I never really thought about this before until a friend brought it up. My friend told me that research has shown that an incredible amount of our (US) nation's tax money goes into caring for prison in-mates nationwide. My friend and I then began discussing and eventually arguing if that tax money could be better spent, or if the prison in-mates could be treated in a different way that more effectively better serves the rest of the community. He told me that a small number of prison in-mates are incarcerated due to mutual reasons and that they would actually make good citizens once released. However, the larger rest of the in-mates show no desire to change or improve and once released will go back to performing illegal and/or criminal activities, only this time around they would learn from past mistakes to better avoid the authorities.
My friend firmly believes that our efforts to "reform" the many men and women in jail cells is in vein and the tax money that goes into it is wasted. Our world population is growing exponentially and while many scientists and professionals are looking for ways to accommodate a bigger future population, by means of advancing agricultural and medical technologies and revolutionizing civil and geographic engineering, my friend offers a supplemental and less expected solution: the immediate extermination of all prison in-mates who are, through several cases and investigations, judged "incapable of contributing any good to their respective societies." After all, he tells me, our planet Earth cannot offer unlimited resources to sustain an ever growing and highly demanding human population and we cannot depend on epidemics and wars to cut down our numbers to a balanced equilibrium (I think it's obvious why), so we turn to getting rid of the socially undesirable.
Another argument he makes to his favor is an alternate use for prison in-mates. Advancements and breakthroughs in the medical field are highly dependent on testing with live subjects. These subjects are always animals as testing newly developed products can be very dangerous and can lead to unexpected, life-threatening side effects. However, genetically speaking, no animal species in the planet comes close to identical to ours than a member of our own species. Some medical products would require adjustments after testing on lab rats and guinea pigs to better suite the human users. To drastically reduce difficulty of development of new medical products and to more rapidly accelerate its advancements, my friend offers the idea of offering prison in-mates the chance for a release in exchange for their participation in any and all medical experiments. He believes that by turning the "good for nothing underdogs of our species" into live medical test subjects, we would be better serving our communities than wasting huge amounts of money in a hopeless campaign to reform in-mates who would most likely never change for the better.
I never really thought about this before until a friend brought it up. My friend told me that research has shown that an incredible amount of our (US) nation's tax money goes into caring for prison in-mates nationwide. My friend and I then began discussing and eventually arguing if that tax money could be better spent, or if the prison in-mates could be treated in a different way that more effectively better serves the rest of the community. He told me that a small number of prison in-mates are incarcerated due to mutual reasons and that they would actually make good citizens once released. However, the larger rest of the in-mates show no desire to change or improve and once released will go back to performing illegal and/or criminal activities, only this time around they would learn from past mistakes to better avoid the authorities.
My friend firmly believes that our efforts to "reform" the many men and women in jail cells is in vein and the tax money that goes into it is wasted. Our world population is growing exponentially and while many scientists and professionals are looking for ways to accommodate a bigger future population, by means of advancing agricultural and medical technologies and revolutionizing civil and geographic engineering, my friend offers a supplemental and less expected solution: the immediate extermination of all prison in-mates who are, through several cases and investigations, judged "incapable of contributing any good to their respective societies." After all, he tells me, our planet Earth cannot offer unlimited resources to sustain an ever growing and highly demanding human population and we cannot depend on epidemics and wars to cut down our numbers to a balanced equilibrium (I think it's obvious why), so we turn to getting rid of the socially undesirable.
Another argument he makes to his favor is an alternate use for prison in-mates. Advancements and breakthroughs in the medical field are highly dependent on testing with live subjects. These subjects are always animals as testing newly developed products can be very dangerous and can lead to unexpected, life-threatening side effects. However, genetically speaking, no animal species in the planet comes close to identical to ours than a member of our own species. Some medical products would require adjustments after testing on lab rats and guinea pigs to better suite the human users. To drastically reduce difficulty of development of new medical products and to more rapidly accelerate its advancements, my friend offers the idea of offering prison in-mates the chance for a release in exchange for their participation in any and all medical experiments. He believes that by turning the "good for nothing underdogs of our species" into live medical test subjects, we would be better serving our communities than wasting huge amounts of money in a hopeless campaign to reform in-mates who would most likely never change for the better.
What are your thoughts on this?
That sounds exactly like the same opinion over here in the uk.
I disagree on one point though:
There are laws on how many babies an area can produce. If it starts to overgrow they have to stop them.[citation needed]
If you guys decide not to read it I'll put it in a short summary.
The majority of prison inmates will not contribute to society and our tax money is going into caring them. Medical and science fields could be given money with this money instead of feeding and caring people who won't contribute but actually hurt the economy. There is a minority of people there who are not guilty or want to change, but setting morality aside we can use them as guinea pigs for testing said medical or scientific research.
