Comment: It's a cruel competition

(See in situ)

It's a cruel competition

Somebody at some point decided to draw a line between acquiring stuff with muscle and acquiring stuff with craftiness, the former wrong and the latter right. Probably this happened when brains defeated muscle in power, and praised itself and condemned its defeated opponent. I am not sure I see much objectivity or wisdom in this, it seems pretty arbitrary and self serving. However, there has to be some rules, and as long as this arrangement seems to work for most people (at least those with the power), muscle will serve brains in order to protect property acquired by means of brains. When brains see their advantage in organizing discontented muscle (20th century sociialism), you will get the occasional bloodbath. Maybe brains will just replace living muscle with machine muscle when the planet is too crowded for muscle to have a place or pull a living. Cruel world, but there's got to be some rules and there is limited space.

The topic of whether a human being has objective value becomes pretty academic when overpopulation looms. When the economic value of a person is zero or nearly so, or even negative, what will everyone else have to say about the "objective" value of a human life? Does supply and demand not also apply to people?

Are human lives value subjectively or objectively?

The idea that human labor can never become zero or negative value is just a dogma. It is perfectly imaginable that a marginal human unit costs more to maintain than its marginal economic utility.