It was done by a real scientist, passed "real" peer review, and even ended up in a "real" journal (more on that in a bit). But I would estimate this sort of work took maybe one weekend in a library and 20 minutes in excel. "Top science" this is not. It was picked up by JBSD, a washed-up journal that used to publish edgy stuff a few decades ago, and has lately decid
The question is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
"What is the meaning of life?"
What is the meaning of that question? I take particular issue with "Meaning".
Does it mean "purpose"? If so, life's purpose is defined by its creator; if there is no creator, it's purpose is self-defining; empirically, the one we've decided on is "keep reproducing until you deplete all available means to do so and/or come up with something else to do".
Does it really mean "Meaning" as in "This means something"? A creator may have intended some meaning; if there is no creator, I'm afraid all it can mean is "Stuff can successfully self-reproduce for at least a few billion years on this particular rock". Any other meaning is entirely made up by us.
I suppose in that sense data mining the meaning of life is as good an answer as any.
Personally, I think "Meaning" is a worthless question, and "Purpose"... well, it's only what you make of it. Mine is to try to make this world a better place for it's inhabitants at least until we can make contact with and/or go somewhere more exciting. I accept that this may take a while.
Life is Recursive? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to create a modern equivalent to the Nazi song "Das ist kein Mensch, das ist ein Jude"?
And not all life is human. Whether they believe in any variant of a certain dominant monotheistic faith system or not. So you totally missed what the point was. My suggestion: Stay anonymous and stay coward.
Re: (Score:2)
When you have a hammer all problems look like nails... or something
Re:Human Life (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, I support abortion for the same reason I support the Death Penalty: Necessary in a practical sense, but over all pretty gross...
That's probably raising lots of flames and will burn some karma, but I find it difficult to see practicality in the death penalty. Abortion now, at least indeed has undeniable practicality in some cases, like where the birth would simply kill the mother. It's hard to argue against that point.
But the death penalty -- at least in its incarnation where you don't just shoot/hang/burn the first person you think is guilty -- seems awfully impractical. Compared to life imprisonment it costs the same (or sometimes even more) and has the same outcome of preventing recidivism (re-offending). But, unfortunately it does cause psychological strain on those having to dish out the penalty (that life imprisonment certainly doesn't) and prevents any sort of future moral insight in the guilty, no matter how unlikely you deem it.
A further difference is what some victims feel, namely the warm gut feeling of satisfied murderous revenge ... which is most likely what the person who got the penalty also got at some point and is even maybe what they might have gotten the penalty for to begin with. But since the logical outcome of life and death penalty is ultimately the same anyway (death); only one with more delay than the other, you can't really say that the latter is more practical in that regard either. In both cases, they will never see freedom again or get a chance to repeat their action until they die (and if you're not religious and there's no after-life, this lack is permanent).
As such, I see no reason how practicality could decide the question of the use of the death penalty, as it seems to me just as practical (or even a smidgeon less practical, I admit) than real life imprisonment.
Of course, practicality and morality are two different things that need to be evaluated differently, and thus -- at least for me -- the question is a moral, and not a practical one.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.. So you favour killing a human for no fault of theirs (abortion) but oppose killing as just punishment for an unjustified murder (say the murderer of a child... or a baby)?
Hmm...
Re:Human Life (Score:4, Informative)
Heh. Have you even *read* the comment you replied to? How about in some cases, like where the birth would simply kill the mother. How does that constitute the child having no "fault"? Of course it's impossible to lay blame here, but that's hardly the point, since abortions aren't some sort of moral punishment. But let's say you'd detect something that means the child will kill the mother, then die, if brought to term. Sure, that may not be the common case. But to call it killing a human in any and all cases is just silly.
And you might even argue that as long as it's connect to the mother, it's part of her organism, to do with as she pleases. I don't agree with nilly-willy abortions, but you know what, neither does any woman I ever spoke to about the subject. I have not met a single woman who shrugged off having had an abortion. Those may exist, but personal anecdotal evidence suggests they take it more seriously than men (who would have thought). However, for other people to dictate them what to do with their womb, or to imply they are murderers without knowing anything about the specific circumstances, that's just not on. Fuck that.
Re: (Score:2)
and the baby has the right to live
It does? I disagree. I think rights are defined by law. If unborn babies had no rights in the eyes of the law, that would not be true (at least to me).
