You do have a right to be alive, if you can gather the food to put in your mouth and get shelter (in most climates), and defend yourself from predators.

'Earning a living' is just some way people can do that. But you still need to defend against the predators.

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Gee, I thought our standards of living had raised since the hunter gatherer days. I thought we had an idea of human rights. But it seems that advocates of capital like yourself are more willing to let the disabled die than most hunter gatherer tribespeople would be. All our wealth, and you people are more miserly with it than those who have nearly nothing.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 8 months ago

Our standards of living have increased, and that's nice. But there is no question of whether or not anyone deserves to live. You simply live, until you don't, like all life.

The increase in standards of living isn't because we have eradicated the underlying animal needs, but rather, because we have been meeting them effectively. Sadly, this is only in the short term - we have major species-wide issues with our long-term course, but that, perhaps, is another conversation.

In any case, by denying the fundamental system you are based in, and demanding that survival not take any energy, you undercut your own foundation, and that causes problems for you.

Human rights are a social contract. They are nice, and we should keep them. However, they don't eradicate the animal and natural foundation upon which we stand, and they absolutely must bend to necessity.

You have an animal right to exist until you die by natural processes, like disease, old age, predation, etc. You have a human right not to be tortured, enslaved, etc, because that is a goal we all agree on. But you don't have a right to have other animals take care of all of your needs when they don't want to. That would be slavery.

load more comments (8 replies)