Facts vs. emotions

[TheReasoner]

A while back I sat down and chatted with a few family members. I won't go into detail, but I presented them with a little data on several topics and extrapolated a likely conclusion from it, coupled with an analysis of human rights and the development of human society. To make a very long story touching on short my conclusion was that human procreation should not and cannot be a human right. I touched on topics ranging from the resource availability on the planet to social, genetic and mental problems some people have rendering them incompetent as parents in my argumentation prior to the presentation of my conclusion of the matter. My family protested fiercely to this conclusion and attempted to attack it from any possible angle. It mostly boiled down to "You're wrong!" without any backing for that statement other than their own highly strung emotions.

Fast forward a year and a half (roughly) and my brother in law presents the same conclusion which he has reached through pure emotion, not facts or research of any kind. This time everyone agrees, human procreation should not be a human right nor should it be a privilege to which everyone should be privy.

I must say I was somewhat flustered at this. Granted, I am not always the best person at presenting things in a manner people instantly like, but my facts were sound and my data good. I find it hard to understand why two paths leading to the same conclusion are received in this manner. One, the one based on numbers and calculations is scorned whereas the other, based on emotions is willingly embraced without scrutiny.

I admit I cannot really say this revelation has increased my hope for the future of the human species and civilization.

 

[Nostromo]

You should try being an atheist posting on these forums

Most people do not make decisions on an entirely rational basis, human beings are not rational by nature. A great many of them are also not particularly good with maths and logic and, in my experience, there tends to be a "knee jerk" opposition to anything that they don't quite understand. Perhaps they don't think such things are trustworthy, or they might be too embarrassed to admit that they don't understand your methods. Such things are alien to them, and humans have a tendency to treat the unfamiliar with hostility.

That said, is human life purely a numbers game? Should cold logic determine who can experience the joy of motherhood and who can't? I genuinely don't have an opinion on these matters but I can see why there might be a lot of controversy.

 

[sbvera13]

I suspect the passage of time may have affected it. A person not used to acting rationally will often find it hard to change their minds and will become defensive, associating the idea with themselves personally. Once they were introduced to the idea, they may have come around to it slowly as it digested in it's own time.

 

[TheReasoner]

You should try being an atheist posting on these forums

hehe. I think I know what you mean. It's not easy being a Christian evolutionist either. Add to that my political views (characterized by some of the more ignorant as 'Marxist' or 'Socialist') and you've got a nice package deal. *sigh*
I've been called much. Tell people you want to help the poor through organized governmental systems (like universal healthcare) and you're labelled a socialist anti-american pretty much immediately. Say you oppose death penalty and you're called a bleeding-heart naive liberal fool. *shrug* it's just the way many people are. I find this true regardless of belief; Within the ranks of the dominant conviction in any country or group you will find the arrogant, uninformed and loudmouthed ignoramuses of said society. Almost to a man at that. Be that pentacostals, muslims, atheists, whatever. I've met a few highly uninformed arrogant foolish atheists in my time. And Catholics too. And Muslims. And lutherans. And... *sigh* every other group I have had the misfortune of delving into at any depth.

Most people do not make decisions on an entirely rational basis, human beings are not rational by nature. A great many of them are also not particularly good with maths and logic and, in my experience, there tends to be a "knee jerk" opposition to anything that they don't quite understand.

Tell me about it! I tried explaining Zenon's paradox to the same people I had this experience with earlier this week. Good grief! The arguments they would think up against it. They genuinely didn't understand the paradox. Which was very interesting to me, because I thought it up myself before I ever heard of it from someone else. I just wanted their thoughts on the matter and end up trying to explain how movement is impossible according to Zenon to a group of people whose chief response to this is; "That guy must have been smoking something!"
*sigh*

Perhaps they don't think such things are trustworthy, or they might be too embarrassed to admit that they don't understand your methods. Such things are alien to them, and humans have a tendency to treat the unfamiliar with hostility.