Re: (Score:2)
I think rights are defined by law. If unborn babies had no rights in the eyes of the law, that would not be true (at least to me).
I don't think that's true, at least in the United States. The whole concept of "natural rights" in the Bill of Rights is that they exist prior to law and are recognised by law, not created by law, and that the law is always subject to being superseded by actual rights. Hence why you all had a revolution against your duly constituted legal monarch and felt justified in doing so, because you believed that the natural right of being born in a country was more important than some piece of paper saying that you
Re: (Score:2)
nooooo! thank you :) you said some very true things there. heartfelt rants for the win, "rants" about gentleness doubly so. gentleness, I lack it, but I appreciated your reply muchly.
Re:Human Life (Score:4, Insightful)
So you favour killing a human for no fault of theirs (abortion)
The person you responded to already answered that (As a "no")
When you have a person alive for a number of years, who would be able to live another many decades, if not for one medical issue going wrong...
You have two outcomes to choose between:
1) The baby dies, and the mother lives
or
2) The baby dies, and the mother dies too.
So as the baby is already going to die, and there is nothing you can do to change that, all that's left on the table is if the mother dies or not, which you have full control over.
Your view suggests that the mother should die, as well as the baby.
The person you replied to suggests that the mother should live, while the baby dies.
Only person here making the choice of killing a person is you.
At least the GP is trying to save the one and only life that can be saved in the situation given.
Then there is the point on the death penalty.
As happens very frequently, it is discovered after the fact that the person originally arrested and tried for the crime turns out to be proven innocent, or another person is proven to be guilty and acting alone, which is itself proof the former person is innocent.
When you put someone to death, as you feel should be done, you can never fix the mistake once found out. With life imprisonment you can.
If it turns out the person is guilty after the fact, then they have been in prison all that time and will continue to be.
So once again, you have just put every wrongfully accused person to death, despite evidence after the fact that you got the wrong person.
The person you are responding to suggests once evidence comes to light that the one imprisoned was the wrong person, you let them go and attempt to make amends for the time stolen from their life.
So you just put to death many innocent people that did nothing wrong, as well as killed an innocent mother.
The person you responded to did neither of those things.
Hmm indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
So you favour killing a human for no fault of theirs (abortion) but oppose killing as just punishment for an unjustified murder (say the murderer of a child... or a baby)?
I see the baby, while it's still in the mother's body, as a mere parasite. If she wants to remove it, I think she should be able to do that. I do not believe the unborn baby has any rights if the mother wishes to remove them.
On the other hand, the death penalty is killing someone who isn't part of someone else's body (a free human). Not to mention that there is a chance (however slim) that they might be innocent. You can let someone out of prison after 20 years if they're found innocent, but not if you kill
Intact extraction of a third-trimester parasite (Score:2)
I see the baby, while it's still in the mother's body, as a mere parasite.
Why is the baby not a parasite after it is born?
If she wants to remove it, I think she should be able to do that.
Starting in roughly the third trimester, removal of a parasite becomes feasible without causing the parasite's death. A third-trimester parasite extracted intact (let's call this organism a "preemie") can survive on its own to virtually the same extent as a full-term newborn. So why kill such a parasite instead of extracting it intact?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the baby not a parasite after it is born?
Because I don't consider it a parasite (I stated that as an opinion). I see it that way mainly because it's not leeching off of anyone's body. Of course, that's not to say that someone who was born can't be considered a parasite, but they aren't the ones I think you should be allowed to kill.
So why kill such a parasite instead of extracting it intact?
I said "remove." If at all possible, I wouldn't mind them leaving it alive. But if that can't be done, I'm fine with killing it, too.
Preparing a promising parasite for viability (Score:2)
Of course, that's not to say that someone who was born can't be considered a parasite
For example, a newborn is still a parasite sucking the mammaries of its mother.
but they aren't the ones I think you should be allowed to kill.
Why should birth be the line if both fetuses a
Re: (Score:2)
For example, a newborn is still a parasite sucking the mammaries of its mother.
And the mother can give away the newborn, right?
Why should birth be the line if both fetuses and unweaned infants are parasites?
Because my goal is to ensure the ability of the mother to get rid of unwanted pregnancies while saving as many lives as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that is just what I see it as. To me, it's like a parasite. But I guess thinking something is similar to something else is impossible because if you compare two things, you're actually claiming that they are exactly alike!
