Medicine is immoral

What is the morality of taking antibiotics to kill bacteria? 🤔

The obvious response is that the bacteria are causing you harm, so you are just defending yourself, but this is as specious as it can be for multiple reasons.

  • Intent

    When you get sick, the bacteria in your system are just going about their lives, oblivious to your existence, they don’t even know you are a thing. Therefore, any harm they may do to you is unintentional, it’s not out of malice or evil. Conversely, when you take antibiotics, you are making the conscious decision to murder billions, even trillions of bacteria.

  • Worth

    Taking the antibiotics means you’re valuing your own life over the bacteria, but that means you think your own single, individual life has more value than that of billions of bacteria’s lives. It’s one thing to think like that if it’s your own life, but what if it’s someone else’s life? What if you’re a doctor who vows to protect life but you kill billions of bacteria to save a single human? What’s the morality in that? Where do you get off making that kind of judgement?

  • Hypocrisy

    If the argument for taking antibiotics (or even just having an immune-system) is that it’s self-defense against a harmful life-form, then by that logic, everything in the world should be specifically and actively killing humans who are harmful to the whole planet. 😒

So again, what is the morality here? What are the ethics? Let he who is without sin… 🤔

Existance of After-Life Unprovable

A few years ago I got fed up with the lack of knowledge about an after-life and existence of ghosts. In an effort to once and for all clear up this mystery, I made the decision that when I die, I would come back and unlike other “ghosts”, I would make it absolutely clear. That is, instead of moving an object when nobody is around or appearing to a single crazy person in the dark, or other such traditional manifestations, I would appear in say, Times Square among thousands of people and make a damn-big show. I would remove all doubt once and for all.

Of course, if there is no after-life after all, then I would not be able to show up. That part did not seem like a problem. I figured that it would just be the other half of the proof. If I do not show up, it means there is no after-life, if there is, then I would show up and make it clear that I have come back.

Unfortunately, in less than a minute of forming my plan, I realized that I would not be able to prove it after all. What happens if there is an after-life, but I am not able to immediately come back? What if what seems like a minute to me is 100 years in the living world? I would show up, but I had “disproved” the after-life 100 years ago. What if there is an after-life, but I am unable to come back and show myself? What if there is an after-life, but I am not allowed to come back and show myseld?

It dawned on me, that even if there is an after-life, there may be other forces at work that prevent me from proving it once and for all. In other words, the only way to determine whether or not there is an after-life once and for all is if I can come back, which would prove that there is. Not coming back proves nothing (not a surprise to scientists and logicians). The lack of proof is not proof in and of itself.

In summary, one of two things will happen when a person dies, either they do come back or they don’t, and only comeing back proves anything, but even then, their manifestation may be limited by various factors. Therefore, there really is no way to prove the existence of an after-life or ghosts, or rather, there is no way to disprove them.

Here is another article on the same subject that had occurred to me at another time , but with a different spin.

No Such Thing As a Complete and Equal List

I have always had trouble with equally balanced lists; probably due to my obsessive compulsive disorder. A couple of years ago, I was auditing a University course (I believe it was a software project management course) when as usual, my mind wandered. After many years of trying to force it, it finally dawned on me that trying to make a perfectly symmetrical and complete list is literally impossible, it cannot be done, ever.

What does a complete list mean? Let’s use an example to define it. A good example is billing. When entertainers perform shows with more than one star, one of them must get “top billing”, that is, one of their names must come before the other; this is just the nature of a list. There is no way to list both names at the same time—just try to tell someone who the stars of the show are by saying both of their names simultaneously; you must say one before the other. Top billing is desirable because it implies importance. As a result, many co-stars end up arguing, even fighting over who gets top billing.

One solution is to give one top-billing, then follow it up by giving the other one top-billing. That way they each get top-billing. This does not work however because now one of them got top-billing first which is itself like saying that that person was more important, which is why they got it first.

You might propose to just balance it out by giving the second person top-billing first, in the next run, followed by the first person, and repeating, but this just ends up repeating itself. Let’s represent this with symbols:

The original list with one name listed first:
AB

The first solution, with the second person getting top-billing, but second:
AB , BA

The second attempt, with the second person getting top-billing first but in the second run:
AB,BA ; BA,AB

The third attempt, the second person gets top billing but again in the second half:
AB,BA;BA,AB – BA,AB;AB,BA

One more try before giving up:
AB,BA;BA,AB-BA,AB;AB,BA * BA,AB;AB,BA-AB,BA;BA,AB

As you can see, once the list has begun and one item is listed before another, there is no way that the list can be completed and symmetrical/balanced; you just get stuck in a recursive loop that grows forever. This is due to the nature of linearity. No matter what you do, A is the first item in the list and always will be! You could reverse the list so that B comes first or append the new items to the front instead of the back, but then we are in the same situation with all the symbols alternating yet never perfect:

AB
BA , AB
AB,BA ; BA,AB
BA,AB;AB,BA – AB,BA;BA,AB
AB,BA;BA,AB-BA,AB;AB,BA * BA,AB;AB,BA-AB,BA;BA,AB

Things get much worse with more than two symbols. The only list(s) that can be perfect are lists with only one symbol: A, AA, AAA, AAAA, and so on.

Unfortunately, there is no way to equally credit two performers, and there is no way to list two equal items. Even if you move into more dimensions there is still no way to present more than one item simultaneously.

No Evidence of Time Travel, Still Possible? Maybe

It occurred to me yesterday that I obviously will never acquire the ability to time travel (at least into the past) since I have no evidence of it. After all, if I ever do acquire the ability, then it does not matter at what point I do so (age 30, 60, 100, etc.) since whenever it does happen, I can always go back to any point in the past. The reasoning is that if I do acquire the ability to go back (presumably to help myself make my—uh, our—life better, fix a mistake, etc.), then I would have done so and would know it. It does not matter if it happens tomorrow or 50 years from now; either way if I go back to my past then it has the same effect. Yet, I have never been visited by myself and so I clearly do not ever acquire the ability in my lifetime.

However, that reasoning falls apart because there is no guarantee that if I did acquire the ability, that I would come back to this point or any previous point in my life. It is entirely possible that for example, in 10 years I get the ability and then I come back in time tomorrow morning. Just because I have up until now, never been visited by my future self, does not mean that I do not ever acquire the ability, since I did not need to come back this far. Tomorrow morning however is a different story, something may happen tomorrow morning which requires my intervention and so I will be visited by myself and thus know for sure that I do eventually come across the time-travel technology.

The point is that while there is no current evidence to support the idea that I will ever be able to travel back in time, it does not rule out the possibility since I may just not need to come back this far. This is truly the definition of “you never know what the future holds”, since for all I know, tomorrow I may be visited by myself from the future. It’s impossible to completely rule that out without entirely disproving the possibility of time travel altogether.