Perhaps. I admit I find it hard to respect people with such attitudes. Maybe that's a personal flaw. *shrug*

That said, is human life purely a numbers game? Should cold logic determine who can experience the joy of motherhood and who can't? I genuinely don't have an opinion on these matters but I can see why there might be a lot of controversy.

Well, to a certain extent I think it should. It needs to be a balanced and well informed decision made by society as a whole though.

 

[Belk]

Do you mean Zeno's paradox? I looked up Zenon thinking there was some strange new paradox out there.

 

[tansy]

I admit I cannot really say this revelation has increased my hope for the future of the human species and civilization.

Whether one looks at the issue of procreation being a right or not, whether looked at logically and/or with emotion, I think it's pretty tricky...where can the line be drawn? Same goes for a lot of issues.
However, as with this and many other things, and re the point you make which I've quoted above - from a Christian perspective, then surely there is a hope for the future of humans and 'civilisation'. In the meantime, we continue to tussle with these sorts of things.

 

[TheReasoner]

Do you mean Zeno's paradox? I looked up Zenon thinking there was some strange new paradox out there.

Yes. Of course. Typo

 

[TheReasoner]

Whether one looks at the issue of procreation being a right or not, whether looked at logically and/or with emotion, I think it's pretty tricky...where can the line be drawn? Same goes for a lot of issues.
However, as with this and many other things, and re the point you make which I've quoted above - from a Christian perspective, then surely there is a hope for the future of humans and 'civilisation'. In the meantime, we continue to tussle with these sorts of things.

Aye. My point in this thread was not so much intended to be about procreation but that a group of people accepted a conclusion when based on emotions but rejected the same conclusion when based on numbers and research.

 

[tansy]

Aye. My point in this thread was not so much intended to be about procreation but that a group of people accepted a conclusion when based on emotions but rejected the same conclusion when based on numbers and research.

Oops, sorry, but I couldn't help just picking up on that particular comment you made.

But actually, I don't think conclusions should ncessarilly be arrived at MERELY by logic etc..there are often other factors to be taken into account. Having said that, I don't think emotions should rule either LOl

 

[TheReasoner]

Oops, sorry, but I couldn't help just picking up on that particular comment you made.

But actually, I don't think conclusions should ncessarilly be arrived at MERELY by logic etc..there are often other factors to be taken into account. Having said that, I don't think emotions should rule either LOl

Depending on the decision I agree. We are human beings, and as such we are quite complex and we need to be aware of our emotional part too.
However; Logic is extremely important and should not be dismissed just because the conclusion one derives from pure logic applied to a given set of data is uncomfortable. Not that I am saying my own conclusion was infallible mind you. I just reacted to the way these people so readily accepted the conclusion in the OP when it was derived from emotion yet refused to do so when cold logic was applied.

To me this is anathema. But then again I'm not your average joe in this matter I guess. My mind is cold and analytical in most such cases. And I am as a rule not fond of 'the human factor'. It's too unpredictable, illogical and thus not very compatible with the inner workings of my brain

 

[dewaddict84]

Yeah, that sucks. And it's depressing when you apply it to the rest of humanity. But this whole "presentation of ideas" thing is more the job of a salesmen then of a scientist. It depends how you broach the subject, and what the audience thinks of you.And nothing happens in a vacuum.

Sometimes it's more about how good your argument is rather then how true it is.

So were you looking for a debate when you went to your parents? Was your brother looking for a shoulder to cry on? Was there a kid born in that year's timespan? Cause that would certainly affect the audience.

And some truths take a while to digest. Maybe you had more of an impact then you thought and it just took them a while to accept it.

And for the record, I think you're wrong. Breeding is like breathing; normally it's fine, but it can cause problems in confined spaces. And while having a kid is serious and it's best if it's done in a controlled manner, how the heck would you stop people from doing it?

 

[keith99]

This is an emotional topic. The OP made the first argument that reached a conclusion that others did not emotionally agree with. So they rejected it. But the seed was planted.

