He takes fatal OD as Internet pals watch Chatroom vultures egged him to pop more Rx pills
"I told u I was hardcore."
Those were the last coherent words Brandon Vedas, 21, typed into the computer in his Phoenix bedroom as he showed off for Internet pals watching on a Web cam by swallowing more and more prescription drugs.
Vedas died online as a crowd of virtual onlookers egged him to "eat more!" A chilling record of the Jan. 12 chat reads like an Internet version of the notorious 1964 Kew Gardens, Queens, stabbing of Kitty Genovese as her neighbors watched from their windows.
In Vedas' case, some did try to help — begging him to stop, to call 911, to get his mother from the next room. After he passed out, some tried frantically to figure out his location while others argued against getting involved.
But the technology that brought as many as a dozen chatters into the intimacy of Vedas' bedroom was unable to tell them where he was. Internet Relay Chat is anonymous, and no one in the drug users' chat group knew the last name of the young man who called himself Ripper.
Re: virus: Death in IRC
« Reply #1 on: 2003-02-03 14:32:34 »
Sad. We had an interesting parallel though much less gruesome story on CoV some time back. As I recall it, (secondhand because I wasn't watching at the time) I believe Magic Jim, a once frequent regular here, once advertised a bogus online death watch on the Internet. I heard that he gathered an incredible-sized audience too. A good lot of them were even actually pissed off that they didn't get to witness a real death, . . . a less sad way to point out the same gruesome truth about people.
My thesis is that natural selection eliminates the weakest individuals among us through drugs and alcohol. The strongest grow and produce, while the weakest kill themselves. It's like gravity, it can't be avoided. One of the biggest challenges of our times is how to build a humanistic society taking natural selection into account.
[]'s
Rafael
> Sad. We had an interesting parallel though much less gruesome story on CoV > some time back. As I recall it, (secondhand because I wasn't watching at the > time) I believe Magic Jim, a once frequent regular here, once advertised a > bogus online death watch on the Internet. I heard that he gathered an > incredible-sized audience too. A good lot of them were even actually pissed > off that they didn't get to witness a real death, . . . a less sad way to > point out the same gruesome truth about people. > > Love, > > -Jake
[Rafael]My thesis is that natural selection eliminates the weakest individuals among us through drugs and alcohol. The strongest grow and produce, while the weakest kill themselves.
[veridicus] That is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.
"Scientia Est Potentia"
LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz
-- ____________________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com
Re: virus: Death in IRC
« Reply #4 on: 2003-02-03 17:54:00 »
Veridicus, I'm not sure why that ("...The strongest grow and produce, while the weakest kill themselves.") would be considered ridiculous. Please elaborate. Seems reasonable, though not flawless, certainly not ridiculous...
RE: virus: Death in IRC
« Reply #5 on: 2003-02-03 18:07:02 »
[Rafael]My thesis is that natural selection eliminates the weakest individuals among us through drugs and alcohol. The strongest grow and produce, while the weakest kill themselves.
[veridicus] That is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.
[Kalkor] Not so ridiculous when you consider "natural selection" as not an entity or process but as the observable results of the mechanisms we consider to be in the evolutionary repertoire.
However, I agree with you, Veridicus, in principle on these grounds: It is easy to slip into the UT memeset of "anyone eliminated by something that did not eliminate me is 'weaker.'" Successful? You betcha! One of the few instances I can readily call to mind where we learn from the mistakes of others. ;-}
I strongly suspect it's the same memeset that allows someone to feel superior by dehumanising their objects of disdain through such terms as "chatroom vultures" as this news reporter did.
It is interesting to note that this "weaker" human was prescribed EVERYTHING he overdosed on, aside from the sip of 151 and the purported (but never mentioned in the chat transcripts) marijuana. The fact that he was unaware of the interaction precautions and LD50's is ENTIRELY, imho, his own fault. When you ingest something, it behooves you to understand its action on your body for the sole reason that it is YOUR BODY. However, his pharmacist handed him all those pills. His doctor prescribed him all those pills. Our society, at the moment, considers this acceptable. Therefore, our society considers his constant inebriation and subsequent demise acceptable. We are all members of our society.
Put that in your pipe for a moment before calling an overdose the act of a "weaker" human. Perhaps this could be a topic for weekly chat discussion?
Refute it please. Well, let's write the formal argument then.
Premise1: Evolution is a tautology. Premise2: The current context of evolution on planet earth is one where you're strength is measured by your ability to cope(with school and work). (except if you are already wealthy enough to live off of passive income) Premise 3: People commit suicide when the perspective of dying is superior to the perspective of living. Premise 4: The weakest have a greater perspective of dying then the stronger.(in fact, they believe they will be stronger when they die). Premise 5: Drugs and alcohol are a way of committing a slow and light suicide.
Inference For those who are weak and can't cope, dying is a better alternative then living. Conclusion: The weakest among us choose to kill themselves as an alternative to cope with their own weaknesses and they choose drugs and alcohol as a way of doing it.
[]'s
Rafael
> [Rafael]My thesis is that natural selection eliminates the weakest > individuals among us through drugs > and alcohol. The strongest grow and produce, while the weakest kill > themselves. > > [veridicus] That is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. > > > > > > "Scientia Est Potentia" > > LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz > > -- > ____________________________________________________ > Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com > > Powered by Outblaze > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
[Rafael] Premise 4: The weakest have a greater perspective of dying then the stronger.(in fact, they believe they will be stronger when they die).
