Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order.[1] It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority.[citation needed]
A rebellion originates from a sentiment of indignation and disapproval of a situation and then manifests itself by the refusal to submit or to obey the authority responsible for this situation.[citation needed] Rebellion can be individual or collective, peaceful (civil disobedience, civil resistance, and nonviolent resistance) or violent (terrorism, sabotage and guerrilla warfare).[citation needed]
Rebellion and revolt are often distinguished by their different aims. While rebellion generally seeks to evade and/or gain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power, as well as its accompanying laws. The goal of rebellion is resistance while a revolt seeks a revolution.[citation needed] As power shifts relative to the external adversary, or power shifts within a mixed coalition, or positions harden or soften on either side, an insurrection may seesaw between the two forms.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction in order to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because, in the group's view, it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of human-caused suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources caused by humans are frequently cited by the group as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation.
VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an American activist who became involved in the American environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity. Knight publishes the group's newsletter and serves as its spokesman. Although the group is promoted by a website and represented at some environmental events, it relies heavily on coverage from outside media to spread its message. Many commentators view its platform as unacceptably extreme, while endorsing the logic of reducing the rate of human reproduction. In response to VHEMT, some journalists and academics have argued that humans can develop sustainable lifestyles or can reduce their population to sustainable levels. Others maintain that, whatever the merits of the idea, the human reproductive drive will prevent humankind from ever voluntarily seeking extinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement
A nuclear family, elementary family, atomic family, cereal-packet family[1] or conjugal family is a family group consisting of parents and their children (one or more), typically living in one home residence. It is in contrast to a single-parent family, the larger extended family, or a family with more than two parents. Nuclear families typically center on a heterosexual married couple which may have any number of children. There are differences in definition among observers. Some definitions allow only biological children who are full-blood siblings and consider adopted or half and step siblings a part of the immediate family, but others allow for a step-parent and any mix of dependent children, including stepchildren and adopted children. Most sociologists and anthropologists consider the nuclear family as the most basic form of social organization,[citation needed] while others consider the extended family structure to be the most common family structure in most cultures and at most times.[2]
The term nuclear family was popularized in the 20th century. In the United States, it became the most common form of family structure in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Since that time, the number of North American nuclear families is gradually decreasing, while the number of alternative family formations has increased; this phenomenon is generally opposed by members of such philosophies as social conservatism or familialism, which consider the nuclear family structure important.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family
Mortification of the flesh is an act by which an individual or group seeks to mortify or deaden their sinful nature, as a part of the process of sanctification.[1]
In Christianity, mortification of the flesh is undertaken in order to repent for sins and share in the Passion of Jesus.[2] Common forms of Christian mortification that are practiced to this day include fasting, abstinence, as well as pious kneeling.[3] Also common among Christian religious orders in the past were the wearing of sackcloth, as well as self-flagellation in imitation of Jesus Christ's suffering and death. Christian theology holds that the Holy Spirit helps believers in the "mortification of the sins of the flesh."[4] Verses in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) considered to be precursors to Christian ideas of self-mortification include Zechariah 13:6[5] and 1 Kings 18:28–29.[6][7]
Although the term 'mortification of the flesh', which is derived from the King James version of Romans 8:13[8] and Colossians 3:5,[9] is primarily used in a Christian context,[10] other cultures may have analogous concepts of self-denial; secular practices exist as well. Some forms unique to various Asian cultures are carrying heavy loads and immersion in water.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortification_of_the_flesh
Human overpopulation (or human population overshoot) is the hypothetical state in which human populations can become too large to be sustained by their environment or resources in the long term. The topic is usually discussed in the context of world population, though it may concern individual nations, regions, and cities.
