[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 14 KB, 395x395, lenny.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4185290 No.4185290 [Reply] [Original]

Imagine that there are only 100 humans left on earth. 50 males 50 females.


Lets say that the 50 females do not want to have any sex, but the men want to repopulate the planet.

If the 50 man forced themselves on the 50 women, would that be rape?

It would since the women are not giving their consent.

Not that I care, I would still rape them anyway, since we need to repopulate the planet but it's still rape none the less.

>> No.4185295

Of course it would be rape; you are stating the obvious.
This thread has no purpose.

>> No.4185297

We could always try to convince them to repopulate the planet using logical or emotional arguments instead of just raping them..

>> No.4185338

>>4185290
I wouldn't want to repopulate with women who don't see the necessity of having sex in that type of situation. Fucking womyn piss me off.

>> No.4185341

>>4185338
The scenario explained in the OP is unlikely to occur; women would be in favour of having sex and repopulating the planet.

>> No.4185358

>>4185341
radiation from the bombs mutated the men into horrific, unnattractive half centipede creatures

>> No.4185616

>>4185358
Therefore raising their attractiveness.

>> No.4185627

I don't see why sex is necessary if sperm banks and egg donors exist. The facilities for "artificially" producing children aren't science fiction any more

>> No.4185640

1. Kill all the nigger women and men of the 100. Lets eliminate that race once and for all.
2. No religion
3. Rape all women(not the niggers)
4. Build a society

>> No.4185646

>>4185627
BUT HURR DE DURR DE DURR DESIGNER BABIES ARE A BAD THING FOR SOME REASON AND I AM A FUCKING IDIOT

To OP, I'd say it doesn't matter if it's rape. There's a good reason behind it and those men would be the leaders of the band of people as they could physically overpower the women. They wouldn't make forced sex a crime.

>> No.4185651

>>4185646
They wouldn't necessarily be "designer babies" -- they'd be babies made without sexual intercourse. I apologize if I've offended you in any way.

>> No.4185653

>Harriet clones herself 50 times
>Kills everyone but 50 men with the horror of her biology degree
>Refuses to rectify her mistake
>Reports them all for raping her

>> No.4185661

>>4185651
Nah bro, you're fine. It's just that people who oppose artificially tinkering with babies to make them all perfect superhumans piss me off for holding us back as a species.

>> No.4185660

>>4185646
this.
/thread

>> No.4185663

>>4185640
Imagine that there are only 100 humans left on earth. 50 10 year old males and 50 females at the end of their fertility.


Lets say that the 50 boys do not want to have any sex, but the women want to repopulate the planet.

If the 50 women forced themselves on the 50 boys, would that be child abuse?

It would be since the boys are underage.

Not that I care, I would still rape them anyway, since we need to repopulate the planet but it's still rape none the less.

>> No.4185666

>>4185661
I understand :)

>> No.4185667

>>4185640
Atheist fag here, I think primal humans would have a hard time raising a society without some sort of dogma, assuming that what ever knowledge that science had disappears after the catastrophe.

>> No.4185669

>>4185663
>100 people on earth
>thinks that "underage" still exists

If they are old enough to ejaculate, they are old enough to have kids.

>> No.4185671

>>4185669
>If they are old enough to ejaculate

Might be a stupid question, but are 10 year olds? I'm under the impression that puberty begins ~13 years old.

>> No.4185691

>>4185671
oh, forgot about the ten year old part...
well, whenever they start puberty. Some will be early enough to mate with the older females.

Then the rest of the boys who start puberty later can mate with the children of the older women when they grow up (not as necessary to fuck the new kids young. Maybe 17-20 to start mating)

>> No.4185704

>>4185640
Reported.

>>4185653
I study psychology, not biology.

>> No.4185724

>>4185704
Why are you reporting so many people?

>> No.4185729

>>4185704
I'm sure that will be much more useful in our new world.

>> No.4185730

>>4185724
Because 'so many people' break the rules.

>> No.4185731

>>4185667

I think it would be unlikely that superstition and despotism would NOT arise. But that doesn't mean that individuals and societies wouldn't still be better off without it. Just that it is a pathology of community that is hard to avoid.

>> No.4185736

>>4185730
Do you realize that this is 4chan?

>> No.4185741

>>4185736
Do you realize that even 4chan has rules?

>> No.4185826
File: 71 KB, 448x473, no-fun-allowed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4185826

>> No.4185845
File: 107 KB, 314x373, Deirdre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4185845

>>4185826
>overt racism = fun
I sometimes forget that we inherited so many /new/fags.

>> No.4185855

>>4185845
report it by all means, just don't derail the entire board by posting that you've reported EVERY negative comment on it. especially not with a trip.

>> No.4185890
File: 673 KB, 1000x453, Chicxulub-animation.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4185890

Pictured, a mechanism to reduce the amount of people to thread-related levels.

>>4185855
>implying I'm Harriet
There are other's here who don't like stormfaggot stupidity any more than she does.