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using the term figuratively, or making an analogy, fine.
And I was.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to life imprisonment it costs the same (or sometimes even more) and has the same outcome of preventing recidivism (re-offending).
Not really.
The costs of the death penalty are externally elevated. The cost of a bullet is quite cheap.
As far as re-offending-
The murder is not kept in perfect isolation (cruel and unusual), and has the opportunity to re-offend with what are essentially other wards of the state (not to mention prison guards). Anyone who has been around prisons knows there is far more crim
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
The costs of the death penalty are externally elevated. The cost of a bullet is quite cheap.
That's why I specifically stated: [...] But the death penalty -- at least in its incarnation where you don't just shoot/hang/burn the first person you think is guilty ---[...].
Just like in physics (or anything, really), the practicality of something depends on its entire cost and not just its cost in part of the system.
As far as re-offending-
The murder is not kept in perfect isolation (cruel and unusual), and has the opportunity to re-offend with what are essentially other wards of the state (not to mention prison guards). Anyone who has been around prisons knows there is far more crime in prison than outside.
I never said that the lock-away-and-forget approach is completely practical either. Most capital offenses occur on the spur of the moment -- even some cases of rape. For most people thus jail
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I mangled the formatting a bit in the previous posting without noting it.
Everything after the "(It should be noted" line is my answer up until the last properly quoted part.
One of these days, Slashdot should allow you to edit your posting again for a short while after you've hit submit. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Many religious people who believe in infinite punishment (hell) still sin. If the prospect of infinite punishment can be insufficient deterrence, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that increasing punishment does not always make a deterrent significantly more effective? Would it not be better to research ways to increase deterrence that do not rely on merely increasing punishment?
Re: (Score:2)
Jappus argued:
I find it difficult to see practicality in the death penalty. Abortion now, at least indeed has undeniable practicality in some cases. It's hard to argue against that point.
But the death penalty -- at least in its incarnation where you don't just shoot/hang/burn the first person you think is guilty -- seems awfully impractical. Compared to life imprisonment it costs the same (or sometimes even more) and has the same outcome of preventing recidivism (re-offending). But, unfortunately it does cause psychological strain on those having to dish out the penalty (that life imprisonment certainly doesn't) and prevents any sort of future moral insight in the guilty, no matter how unlikely you deem it.
A further difference is what some victims feel, namely the warm gut feeling of satisfied murderous revenge ... which is most likely what the person who got the penalty also got at some point and is even maybe what they might have gotten the penalty for to begin with. But since the logical outcome of life and death penalty is ultimately the same anyway (death); only one with more delay than the other, you can't really say that the latter is more practical in that regard either. In both cases, they will never see freedom again or get a chance to repeat their action until they die (and if you're not religious and there's no after-life, this lack is permanent).
As such, I see no reason how practicality could decide the question of the use of the death penalty, as it seems to me just as practical (or even a smidgeon less practical, I admit) than real life imprisonment.
Of course, practicality and morality are two different things that need to be evaluated differently, and thus -- at least for me -- the question is a moral, and not a practical one.
I agree that the death penalty is impractical, but for entirely different reasons than the ones you put forth.
You admit that your objection to the death penalty is a moral one, and your arguments all flow from that. Mine are entirely practical ones:
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it costs too much, it doesn't actually deter criminals from committing murder or high treason, and it is provably misapplied from time to time. It's past time we did away with it, and saved the taxpayer the expense of an expensive, ineffective, and occasionally supremely unjust Medieval legal sanction.
Arguably, from a purely practical standpoint, you could take the Judge Dredd option and remove objections A and B at the expense of increasing C: make executions so cheap and so common that even if they don't deter, they stop reoffending. And if you decide that the worth of a human life isn't that big after all - or if you just don't bother to investigate the false positive rate - you don't have to worry about C. This is the route that a lot of dictatorships ended up going.
This is why I prefer a moral objec
Re: (Score:2)
As such, I see no reason how practicality could decide the question of the use of the death penalty, as it seems to me just as practical (or even a smidgeon less practical, I admit) than real life imprisonment.
I myself have no defined position on the death penalty, but I know more or less the different arguments, and it seems to me they all can be reduced to two basic and incompatible opinions regarding what the punitive branch of the justice branch is for.