Since 1804, the global human population has increased from 1 billion to 8 billion due to medical advancements and improved agricultural productivity. According to the most recent United Nations' projections, "[t]he global population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and 10.4 billion in 2100 [assuming] a decline of fertility for countries where large families are still prevalent."[1] Those concerned by this trend argue that they result in levels of resource consumption and pollution which exceed the environment's carrying capacity, leading to population overshoot.[2] The population overshoot hypothesis is often discussed in relation to other population concerns such as population momentum, biodiversity loss,[3] hunger and malnutrition,[4] resource depletion, and the overall human impact on the environment.[5]
Early discussions of overpopulation in English were spurred by the work of Thomas Malthus. Discussions of overpopulation follow a similar line of inquiry as Malthusianism and its Malthusian catastrophe,[6][7] a hypothetical event where population exceeds agricultural capacity, causing famine or war over resources, resulting in poverty and depopulation. More recent discussion of overpopulation was popularized by Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book The Population Bomb and subsequent writings.[8][9] Ehrlich described overpopulation as a function of overconsumption,[10] arguing that overpopulation should be defined by a population being unable to sustain itself without depleting non-renewable resources.[11][12][13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
Life extension is the concept of extending the human lifespan, either modestly through improvements in medicine or dramatically by increasing the maximum lifespan beyond its generally-settled limit of 125 years.[1]
Several researchers in the area, along with "life extensionists", "immortalists" or "longevists" (those who wish to achieve longer lives themselves), postulate that future breakthroughs in tissue rejuvenation, stem cells, regenerative medicine, molecular repair, gene therapy, pharmaceuticals, and organ replacement (such as with artificial organs or xenotransplantations) will eventually enable humans to have indefinite lifespans (agerasia[2]) through complete rejuvenation to a healthy youthful condition. The ethical ramifications, if life extension becomes a possibility, are debated by bioethicists.
The sale of purported anti-aging products such as supplements and hormone replacement is a lucrative global industry. For example, the industry that promotes the use of hormones as a treatment for consumers to slow or reverse the aging process in the US market generated about $50 billion of revenue a year in 2009.[3] The use of such hormone products, however, has not been proven to be effective or safe.[3][4][5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension
Antinatalism or anti-natalism is the philosophical position that views birth and procreation of sentient beings (including non-human animals) as morally wrong: antinatalists therefore argue that humans should abstain from procreating.[1][2][3][4][5] Some of the earliest surviving formulations of the idea that it would be better not to have been born can be found in ancient Greece.[6][7] The term antinatalism (in opposition to the term natalism, pronatalism or pro-natalism) was used probably for the first time by Théophile de Giraud in his book L'art de guillotiner les procréateurs: Manifeste anti-nataliste.[1]: 301 In scholarly and literary writings, various ethical arguments have been put forth in defense of antinatalism, probably the most prominent of which is the asymmetry argument, put forward by South African philosopher David Benatar. Robbert Zandbergen[8] makes a distinction between so-called reactionary (or activist) antinatalism and its more philosophical, originary counterpart. While the former seeks to limit human reproduction locally and/or temporarily, the latter seeks to end it conclusively. It is held that our problems in life are too grave to be treated any other way. Human presence in the world must be dissolved if we are to solve our problems once and for all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
Negative utilitarianism
Negative utilitarianism argues that minimizing suffering has greater moral importance than maximizing happiness.
Hermann Vetter agrees with the assumptions of Jan Narveson:[57]
- There is no moral obligation to produce a child even if we could be sure that it will be very happy throughout its life.
- There is a moral obligation not to produce a child if it can be foreseen that it will be unhappy.
However, he disagrees with the conclusion that Narveson draws:
- In general – if it can be foreseen neither that the child will be unhappy nor that it will bring disutility upon others – there is no duty to have or not to have a child.
Instead, he presents the following decision-theoretic matrix:
| Child will be more or less happy | Child will be more or less unhappy | |
|---|---|---|
| Produce the child | No duty fulfilled or violated | Duty violated |
| Do not produce the child | No duty fulfilled or violated | Duty fulfilled |
Based on this, he concludes that we should not create people:[58][59]
It is seen immediately that the act "do not produce the child" dominates the act "produce the child" because it has equally good consequences as the other act in one case and better consequences in the other. So it is to be preferred to the other act as long as we cannot exclude with certainty the possibility that the child will be more or less unhappy; and we never can. So we have, instead of (3), the far-reaching consequence: (3') In any case, it is morally preferable not to produce a child.
