discussion post 2

I thought today’s discussion was particularly interesting, especially when the topic of elderly people versus  youth was brought up. Logically, it makes complete sense to rid of elderly person or even someone who is terminal at any age, because they are only a leach on society. Within the 20^th and 21^st centuries, we’ve become so medically advanced that we have increased our life expectancy past natural years. In the 1800’s, the average person passed in their 40’s-50’s of natural causes. However, now we have prolonged death to a point where it really isn’t natural for a person to die at 80. Although it is much easier said than done, humanity idealistically should cut off all medicines that prolong death (which would be most medicines). To most people it seems immoral to allow your loved ones to pass at middle age, but they need to look at the social and economic benefits.

-Morgan  Mills

My First Class Discussion

I really liked today's discussion. I did not know what to expect since I was not at school yesterday, but it was definitely very intriguing. I really enjoy discussions like that. I agree with everything that was said about evolution and after discussing it with Zane and you, Mr. Shapiro, I understood what you both were saying about "letting" someone die, instead of putting all efforts into keeping that person alive -- efforts that could be spent on a younger population to have them succeed. I still stand by my point, though, that if the person who society was supposed to let "die off" was a loved one, it would be much harder to accept and conform to this form of thought. When we went on to the subject of selfishness, I completely agree, because I know that when someone is trying to tell me their story, I am thinking of my own. Or, when someone is talking to me, I only listen to what I can grasp from them. It is probably wrong to do, because I believe it is wrong to be so selfish, but that is just the way it is. But, I still stand by my point that I believe the degree of selfishness varies depending on whom is in front of you -- altruism. For example, as said in class, if it were my best friend, my boyfriend, or a loved family member whom were telling me their "story" or whatever they have to say, I would listen way more attentively then if just an acquaintence were telling me about their winter vacation or what not. I truly believe that the degree of selfishness depends on the person whom you are speaking to, and also the subject matter. For example, if a complete stranger wanted to tell me about their experience with cancer, I would sit and listen. If a complete stranger wanted to tell me about the new Prada purse she bought or her new manicure, I would walk away knowing I had better things to do and definitely, put my attention to.

Happiness

     So we definitely had a interesting conversation today as a class. I understand the logic behind what was said today, we started with the idea that people become old and then they are supposed to die, and if they don't die then they just hold us back. Then we went further to discuss how we are all selfish and believe ourselves to be the most inportant person. I suppose logically I agree with those statements on a intellectual level, however I would like to believe that there is enough diversity within humanity that we cannot all be summed up in one statement. I honestly think that there is no point in dweling on our own selfishness if it is only going to make us unhappy. The narrator even says that a state of overcounciousness leads to misery. There is such a thing as blissfull ignorance and I believe there is something beautiful to found by ignoring the thing that simply suck in life. So that is what I have decided to do, make myself happy by choosing to believe that there is more to poeple them just selfish drives.
P.S. yes Melanie, I am judging you all right now on your posts

Discussion Post Two

Today we spent less time focusing on a specific part or paragraph of the novel, and focused more on the general themes that we see throughout it. We discussed ideas that we had also touched upon in the beginning of the year, ideas such as selfishness and whether not altruism exists, but the idea that stuck with me the most was Dostoevsky’s argument that we’re hurting ourselves by keeping the weak alive. This made me think back to my other classes where to talk about the allocation of resources between sociodemographic and economic classes, and how so much of our country’s resources are being funneled to the elderly through programs such as social security. Obviously because I am young, this makes me a little mad, that the money and support is not being given to us considering that we’re the ones who have something to contribute, and the elderly really don’t. But I guess we have to honor them for what they contributed.

Discussion Part 2 (Alexia Barrios)

Today’s discussion, as controversial as it may have been, had a lot of truth in it. The idea that we weaken the gene pool by keeping those who no longer are capable of contributing to our society alive is one that with all emotions put aside is logical. But humans are not strictly logical and rational creatures, we are often blinded by emotion and for that reason many cannot fathom the concept of eradicating or simply allowing those who have “reached their time” to die. Instead we keep them alive. Why? The answer is that humans are inherently selfish beings. In the case of a loved on, we may keep them alive because we believe we are doing to the best for them, but in reality we are doing it because we cannot fathom a future without them. We want to hold on to them as long as possible and prolong our relationship with them and that is where the selfishness kicks in. The moment of some else's passing is not about ourselves, but yet we find a way to relate or tie it to ourselves. 

Today's Discussions

I feel that the last paragraph of the first chapter contains a few interesting points. First off, the narrator assumes that the reader wants the narrator to amuse him. This statement, or at least the way Dostoevsky writes it, has a feeling of superiority to it. It makes me, personally, feel that the narrator thinks that I'm looking for a simple, easy story for imbeciles.

The narrator claims in the previous paragraph (from the last one) that old age is a sin, yet he believes that he should live on. As discussed in class, usually people and animals are really alive as long as they are useful. This makes me believe that the narrator thinks of himself as useful, even after he is physically unable to contribute to society.

The final point is the last phrase of this chapter, where he inquires about what decent men talk about. He says that he will talk about himself, thus labeling himself as a decent, yet normal man completely shooting the concept of superiority out of the water.

Looking forward to tomorrow...

The Touchy Subject of Population Control (Zane Mandell)

Discussion on today’s topic really seemed to flourish among many of the students. I am personally very passionate about this subject and was glad to have received the passage that Mr. Shapiro gave me. But let’s get to the point: While it may seem immoral to institute any policy for population control right now, it is actually immoral not to. If we do not do something about the rapid growth of the population then we will make the planet unlivable. We will have drawn too much from the earth, as there are too many mouths to feed. Efficiency is of utmost priority in any format. If the ‘machine’ inefficient it serves no purpose. A purposeless ‘machine’ is then discarded. While it may seem against everything we have learned it is this that will be the toughest choice the human race ever will have to make. To we allow ourselves to descend to the point of no return, or do we take steps that secure the preservation of our species. It is really that simple, what is more important, right now or the future?