So....
...if a society exists such that crime is "impossible", wouldn't the individuals in that society experience an "atrophy" of their wills to not commit crimes, and not the other way around?

For instance...
....imagine that a new technology somehow secures everything from theft, (not mind control,) so that any and all attempts to steal are guaranteed to fail. Eventually, nearly all people would stop trying in the first place. This would appear to be a success in the changing of human will for the better, IOW making people good. However, if viewed differently, from a "use it or lose it" evolutionary perspective, one could conclude the opposite.

Not long ago, before scanners and cameras, just about the only thing that kept people from stealing was a sense of right and wrong. These "good" people (willfully?) decided to not steal something when presented with the opportunity to do so. Although, as throughout time, a handful of people, for whatever reason, are "bad" and (willfully?) decided to steal something when presented with the opportunity to do so. These "bad" people do not present an individual "fitness" for the evolved "social fitness" of being "good" by not stealing. If, through the new technology, the basic choice of, "Do I steal this or not?" practically isn't offered, the individuals are then unable to exercise their "fitness" of being good, which would then "atrophy".

IOW, the technology wouldn't make people better for not stealing, because no one is deciding to not steal. If a change in the society/technology reintroduced the possibility of theft, more people than before would be stealing, having lost their ability to (willfully?) decide to not steal. Right? Or no?

9/19/2006 5:12:07 PM

is this about pot?

9/19/2006 5:12:44 PM

I guess it could be......

But first there would have to be a society where pot is actually impossible to get.....


It's really more about human will, liberty, justice and mental/social evolution....

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:21 PM. Reason :

9/19/2006 5:19:38 PM

this sounds a bit like the attempt in 1984 of reducing the vocabulary of the English language in order to essentially remove certain concepts from people's minds by eliminating a verbal means to express them, except you're talking about reducing people's capacity to perform theft rather than articulate what theft is.

9/19/2006 5:19:52 PM

Sounds like it's about the historical relativism between good and evil.

Could be about pot. Could easily be extended to land and other property as well.

9/19/2006 5:22:18 PM

^^nice parallel

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:22 PM. Reason :

9/19/2006 5:22:33 PM

So I guess we're not better people for keeping slavery illegal?

9/19/2006 5:49:59 PM

Is the ban on slavery the reason you don't own slaves?
Are you exercising "good" by not owning slaves?


---------------------------------------------------------

Let's see....

....The relative impossibility of owning slaves (here and now,) removes our need to decide whether or not to own them.

If slavery became a practical option, would your decision whether or not to own them be any different than it would have been had slavery never been banned?

9/19/2006 5:59:23 PM

Quote :

"this sounds a bit like the attempt in 1984 of reducing the vocabulary of the English language in order to essentially remove certain concepts from people's minds by eliminating a verbal means to express them, except you're talking about reducing people's capacity to perform theft rather than articulate what theft is."

It sounds more like the main theme of A Clockwork Orange.

9/19/2006 7:52:32 PM

is this about pot?

Did you come up with this question while smoking pot?

9/19/2006 8:47:13 PM

Quote :

"except you're talking about reducing people's capacity to perform theft rather than articulate what theft is."

says it pretty well.

9/19/2006 9:48:38 PM

Quote :

"It sounds more like the main theme of A Clockwork Orange history."

9/19/2006 10:20:21 PM

^right, so where is this leading us?

....when, if ever, do we begin to view crime prevention as a means unjustified by the ends?



[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 9:31 AM. Reason :

9/20/2006 9:30:15 AM

I <3 A Clockwork Orange (original ending though, none of this missing chapter American BS like the movie)

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

9/20/2006 10:05:09 AM

There are technical reasons to prevent crime that have nothing to do with getting into heaven.

If someone is "bad" and would still if able to but is never offered the option, then God only knows. But for the sake of humanity itself it doesn't matter whether people are "good" or "bad," only that stuff doesn't get stolen. This is because theft is wasteful in a socio-economic sense: instead of feeding the hungry I hire a security guard; instead of buying a car yourself you steal mine, reducing the value of the car (it can no longer be legally sold) and reducing my standard of living.

Not to mention all the effort/labor/capital wasted by having an insurance industry to protect us against theft.

So, your "machine" to prevent theft, coupled with a machine to prevent storms, and another machine to prevent illness would free up the entire insurance industry (and law enforcement industry) of the planet for more productive uses (making more yachts, better software, more technology, better housing, etc).

9/20/2006 11:25:53 AM

^let's not bring god and heaven into this.....

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 11:59 AM. Reason : plus, your point seems to overlook the importance of mental/social evolution]

9/20/2006 11:58:30 AM

^ Good point...
After a generation or two in which no one commits theft without getting caught, what happens when the machine breaks down?

After so long without needing to engender self morality checks (depending instead upon punishment avoidance), would people explode upon the theft-market? To answer this we whould need to answer whether or not people realize the difference between self-morality (I refuse to do this because it is wrong) and punishment avoidance (I refuse to do this because others make it wrong).

I suspect they do not up to a point. The day after the machine breaks theft will not be rampant, but after a time watching others get away with it people will slowely re-evaluate their situation and realize they want to be theifs, a realization they themselves probably didn't realize before then.

9/20/2006 12:21:05 PM

...so wouldn't the same effect occur in other areas of crime prevention?

…safety in general?

…public health?

9/23/2006 6:27:46 PM

Quote :

"It sounds more like the main theme of A Clockwork Orange history."

Uh, no. Historians have far more important things to worry about. I don't even know that history has a main theme. If so, it sure ain't this.

It's a minor moral debate, really. Little more.

9/23/2006 8:59:38 PM

all crime... stealing, slavery, drug dealing, extortion, murder, etc...

no matter which prevention measures (physical or moral/legal) are put into place, youre still going to have a high number of all these crimes going on. its not going away at all, its just changed its face.

LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE BRANCHES OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATE AMERICA!!!1 (and i know it sounds kinda out there, but i am dead serious)

9/25/2006 7:58:20 AM