Karim Akerma argues that utilitarianism requires the least metaphysical assumptions and is, therefore, the most convincing ethical theory. He believes that negative utilitarianism is the right one because the good things in life do not compensate for the bad things; first and foremost, the best things do not compensate for the worst things such as, for example, the experiences of terrible pain, the agonies of the wounded, sick or dying. In his opinion, we also rarely know what to do to make people happy, but we know what to do so that people do not suffer: it is enough that they are not created. What is important for Akerma in ethics is the striving for the fewest suffering people (ultimately no one), not striving for the happiest people, which, according to him, takes place at the expense of immeasurable suffering.[60][61]
Miguel Steiner believes that antinatalism is justified by two converging perspectives:
- personal – no one can predict the fate of their child, but it is known that they are exposed to numerous dangers in the form of terrible suffering and death, usually traumatic,
- demographic – there is a demographic dimension of suffering in connection with which the number of victims of various types of problems (e.g. hunger, disease, violence) increases or decreases depending on the size of the population.
He maintains that our concept of evil comes from our experience of suffering: there is no evil without the possibility of experiencing suffering. Consequently, the smaller the population, the less evil is happening in the world. In his opinion, from an ethical point of view, this is what we should strive for: to narrow the space in which evil - which is suffering - takes place and which space is widened by procreation.[62][63][64]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bioethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#monarchy
The term one-child policy (Simplified Chinese: 一孩政策) refers to a population planning initiative in China implemented between 1979 and 2015 to curb the country's population growth by restricting many families to a single child. The program had wide-ranging social, cultural, economic, and demographic effects, although the contribution of one-child restrictions to the broader program has been the subject of controversy.[1] Its efficacy in reducing birth rates and defensibility from a human rights perspective have been subjects of controversy.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Debt is an obligation that requires one party, the debtor, to pay money borrowed or otherwise withheld from another party, the creditor. Debt may be owed by sovereign state or country, local government, company, or an individual. Commercial debt is generally subject to contractual terms regarding the amount and timing of repayments of principal and interest.[1] Loans, bonds, notes, and mortgages are all types of debt. In financial accounting, debt is a type of financial transaction, as distinct from equity.
The term can also be used metaphorically to cover moral obligations and other interactions not based on a monetary value.[2] For example, in Western cultures, a person who has been helped by a second person is sometimes said to owe a "debt of gratitude" to the second person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt
A debtors' prison is a prison for people who are unable to pay debt. Until the mid-19th century, debtors' prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe.[1] Destitute people who were unable to pay a court-ordered judgment would be incarcerated in these prisons until they had worked off their debt via labour or secured outside funds to pay the balance. The product of their labour went towards both the costs of their incarceration and their accrued debt. Increasing access and lenience throughout the history of bankruptcy law have made prison terms for unaggravated indigence obsolete over most of the world.
Since the late 20th century, the term debtors' prison has also sometimes been applied by critics to criminal justice systems in which a court can sentence someone to prison over willfully unpaid criminal fees, usually following the order of a judge.[2] For example, in some jurisdictions within the United States, people can be held in contempt of court and jailed after willful non-payment of child support, garnishments, confiscations, fines, or back taxes. Additionally, though properly served civil duties over private debts in nations such as the United States will merely result in a default judgment being rendered in absentia if the defendant willfully declines to appear by law,[3] a substantial number of indigent debtors are legally incarcerated for the crime of failing to appear at civil debt proceedings as ordered by a judge.[4] In this case, the crime is not indigence, but disobeying the judge's order to appear before the court.[5][6][7][8][9] Critics argue that the "willful" terminology is subject to individual mens rea determination by a judge, rather than statute, and that since this presents the potential for judges to incarcerate legitimately indigent individuals, it amounts to a de facto "debtors' prison" system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison
The prisoner's dilemma is a game analyzed in game theory.[citation needed] It is a thought experiment that challenges two completely rational agents to a dilemma: they can cooperate with their partner for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual reward.
This dilemma was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950 while they worked at RAND.[citation needed] Albert W. Tucker later formalized the game by structuring the rewards in terms of prison sentences and named it "prisoner's dilemma".[1] William Poundstone described the game in his 1993 book Prisoner's Dilemma:
Two members of a criminal gang, A and B, are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communication with their partner. The principal charge would lead to a sentence of ten years in prison; however, the police do not have the evidence for a conviction. They plan to sentence both to two years in prison on a lesser charge but offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain: If one of them confesses to the crime of the principal charge, betraying the other, they will be pardoned and free to leave while the other must serve the entirety of the sentence instead of just two years for the lesser charge.