>> No.4186050

OP says: "I would still rape them anyway, since we need to repopulate the planet"

There is no inherent "need" to "repopulate the planet". Humans are rather unnecessary. This entire thread is the most idiotic thing I've seen in years. Quit assuming that you and your pathetic species are SO important that there is this heroic moral duty to proliferate. You are all idiots.

>> No.4186062
File: 248 KB, 992x527, Apophis_Path_of_Risk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4186062

>>4186050
I'm sorry for whatever happened to you when you were a kid, but it's pretty immature to project that kind of misanthropy to everyone because of it.

>> No.4186081

>>4185290
>need to repopulate the planet

No.

the fact that humans reproduce does not mean that reproduction is the purpose of mankind. This is like basic is/ought distinction.

>> No.4186084

"There is no inherent "need" to "repopulate the planet"."

^THIS.

>> No.4186090

Why do you assume that we NEED to repopulate? There is no reason for this. Continuation of the species is no more valid ambition than anything else.
We owe nothing to future generations.

>> No.4186093

>>4185855
it's time to go back to /new/ >>>/pol/
don't come back to /sci/ unless you are willing to follow the rules.

>> No.4186092

>fags arguing about whether we should repopulate or not.

Yeah, nah, you're all cunts.

>> No.4186095

>>4186081
The reproduction itself isn't a goal.
It's a means to a goal. Or rather two goals, survival and expansion.

>> No.4186097

>>4186092
No, your just convinced by popular trend

>> No.4186101

>>4186095
Why is "survival and expansion" worthwhile?

>> No.4186125
File: 173 KB, 1296x394, life_sprung_forth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4186125

>>4186101
I don't know. Why was it worthwhile for you to get out of the bed this morning? Why is it worthwhile for you to eat?

Because it's what life does. It survives and expands according to available means.

We survive and expand, get out of bed, eat, work, love, think and dream because if we didn't, we'd be no different from inanimate rocks.

>> No.4186126

why a population gets that low, there is no hope for continuing the species no matter how sex you invoke. and of course continuing the species isn't inherently justified, nevermind justified over women's wellbeing

>> No.4186132

>>4186125
we live, yes. and we die. there is no 'ought'.

humans have kids and the kids grow up and have kids, but that doesn't mean having kids is preferable to not doing so.

>> No.4186140

>>4186125

That certainly doesn't justify rape.

>> No.4186163

>>4186125
>I don't know.

That's where your answer to the question have ended.

Humans live and continue their species and from there you and people like Dawkins tell us that this is the meaning of life; that this is moral. yet all you're doing is taking ought from is.

yes every humans live and work and play and brush their teeth and visit the moon, you cannot argue that this what we should be doing simply because it happens.

I could just as easily argue that since all humans die, then it's what we ought to do.

there is meaning of life. continuation of the species is inadvertent.

>> No.4186165

>>4186097
Yeah, nah, you're a fucking cunt.

>> No.4186178

>>4186132
Yes, in the current environment you are correct. There is no inherent need for you to procreate, because there are so many humans that it is in no danger if millions of people don't have any kids.

But in a situation described ITT, the species certainly is in danger of disappearing, so there's no room for selfish philosophizing.

>>4186140
No, it doesn't, and I think OP is trolling by making the problem absolutely about rape. If people got in a species-survival situation like that, I doubt they would dither about getting children for long, so there probably wouldn't arise a need for rape.

On the other hand, if rape is the only way for the species to survive, then the first rule of survival situations cvertainly arises: "survival by any means necessary".

A comparison can be made between rape in this situation and cannibalism in the infamous cases of the Donner Party and the Andes plane crash.

>> No.4186188

>>4186178
>species certainly is in danger of disappearing

the idea that it is a 'danger' or a problem to be solved is simply your value judgement.

>>4186165
>"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide."

>> No.4186205

>>4186163
No, you're cherry-picking their comments. We ourselves give higher meaning to what we do. But the more desperate a situation is, the more basic the questions asked.

Assuming you're male, you certainly wouldn't be required to continue procreating. You would be free to sit in your place until you die of privation. Other males, more willing to surrender in the face of reality, would certainly be able to fill in for you.

>> No.4186208

>>4186178
There is no inherent need for you to procreate no matter what is the condition of the population at large.

>> No.4186217

>>4186101
Because it is the only purpose for you drawing breath.

>> No.4186226

>>4186188
>>4186208
I can imagine philosophers being killed first in this situation so they don't needlessly further endanger the future of the species.

As I said, if you get into a situation like this, you're free to sit down and do nothing until you die.

Other people who DO think that the continuation of the species is a worthy goal will keep on going.

>> No.4186230

>>4186205
not cherrypicking at all. i haven't done anything of the kind. i have no need to.

low population is not an inherent problem. it's as simple as that

>>4186217

No it's not. It's a sad day when this is what science tries to teach us. I am not solely a means to an end (future civilisations). The potential of mankind has nothing to do with what my ambitions are right now.

>> No.4186237

>>4186230
>The potential of mankind has nothing to do with what my ambitions are right now.
Well obviously, since you don't seem to have any ambition to even stay alive.

