The quote box is officially too big. Also please note the use of the subject 'you' is referring to your hypothetical actions, if I am using the proper context.
Does this refer to just this post from now on, or several previous as well? I'll be a touch embarrassed if I've somehow misconstrued you in the past because of this.
Before I continue, I think I should settle something. I think we may have miscommunicated, or are arguing in different directions. I'm just now quite grasping your terms, which have empirical observation as a basis (with some conceits), and I've been citing non-physical philosophical points (with some axioms). So there have been category errors, it seems (if I've used that term properly). It's not my intent to be intellectually dishonest, or to obfuscate.
Utilitarianism: Please explain to me why killing the poor and weak is a good plan. This will inevitable generate paranoia amongst the populace as these are rather fluid conditions, meaning they could be purged too.
It's more efficient, and it can be done in secret if paranoia is a major issue. Failing that, they can be rendered sterile. My point is that if the emphasis is on survival, the tragically unmotivated, disabled, and dying are more of a pressing drain on resources than they are efficient producers. If culling or sterilization aren't applied, they can just be sent elsewhere, or be granted fewer rights. Less panic, but the damage to an equal society is done.
As for supporting the 'weaker' elements of society, from a pragmatic perspective it is a matter of diminishing returns as there is A: a bunch of money sitting around and B: lots of unused Turing machines that require some cost N to function in society. Ergo, it would be sensible to invest some money to receive some amount of labor from them.
If you say so. Just a matter of doing the math to see if it's cheaper to hire assassins or buy them a plane ticket, if the emphasis is on cost effectiveness. If they only offer diminishing returns, they can probably go away or get with the literal program.
As for your more Eugenics like concerns, the concept has been shown to be pointless in the longterm. Maintaining expression of 'good' genes, when compared to all the recessive instances of 'bad' genes that would remain, would mean thousands of years of constant vigilance.
Noted, but that's ultimately limited to just genes. The conclusion that we should push for overall happiness and/or survival is both a short-term and long-term goal, and has a farther reach than genetic predisposition towards being happy and producing happy, hard-working children. Though that would help, it's just a matter of math and probability when deciding what to emphasize in the program.
And a happier workforce is a more productive workforce since misery tends to promote inattentiveness, poor health, shortened lifespan, etc.
Well, yes. My point is that if one's priorities are 1). survival and 2). happiness, give me the cure for flesh-eating viruses before you give me the Orgasmatron.
I should've been more specific and said rule utilitarianism which takes the longterm view of things (hence rules). Your examples would be more pertinent to act utilitarianism which values the individual promoting his immediate happiness. Hedonism would be more appropriate really, but eh.
Thanks again for the tidbit. I'm here to learn just as much as I'm here to reason. Have I really been arguing for hedonism? Hmm. I should think about this.
Societal Debt:
I'm not really sure what your point is here as I already mentioned that taxes are the minimum required amount and are what I would consider 'net neutral' societal contribution, assuming good actions thereafter.
My point is that a wealthy person can casually make a greater contribution to charity/society than I can.
ZE NERV:
I have no idea what neuroplasticity has do with my comment of 'ridiculously similar brains'. The commonalities between societies is astounding, with culture being nothing but window dressing. The design of hierarchies, religion, responses to stimulus, etc.
Then I committed a bit of a category error. Your observation was anthropological rather than purely empirical. My mistake. However, I think you're being too simple and general. Ancient collectivism is different than modern individualism, animism is not monotheism, etc.
The brain is an organ in the body and is effected by numerous and widely distributed glands, not to mention drugs and other things. Monism wins QED. I am curious as to what argument for Dualism you're considering valid, though.
Well, brain plasticity is a nice start. Differing brain activity from different people doing the same things also helps, but that can be more tied into brain plasticity. That strongly implies a "mover" connected to the brain.
The mind needs to be more than the brain to know anything about anything, because logic and reason need to override the fundamental sense data to be of any force at all. So the mind is connected to the non-physical by intellectual necessity.
From the personal, subjective angle, I realize I am conscious after ten seconds of thought. I am aware of my own choices and my own thoughts. Observations about activity in my brain do not change my subjective knowledge of my own consciousness.
Please note that I did not say altruism was some kind of an absolute and not a scale.
So noted, then. I've obviously tended towards absolutes here, so maybe I've missed some of your points.