This leads to a possible of four different outcomes:
- A: If A and B both remain silent, they will each serve the lesser charge of 2 years in prison.
- B: If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free while B serves 10 years in prison.
- C: If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve 10 years in prison and B will be set free.
- D: If A and B both betray the other, they share the sentence and serve 5 years.
As a projection of rational behavior in terms of loyalty to one's partner in crime, the Prisoner's Dilemma suggests that criminals who are offered a greater reward will betray their partner.
Loyalty to one's partner is, in this game, irrational. This particular assumption of rationality implies that the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is betrayal, even though mutual cooperation would yield a greater net reward.[2] Alternative ideas governing behavior have been proposed — see, for example, Elinor Ostrom.
The best response, i.e., the dominant strategy, is to betray the other, which aligns with the sure-thing principle.[3] The prisoner's dilemma also illustrates that the decisions made under collective rationality may not necessarily be the same as those made under individual rationality. This conflict is also evident in a situation called the "Tragedy of the Commons".[3]
In reality, systemic bias towards cooperative behavior happens despite predictions by simple models of "rational" self-interested action.[4][5][6][7] This bias towards cooperation has been evident since this game was first conducted at RAND: Secretaries involved often trusted each other and worked together toward the best common outcome.[8]
The prisoner's dilemma became the focus of extensive experimental research.[9][10] This research has taken one of three forms: single play (agents play one game only), iterated play (agents play several games in succession), and iterated play against a programmed player.[3] Research on the prisoner's dilemma has served to justify the categorical imperative raised by Immanuel Kant, which states that a rational agent is expected to "act in the way you wish others to act." This theory is vital for a situation involving different players each acting for their best interest who must take others' actions into consideration to form their own choice.[3]
In the "iterative" variant of the game, where two agents play against each other several times, agents continually have the opportunity to penalize the other for previous decisions. If the number of times the game will be played is known to the players, then by backward induction two classically rational players will betray each other repeatedly, for the same reasons as the single-shot variant. In an infinite or unknown length game there is no fixed optimum strategy, and prisoner's dilemma tournaments have been held to compete and test algorithms for such cases.[11]
The iterated version of the prisoner's dilemma is of particular interest to researchers. Due to its iterative nature, previous researchers observed that the frequency for players to cooperate could change, based on the outcomes of each iteration. Specifically, a player may be less willing to cooperate if their counterpart did not cooperate many times, which renders disappointment. Conversely, as time goes by, cooperation can increase due to the setup of a "tacit agreement" between players. Another aspect concerning the iterated version of the experiment is that this tacit agreement between players has always been established successfully even when the number of iterations is made public to both sides.[3]
The prisoner's dilemma game can model many real world situations involving cooperative behavior. In casual usage, the label "prisoner's dilemma" may be applied to any situation in which two entities could gain important benefits from cooperating or suffer from the failure to do so but find it difficult or expensive—though not necessarily impossible—to coordinate their activities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was a psychological experiment conducted in the summer of 1971. It was a two-week simulation of a prison environment that examined the effects of situational variables on participants' reactions and behaviors. Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo led the research team who administered the study.[1]
Participants were recruited from the local community with an ad in the newspapers offering $15 per day to male students who wanted to participate in a "psychological study of prison life." Volunteers were chosen after assessments of psychological stability, and then randomly assigned to being prisoners or prison guards.[2] Critics have questioned the validity of these methods.[3]
Those volunteers selected to be "guards" were given uniforms specifically to de-individuate them, and instructed to prevent prisoners from escaping. The experiment officially started when "prisoners" were arrested by real Palo Alto police. Over the following five days, psychological abuse of the prisoners by the "guards" became increasingly brutal. After psychologist Christina Maslach visited to evaluate the conditions, she was upset to see how study participants were behaving and she confronted Zimbardo. He ended the experiment on the sixth day.[4]