The first, and oldest, is the notion that the punitive branch goal is simply to protect society, what it accomplishes by removing from it those who violate (that) society rules. In this case society, which is what MUST be defended, is understood as a set of agr
Re: (Score:2)
> So, if someone is being problematic, you punish him lightly so that he notices he's being a jerk and start behaving; if he does something more serious, you ostracize him temporarily (this ostracism can be literal in small enough societies, as you literally make the person get out of the village/tribe/whatever and taste living on his own, without the benefit of community support, so that he can start grasping how very much important being in it is -- and if he dies while "out", well, that's his problem)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize you are describing reform, right? Becoming less of a jerk and grasping the importance of being part of society are both ways for the problematic person to change for the better (from society's perspective).
Yes, but my point wasn't that in practical matter both perspectives diverged much. The practice in both many times overlap, although where they diverge, they do diverge a lot. It's more a question of focus as well as opportunity really: the first approach wants to protect society despite potentially damaging the individual, while the second wants to reform the individual despite potentially damaging society (in the sense that softer/smaller/shorter punishments many times allow a criminal to go back and comm
Re: (Score:2)
But the death penalty -- at least in its incarnation where you don't just shoot/hang/burn the first person you think is guilty -- seems awfully impractical
- that's a strange argument. It's much more practical to kill somebody and stop wasting resources trying to do some real justice, definitely cheaper that way. I have a different understanding of the word 'practical' from yours - in fact trying to achieve some form of justice is much less practical than just putting together a case against somebody and quickly executing them.
I mean think of all the resources that go into proving someone's innocence - why bother, if you are only concerned with the 'practica
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge accepted! It would kill the mother, but it would produce new life, which would go on to live another 20 ~ 40+ years longer than the mother would live. Replace one life with another, in total longer lived life.
Your turn.
Thanks, you've just vindicated my first point. As I said, practicality does undeniably enter into the pro-life/pro-choice debate. If, without abortion, death for both is certain; pure practicality demands to save the mother's life. If the mother's death is certain (for example in the most extreme case of her being already brain-dead), practicality demands to save the child, even if this will kill the mother.
But of course, as your point also shows, the very last sentence of my posting is also true: Even in q
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument assumes that 'total longer lived life' is most important when determining the practicality of an action. By that reasoning it would be best to force everyone to reproduce as often as possible (e.g. by banning contraceptives) and to keep brain-dead people on life-support indefinitely.
I think it's obvious there are more issues to consider than just 'total lived life'. For instance, the effect of losing the mother on her friends and family. The effect on the child that has to grow up without a mo
Re: (Score:2)
who the fuck are those "medical professionals"? people who sell medical rubber gloves?
george carlin set the bar pretty high by pointing out that "life started millions of years ago and hasn't stopped since".
and the death penalty isn't good for anything, at all? that it's gross is not really a convincing argument for it, either.
Re: (Score:2)
for the same reason I support the Death Penalty: Necessary in a practical sense, but over all pretty gross...
There's at least one good reason I will never support the death penalty, and that is that the justice system is imperfect. Probably the best example are rape cases where DNA has shown they were in fact innocent many years later, but we've had murder sentences lifted based on deathbed confessions. Sometimes they've even confessed because they were half retarded, they were misidentified by witnesses and wrongly picked out in a lineup, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond and and all doubt. Currently t
Re: (Score:3)
"Life is self-reproduction with variations"
If the RSS feed actually had the link to TFA in it, I wouldn't have had to come here to get it, and then spoil it all for you.
Except that that's not the author's answer. If you, or TFS submitter, or the editor had bothered to read it through (I know, tall order for /.), you'd see he argues for that definition being flawed, and arrives at a seven word definition:
Life is autonomous self-reproduction with variations.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm... one punctuation symbol and one word?
!dead
Re: (Score:2)
So if a person is infertile then they are not alive?
Or if we genetically changed a person so that their offspring was a clone of them (no variations) then they would not be a life form?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I dead then? I don't think I hydrogenate carbon dioxide, or at least not very well; in fact I seem to produce more of it than I take in.
Re: (Score:2)
In an extensional definition (exemplar listing) of the "over-definition" flaws inherent in intensional definition (attribute listing), one might cite this..
He's dead Jim.
Re: (Score:2)