Later someone else reaches the same conclusion. The emotional shock is not there this time and they accept it.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yeah, that sucks. And it's depressing when you apply it to the rest of humanity. But this whole "presentation of ideas" thing is more the job of a salesmen then of a scientist. It depends how you broach the subject, and what the audience thinks of you.And nothing happens in a vacuum.

Sometimes it's more about how good your argument is rather then how true it is.

So were you looking for a debate when you went to your parents? Was your brother looking for a shoulder to cry on? Was there a kid born in that year's timespan? Cause that would certainly affect the audience.

And some truths take a while to digest. Maybe you had more of an impact then you thought and it just took them a while to accept it.

And for the record, I think you're wrong. Breeding is like breathing; normally it's fine, but it can cause problems in confined spaces. And while having a kid is serious and it's best if it's done in a controlled manner, how the heck would you stop people from doing it?

Like Keith said it is an emotional issue. For most people anyway
How you would stop procreation, now that's where it gets hairy. You can't really do it in a reliable way unless you drug the entire population with a reproduction suppressant and give antidotes to a select few only. Of course this opens up a SERIOUS can of worms, and I don't think it's doable or even advisable. That said I do believe we are facing a potential (and present in many nations) problem which needs dealing with. Is it uncomfortable? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes. Is it real? I believe so. And if we consider it a real issue, we need to take it seriously.

 

[dewaddict84]

Well, my advice was geared more towards a general issue of presenting new idea rather then specifically about sterilizing all of the populace. How you sell an idea matters to your parents, company board members, children, and the masses.

Also, restricing breeding rights make you the villain from Half-life 2. As for population control, you don't have to cemically castrate everyone, I'm pretty sure that condoms and education work well enough.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'm currently reading "Science of Fear," which says that we have evolved emotion/intuition as a necessary means of survival. The ability to make snap decisions in order to stay alive, etc.

This is why discussions based on emotion can become so heated. Also why advertisers spend billions every year trying to convince you to buy their product. They know that most purchases are based on emotion, even when we think were being rational in our thought process!

 

[BrianOnEarth]

I must say I was somewhat flustered at this. Granted, I am not always the best person at presenting things in a manner people instantly like, but my facts were sound and my data good. I find it hard to understand why two paths leading to the same conclusion are received in this manner. One, the one based on numbers and calculations is scorned whereas the other, based on emotions is willingly embraced without scrutiny.

It is informative to study the workings of the human mind. Our brains are not like computers, they aren't even homogenous; we have a couple of dozen sub-brains that interact and have different functions and priorities. Our emotional functions have priority over our cognitive functions. Presumably because this arrangement is favourable to procreation.

The upshot is that we literally believe what we want to believe. I think this is true in all circumstances. Wisdom about people, emotional intelligence as it is sometimes called, is understanding and accepting this. It is not a good thing and it is not a bad thing, rather it is a practical reality and a product of natural selection.

I admit I cannot really say this revelation has increased my hope for the future of the human species and civilization.

The thing is, emotion is essential to survival. I think it is essential to everything we do. It is our motivation. I don't think we would function at all without it...we wouldn't have any conscious motivation without it. So the key is to respect this and not to endow pure logic with any intrinsic importance at all.

This takes some thinking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

To make a very long story touching on short my conclusion was that human procreation should not and cannot be a human right. I touched on topics ranging from the resource availability on the planet to social, genetic and mental problems some people have rendering them incompetent as parents in my argumentation prior to the presentation of my conclusion of the matter.

There's not enough information in this OP.

What, for instance, did you propose as a final solution?

It seems to me we are told to replenish the earth, are we not?

 

[Paulos23]

There's not enough information in this OP.

What, for instance, did you propose as a final solution?

It seems to me we are told to replenish the earth, are we not?

Something we have over done to the tune of 6.7 billon plus people.

That is one command that should be checked off as done.