SPE has been referenced and critiqued as one of the most unethical psychology experiments in history. The harm inflicted on the participants prompted universities worldwide to improve their ethics requirements for human subjects of experiments to prevent them from being similarly harmed. Other researchers have found it difficult to reproduce the study, especially given those constraints.[5] Critics have described the study as unscientific and fraudulent.[6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Antisocial behaviors (sometimes called dissocial behaviours) are actions which are considered to violate the rights of others by committing crime or nuisance, such as stealing and physical attack or noncriminal behaviors such as lying and manipulation.[1] It is considered to be disruptive to others in society.[2] This can be carried out in various ways, which includes, but is not limited to, intentional aggression, as well as covert and overt hostility.[2] Anti-social behaviour also develops through social interaction within the family and community. It continuously affects a child's temperament, cognitive ability and their involvement with negative peers, dramatically affecting children's cooperative problem-solving skills.[2] Many people also label behaviour which is deemed contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct as anti-social behaviour.[3] However, researchers have stated that it is a difficult term to define, particularly in the United Kingdom where many acts fall into its category.[4] The term is especially used in British English.[5]
Although the term is fairly new to the common lexicon, the word anti-social behaviour has been used for many years in the psychosocial world where it was defined as "unwanted behaviour as the result of personality disorder."[4] For example, David Farrington, a British criminologist and forensic psychologist, stated that teenagers can exhibit anti-social behaviour by engaging in various amounts of wrongdoings such as stealing, vandalism, sexual promiscuity, excessive smoking, heavy drinking, confrontations with parents, and gambling.[4] Anti-social behaviour is typically associated with other behavioural and developmental issues such as hyperactivity, depression, learning disabilities, and impulsivity. Alongside these issues one can be predisposed or more inclined to develop such behaviour due to one's genetics, neurobiological and environmental stressors in the prenatal stage of one's life, through the early childhood years.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
The principle of the impossibility of a gambling system is a concept in probability. It states that in a random sequence, the methodical selection of subsequences does not change the probability of specific elements. The first mathematical demonstration is attributed to Richard von Mises (who used the term collective rather than sequence).[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system
In sailing, the limit of positive stability (LPS) or angle of vanishing stability (AVS) is the angle from the vertical at which a boat will no longer stay upright but will capsize, becoming inverted, or turtled.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
For example, if a boat with an LPS of 120 degrees rolls past this point, i.e. its mast is already at an angle of 30 degrees below the water, it will continue to roll and be completely upside down in the water.[4] Except for dinghy sailboats and multihulls, most larger sailboats (monohull keelboats) have lead or other heavy materials in their keel at the bottom of their hulls to keep them from capsizing or turtling.
The LPS was a part of the Offshore Racing Rules and is used to measure how stable or seaworthy a sailboat is. The modern offshore racing rules published by the International Sailing Federation may also use the measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_positive_stability
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=limit+of+procreation&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=limit+of+procreation+usa&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1
Sperm donation laws vary by country. Most countries have laws to cover sperm donations which, for example, place limits on how many children a sperm donor may give rise to, or which limit or prohibit the use of donor semen after the donor has died, or payment to sperm donors. Other laws may restrict use of donor sperm for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, which may itself be banned or restricted in some way, such as to married heterosexual couples, banning such treatment to single women or lesbian couples. Donated sperm may be used for insemination (whether natural or artificial) or as part of IVF treatment. Notwithstanding such laws, informal and private sperm donations take place, which are largely unregulated.
Restrictions on sperm donations or the ability to obtain IVF treatment in some jurisdictions has given rise to women traveling to a country which does not impose restrictions in the circumstances in which they finds themselves to obtain such donations or treatments, in a practice called fertility tourism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation_laws_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/illegal-donation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/human-trafficking-by-usa
Forced sterilization in the United States was practiced starting with the 19th century. The United States during the Progressive era, ca. 1890 to 1920, was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[180] Thomas C. Leonard, professor at Princeton University, describes American eugenics and sterilization as ultimately rooted in economic arguments and further as a central element of Progressivism alongside wage controls, restricted immigration, and the introduction of pension programs.[181] The heads of the programs were avid proponents of eugenics and frequently argued for their programs, which achieved some success nationwide, mainly in the first half of the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights
The term One China may refer to one of the following:
- The One China principle is the position held by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the ruling party Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that there is only one sovereign state under the name China, with the PRC serving as the sole legitimate government of that China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.[1][2] It is opposed to the idea that there are two states holding the name "China", the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC); as well as the idea that China and Taiwan form two separate countries.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China
No comments:
Post a Comment