Are you serious? That's horrible. You don't kill people because the world is getting "drastically overpopulated" (protip: it's not.) You don't test drugs on them, either. That makes you no better than these criminals that have "no right to live."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
Are you serious? That's horrible. You don't kill people because the world is getting "drastically overpopulated" (protip: it's not.) You don't test drugs on them, either. That makes you no better than these criminals that have "no right to live."
"and the weight of morality"
He's saying we should set aside morality for the better use of society.
May be horrible to you but he has a different opinion.
"and the weight of morality"
He's saying we should set aside morality for the better use of society.
May be horrible to you but he has a different opinion.
A society without morals is not a good society. You don't kill the "undesirables" just simply because they are a burden. You care for your fellow man, even if they don't care for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
A society without morals is not a good society. You don't kill the "undesirables" just simply because they are a burden. You care for your fellow man, even if they don't care for you.
disclaimer: I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this. I'm just reciting what I can remember from the argument I've had with my friend. I thought I'd post this here to find out what other people think.
This is the Internet, anonymity is your best friend. Use it to your advantage and be honest. Do you people really think this is viable? Of course, there are lots of moral issues to deal with.
disclaimer: I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this. I'm just reciting what I can remember from the argument I've had with my friend. I thought I'd post this here to find out what other people think.
This is the Internet, anonymity is your best friend. Use it to your advantage and be honest. Do you people really think this is viable? Of course, there are lots of moral issues to deal with.
I don't think a bad man's life is of any value if he is not willing to contribute for the good of society and caring for him would be meaningless.
They continually rob from a liquor store, after being to jail twice. Let's experiment on them with possibly harmful drugs. That totally seems like a fair punishment.
A man breaks into a home, ties up the family, and burns them alive just for the satisfaction of watching them burn. A humane injection that kills the murderer. That actually does seem like a fair punishment.
I could live with that. Not killing off hundreds/thousands of prisoners just because they are a burden to our tax money.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
They continually rob from a liquor store, after being to jail twice. Let's experiment on them with possibly harmful drugs. That totally seems like a fair punishment.
A man breaks into a home, ties up the family, and burns them alive just for the satisfaction of watching them burn. A humane injection that kills the murderer. That actually does seem like a fair punishment.
I could live with that. Not killing off hundreds/thousands of prisoners just because they are a burden to our tax money.
Okay, we could kill off the ones depending on their crime. Drug testing seems fine, as it would not cause HUGE harm over their body.
Okay, we could kill off the ones depending on their crime. Drug testing seems fine, as it would not cause HUGE harm over their body.
Who's to say it wouldn't cause huge harm? You are testing a drug on a human to see if it does have harmful effects. Not causing huge harm isn't a guarantee. I guess if it is the inmate's choice, than I suppose they can do whatever they want. Maybe get less time in jail or something, whatever.
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
Who's to say it wouldn't cause huge harm? You are testing a drug on a human to see if it does have harmful effects. Not causing huge harm isn't a guarantee. I guess if it is the inmate's choice, than I suppose they can do whatever they want. Maybe get less time in jail or something, whatever.
And having animals be tested on is better?
It would be a lot better if they had the choice for it to happen, a country needs morality.
I don't think a bad man's life is of any value if he is not willing to contribute for the good of society and caring for him would be meaningless.
Indeed, even for an average or good fellow, no one unrelated to him would feel the slightest significant remorse or grief over the loss of his life. Dispatching of and usage for the socially undesirable and economically crippling members of our communities would be much more helpful to the rest of human kind than hoping for them to have a change of heart and abandon their damaging habits.... in a technical way, at least.
However, this begs the question: what if one of these "social underdogs," who, say, hypothetically some time in the future when the changes in the argument have been wholly implemented, is a close relative of yours? what if your brother or sister has never shown it but has always had a thing for homicide, torture, violence, and other vulgar and socially regressive traits? what if the person who stands on the executioner's stage or sits on that bench at a prison hospital, about to receive a never-before tested and potentially fatal dosage of a drug under development, is your sibling, with whom you have been raised?
I don't think a bad man's life is of any value if he is not willing to contribute for the good of society and caring for him would be meaningless.
What do you mean by "bad man?" Do you mean somebody like George Bush, who lied to a country outright? Do you mean somebody like an investment banker, who only contributes to our society's greed? Or do you mean a 19 year old kid who got caught up in a gang when he was 15, and has never had the chance to make it out of inner city hell, and who never had any good adult role models in his life?
When you brand people as "bad" or "good," you're making a hell of a big judgement statement. For a person to be "bad" they must be intrinsically evil. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 19 year old isn't bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Vincenzo »
It's like a circle-jerk of family values, Christianity and nationalism.