>> No.4186240

>>4186226
Ensuring the future of the human species does not give meaning to individual human lives. You've been listen to evolutionary biologists for too long. I bet you speak of the purpose of genes as more than a metaphor

>> No.4186244

>>4186237
Oh my fucking god, you are so stupid.

why the fuck would the reason for MY continuation hinge on the potential of other people yet to come???

>> No.4186260

>>4186244
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't see any value in anything, you might as well drop dead. And no one cares.

But ascribing value to something can be a conscious decision. You have decided that there is no value in doing anything for the species to continue, but seem unable to realize that everyone, indeed most, will not make the same decision. Because that kind of sentiment is an evolutionary pressure in itself. If people make the decision to die, they eliminate their own value. They do not matter anymore. The people who make the decision to live, they have the chance to matter.

>> No.4186273

>>4186237
Humans have only been around for 200k of the 6 billion years of the universe. they will be wiped out eventually whether it's disease, fertility levels, supernova or expansion of the universe. According to your logic, human lives are worthless because mankind as a whole will one day cease to exist. This could not be more retarded. The species doesn't have the desire to maintain, individuals do. Anything that the species as a whole adopts is inadvertent. The potential of the species doesn't even enter into the mind of those about to make a baby.

>>4186260

>you don't see any value in anything

what? where the fuck are you getting this from?? I am quite perplexed that you think value in anything is contingent on the continuation of the species. but I am not surprised. this is the kind of fundamental purpose of life that science has tried to convince you of. it is simply assuming 'ought' from 'is', which you can't do.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/sisyphus/section1.html

>> No.4186302

>>4186273
>what? where the fuck are you getting this from?
From your confused rants.
We do what we do because we see it as worth doing.
You seem to be convinced that continuing the species is not worth doing.
Only crazy people and soldiers do things they don't consider worth doing.

As a human, I see the continuation of the human species of paramount value, so I would do nearly anything to keep it alive.

If you imply that the continuation of the species is not worth the hassle, you obviously do not hold it in high regard, but would rather sit motionless in one place while it disappeared from the face of the Earth.

And that's why I don't hold philosophy in high regard.

>> No.4186319

>>4186302
I did not say that continuation of the species cannot be justified. I said that the value of life does not depend upon it.

Not continuing the species does not equate to 'not holding the species in high regard' or ' sit motionless in one place while it disappeared from the face of the Earth.'


Just total non sequitur


obvious troll

>> No.4186348

>>4186319
But you seem unwilling to come up with or pronounce your own reasons for keeping the species going, instead preferring to mouth empty philosophy.

Also, I disagree with the value of life being independent of the species. People who say such usually seem awfully egotistical, preferring to set their own personal goals above everything else, no matter the situation.

>> No.4186361

>>4186348
>unwilling to come up with or pronounce your own reasons for keeping the species going,

There isn't any. There doesn't need to be any.

>empty philosophy
Please educate yourself, man.

>I disagree with the value of life being independent of the species

Humans have only been around for 200k of the 6 billion years of the universe. they will be wiped out eventually whether it's disease, fertility levels, supernova or expansion of the universe. According to your logic, human lives are worthless because mankind as a whole will one day cease to exist.

>> No.4186397

>>4186361
>There isn't any. There doesn't need to be any.
O rly? Explain.

>6 billion years of the universe
Interesting that you tell me to educate myself.

>According to your logic, human lives are worthless because mankind as a whole will one day cease to exist.
As I said, there is the value that we decide.
And as I also said, for me the species is of paramount value.

>> No.4186412
File: 9 KB, 240x320, UglyWoman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4186412

What if all the women looks like this? Who is raping who then?

>> No.4186468

>>4186397
>O rly? Explain.

Meaning and value judgments on life simply do not depend on striving to maintain the population. there doesnt need to be a reason to keep living. we are alive so we can continue being alive or we choose to die, we dont need reason for either. there are only two options.

>Interesting that you tell me to educate myself.

Okay I do apologise. I got the numbers mixed up. 14b is the age of the universe. 6 b is the population(7b now) and 4 b is age of eath aprox. I doesn't matter because at 14 billions years old, my point is even more relevant.

You don't need to decide meaning. not having meaning doesn't lead to immediately lying down to die. it simply means you continue doing what was already being done: living

>for me the species is of paramount value.

but the species will die out, even if it takes until end of the universe. if meaning of life was dependent on the species surviving then because the species will die it is clear you dont hold meaning for life.

>> No.4186495

>>4186348
>People who say such usually seem awfully egotistical,

me not holding the survival of the species as paramount does not mean I don't value working towards the needs of others. What it means is I don't highly regard the needs of future generations. present day generations come before them. there is inherent reason for them to even enter into the picture.

>> No.4186515

>Let's say that the 50 females do not want to have any sex.

That's impossible. All 50 females would be inevitably attracted to the dumbest and douchiest man out of the 50 males.

>> No.4186559

>>4186495
And then you provide me with an example of just that.

Well, it was a stimulating discussion, thank you. But unfortunately the sun is starting to rise so I need to get a few hours of shut-eye now.

>> No.4186607

>>4186559
example of what?

i meant 'no inherent reason' in that comment btw.