[Michelle] This may well be the subjective step that does your logic in, Rafael. You'll have to qualify this more objectively.
[Rafael] YES. I should have have written: If there are 2 persons and one is weaker than the other THEN the weaker will be more willing to accept death than the stronger.
Refute it please. Well, let's write the formal argument then.
Premise1: Evolution is a tautology. Premise2: The current context of evolution on planet earth is one where you're strength is measured by your ability to cope(with school and work). (except if you are already wealthy enough to live off of passive income) Premise 3: People commit suicide when the perspective of dying is superior to the perspective of living. Premise 4: The weakest have a greater perspective of dying then the stronger.(in fact, they believe they will be stronger when they die). Premise 5: Drugs and alcohol are a way of committing a slow and light suicide.
Inference For those who are weak and can't cope, dying is a better alternative then living. Conclusion: The weakest among us choose to kill themselves as an alternative to cope with their own weaknesses and they choose drugs and alcohol as a way of doing it.
[veridicus] OK. I think Kalkor’s argument was an adequate justification of my opinion. But, with the current “Ripper” case aside, I will address your logic more generally. Your second premise alone is erroneous. You’re “strength” in modern society is not “measured by your ability to cope” (with school and work), and I expect that you can provide no empirical evidence for that assertion. From an evolutionary standpoint, having genes that physiologically predispose you with resilience to biological pathogens or psychological extremes seems a much more accurate measure of evolutionary strength. In fact, general intelligence itself (if it could be determined definitively) seems a much more accurate measure of evolutionary strength or weakness. This, by no means, coincides with an individual’s propensity to “cope” with inherently flawed social institutions such as “school” or “work.” In fact, if you investigated the history, many of the most prominent influences on the direction of humanity did not necessarily excel in the particular institutions you sited as criteria. Furthermore, many people who use drugs or partake in life threatening endeavors do not do so out of a weakness, or inability to cope with social institutions, or a compulsion towards self-destruction, on the contrary, often these are simply the people with an urge to venture beyond the safe harbors of convention and explore the unknown despite the dangers it may pose. Often these are the explorers of human boundaries that set the course for future progression. But, yeah, I guess sometimes they’re just weak people who can’t cope, too. Yet, the people that tend to “cope” best with the mundane, mindnumbing jobs (as the great majority are) are more likely those that are intelligent enough to do the work, while dumb enough not to be aware of the insipidity of much of it. Ideally, much like low tech robots. Your main problem with premise 2 is the assumption that wealth and career are measures of success (evolutionarily or otherwise) while I must assert that the true measure of success (individually and evolutionarily) would be better defined by ones level of happiness. And, as you must know, happiness and wealth are very far from being synonymous. Premise 3, also, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of suicide. The phenomenon is much less a long thought out attempt at escaping careers or school, than it is an impulsive manifestation of an extended neurological dysfunction resulting in pathologically altered perception. It is not only the poor, unsuccessful, uneducated people that commit suicide (or use drugs for that matter), in many cases, it is often the wealthy, “successful” man who seems to have the perfect life. Your idea of natural selection seems to be deeply flawed, kinda like Hitler’s…well, maybe not that bad!
-veridicus
"Scientia Est Potentia"
LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz
-- ____________________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re: virus: Death in IRC
« Reply #10 on: 2003-02-03 19:48:54 »
Rafael Anschau wrote:
> My thesis is that natural selection eliminates the weakest individuals among us through drugs > and alcohol. The strongest grow and produce, while the weakest kill themselves. It's like > gravity, it can't be avoided.
Although Lamarkian objections to acquired characteristics have played a diminished role in natural selection of late due to the affirmation of certain types of neural plasticity, I'm happy to raise the basic objection FIRMLY again in THIS case.
Walter
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!"
Re: virus: Death in IRC
« Reply #13 on: 2003-02-03 21:24:10 »
I think suicide is a more complex issue than this. I think the reasons that someone is killing themselves would also determine what kind of selective pressures are at work and which are not. But in the end, we have to look at suicide as well as a selective force especially to whatever extent the person is killing themselves prior to reproduction.
Part of the problem lies in that we say things like "stronger," rather than "fitter" which can distract the issue somewhat. The fittest person is not necessarily the strongest and vice versa. The fittest more likely is that treacherous one who will keep on scheming right through the midst of a crisis, while everyone else is just trying to figure out what is going on!
Re: virus: Death in IRC
« Reply #14 on: 2003-02-03 22:53:06 »
In a message dated 2/3/2003 8:27:36 PM Central Standard Time, anschau.ez@terra.com.br writes:
Give me an example where fitness is not survival.(not necessarily of an organism, but also of a neuron, or even a meme)
[]'s
Woody
[Jake] Excuse me while I split hairs, but splitting hairs does indeed come in handy in dealing with issues like this. First of all, fitness really deals more with a statistical tendency toward survival, given the characteristics and organisms whose fitness we happen to discuss. But survival stands more as something the individual organism negotiates given the variable fitness of all its characteristics. You can die accidentally anyway despite the proven fitness of your genes. Sometimes by a freak of situation, the dullest one may indeed survive. So while fitness and survival necessarily relate positively they don't equate absolutely and that makes all the difference when discussing tautologies. Probably not the end of the issue, but certainly a good start as to why we do not have a tautology.
Author
Logged