My friend firmly believes that our efforts to "reform" the many men and women in jail cells is in vein and the tax money that goes into it is wasted. Our world population is growing exponentially and while many scientists and professionals are looking for ways to accommodate a bigger future population, by means of advancing agricultural and medical technologies and revolutionizing civil and geographic engineering, my friend offers a supplemental and less expected solution: the immediate extermination of all prison in-mates who are, through several cases and investigations, judged "incapable of contributing any good to their respective societies." After all, he tells me, our planet Earth cannot offer unlimited resources to sustain an ever growing and highly demanding human population and we cannot depend on epidemics and wars to cut down our numbers to a balanced equilibrium (I think it's obvious why), so we turn to getting rid of the socially undesirable.
Another argument he makes to his favor is an alternate use for prison in-mates. Advancements and breakthroughs in the medical field are highly dependent on testing with live subjects. These subjects are always animals as testing newly developed products can be very dangerous and can lead to unexpected, life-threatening side effects. However, genetically speaking, no animal species in the planet comes close to identical to ours than a member of our own species. Some medical products would require adjustments after testing on lab rats and guinea pigs to better suite the human users. To drastically reduce difficulty of development of new medical products and to more rapidly accelerate its advancements, my friend offers the idea of offering prison in-mates the chance for a release in exchange for their participation in any and all medical experiments. He believes that by turning the "good for nothing underdogs of our species" into live medical test subjects, we would be better serving our communities than wasting huge amounts of money in a hopeless campaign to reform in-mates who would most likely never change for the better.
What are your thoughts on this?
That sounds exactly like the same opinion over here in the uk.
There are laws on how many babies an area can produce. If it starts to overgrow they have to stop them.[citation needed]
The majority of prison inmates will not contribute to society and our tax money is going into caring them. Medical and science fields could be given money with this money instead of feeding and caring people who won't contribute but actually hurt the economy. There is a minority of people there who are not guilty or want to change, but setting morality aside we can use them as guinea pigs for testing said medical or scientific research.
"and the weight of morality"
He's saying we should set aside morality for the better use of society.
May be horrible to you but he has a different opinion.
Based on his ideas, I would assume that the in-mates would face either immediate death or prolonged life, being subjected to medical experiments.
A society without morals is not a good society. You don't kill the "undesirables" just simply because they are a burden. You care for your fellow man, even if they don't care for you.
What is a bad man's life mean to you?
This is the Internet, anonymity is your best friend. Use it to your advantage and be honest. Do you people really think this is viable? Of course, there are lots of moral issues to deal with.
I don't think a bad man's life is of any value if he is not willing to contribute for the good of society and caring for him would be meaningless.
Who's to decide if they are a "bad man?"
They continually rob from a liquor store, after being to jail twice. Let's experiment on them with possibly harmful drugs. That totally seems like a fair punishment.
A man breaks into a home, ties up the family, and burns them alive just for the satisfaction of watching them burn. A humane injection that kills the murderer. That actually does seem like a fair punishment.
I could live with that. Not killing off hundreds/thousands of prisoners just because they are a burden to our tax money.
Okay, we could kill off the ones depending on their crime. Drug testing seems fine, as it would not cause HUGE harm over their body.
"offering prison in-mates the chance for a release in exchange for their participation"
Who's to say it wouldn't cause huge harm? You are testing a drug on a human to see if it does have harmful effects. Not causing huge harm isn't a guarantee. I guess if it is the inmate's choice, than I suppose they can do whatever they want. Maybe get less time in jail or something, whatever.
And having animals be tested on is better?
It would be a lot better if they had the choice for it to happen, a country needs morality.
Indeed, even for an average or good fellow, no one unrelated to him would feel the slightest significant remorse or grief over the loss of his life. Dispatching of and usage for the socially undesirable and economically crippling members of our communities would be much more helpful to the rest of human kind than hoping for them to have a change of heart and abandon their damaging habits.... in a technical way, at least.
However, this begs the question: what if one of these "social underdogs," who, say, hypothetically some time in the future when the changes in the argument have been wholly implemented, is a close relative of yours? what if your brother or sister has never shown it but has always had a thing for homicide, torture, violence, and other vulgar and socially regressive traits? what if the person who stands on the executioner's stage or sits on that bench at a prison hospital, about to receive a never-before tested and potentially fatal dosage of a drug under development, is your sibling, with whom you have been raised?
What do you mean by "bad man?" Do you mean somebody like George Bush, who lied to a country outright? Do you mean somebody like an investment banker, who only contributes to our society's greed? Or do you mean a 19 year old kid who got caught up in a gang when he was 15, and has never had the chance to make it out of inner city hell, and who never had any good adult role models in his life?
When you brand people as "bad" or "good," you're making a hell of a big judgement statement. For a person to be "bad" they must be intrinsically evil. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 19 year old isn't bad.