What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
I don't mean to say that neural activity ∝moral weight. I am merely asserting that something without neural activity at all (or similar construct) can't be worth anything. This is why a rock has no moral value, and I don't need to treat a rock nicely.
I am less confident -- but still fairly confident -- that consciousness, pain, and so on require at least a couple neurons -- how many, I'm not sure -- but creatures like tiny snails and worms probably aren't worth consideration, or if they are then only very little. Shrimp are complex enough that I cannot say for sure that they aren't equal in value to a human, but my intuition says they still don't have fully-fledged sentience; I could be wrong though.
The strongest evidence that shrimp don't have sentience is anthropic -- if there are trillions of times more shrimp than humans, why am I a human? Isn't that astoundingly improbable? But anthropic arguments are questionable at best.
-
We can disagree a bit about the sacredness of life but I think we agree about oreseving nature. Yet I think national parks are both a good and a practical necessity. If the general public can’t get a taste of wilderness they will not value it, and will not protest its demise. So it’s a balancing act— in a perfect world sure have some very large untouched reserves, but if you care about any wilderness surviving then national parks are a must imho.
-
Why any? Why not pistols or rifles with small magazines?
-
DM me too pls
-
well given that i already did and the whole concept and spirit of this post appears to have flown right over your head you're lookin' a wee bit trollish there bud.
-
More people also means more demand for things that require labour to create however. Your position is referred to as the lump of labour fallacy
-
why am I a human and not a shrimp? Isn’t that astoundingly improbable?
haha yes i agree with that
my personal (kinda spiritual) take on this is that we are conscious because we are "nature's soldiers" and we're fighting the greater cause of life itself. That is what our consciousness is targeted at and what gives it justification in front of the world.
-
I think he means the mental framework where levels of privilege are assigned to swaths of the population based a facet of their identity: white privilege, female privilege, vegetarian privilege, etc.
-
In theory it should have a strong monetary incentive for all but the wealthiest of cis/striaght/white/males. They just don't realize that for some reason.
-
Enter bioengineering: empathy virus
-
Stop out-woking one another, it's okay to be right silently in order to bring in fence sitters.
If someone says, "my spirit animal told me late-stage capitalism is evil" welcome them to the club with open arms, focus on how you're alike and trust them to work out their faux pas over time spent among like-minded peers.
Also cultural appropriation ≠ exploitation, we can stop clutching our collective pearls over these faux pas.
-
do you have plausible arguments for that that could be used to convince somebody of this that isn't already convinced?
-
My intuition for a person's overall moral value is something like the integral of their experiences so far multiplied by their expected future QALYs. This fits my intuition of why it's okay to kill a zygote, and it's also morally abominable to, say, slightly shorten the lifespan of somebody (especially someone already on the brink of death), or to, erm, put someone out of their misery in some cases.
I'm not terribly moved by single-celled organisms that can "learn." It's not hard to find examples of simple things which most people wouldn't consider "alive," but "learn." For instance, a block of metal can "learn" -- it responds differently based on past stresses. Or "memory foam." You could argue that a river "learns," since it can find its way around obstacles and then double down on that path. Obviously, computers "learn." Here, we mean "learn" to refer to responding differently based on what's happened to it over time, rather than the subjective conscious feeling of gaining experience.
-
Western front of ww2 made do much sense to me when I realised the left could also have guns.
-
Just specifying the proofs have to be solid bugs you? How weird.
-
You're assuming everybody has the same buying power. That is in reality not the case. If you remove 50% of the people, buying power only goes down by 10%.
-
I was taught when I was young that if you have discovered a cool new thing, it's not wrong for other people to want to do that thing too. I vote we move to a new term, "cultural plagiarism," which more clearly relates to e.g. a white person stealing a black musician's work (as opposed to covering it and giving credit and royalties, which should be fine!)
-
Like, all my friends are leftists. When we talk about politics, they sound like leftists, they say leftist things, and espouse leftist values. My friends are all leftists because my friends' friends are leftists and I make friends with my friends' friends.
Regarding "settler," I think it's a motte-and-bailey tactic you're using. The motte -- the easily defensible position -- is that settler refers to people who are bigoted. The bailey -- the hard to defend position, but which is easily equivocated for the motte -- is that it refers to any non-indigenous person. The reason I see this equivocation is because in my mind, a settler does not stop being a settler simply because they turn into an ally for indigenous people. Settlerdom is a property of a person that depends only on their geographic location and ancestry, not their philosophy.
I don't deny that it's a useful verbal weapon against bigots. I would merely like it to be well-understood that a verbal weapon is what it is intended to be.
-
I can think of a good reason but i'm not sure whether you're willing to buy into it.
people naturally don't think of themselves as individuals. people think of themselves as a group/society.
People recognize that under a republican US government, they're significantly more likely to go to mars and have prosperous offspring. while if they're stuck on earth, a recession and decline is waiting for them. they can't verbalize it and probably aren't even rationally aware of it, but i guess they can feel it with their heart.
of course lots of you folks are gonna immediately chime in and say "nooo i saw a youtube video that explained that it's impossible to live on mars", and honestly, you should reconsider why you're so eager to deny a topic that you've clearly not put in as much effort to think about than the people who actually do care about this project. and also, assuming it does work out; what will you do then? be ashamed of your wrong prediction? because if you're not, that means you don't stand to your prediction, and therefore the prediction is worthless. i'm not sure whether i was too direct about this and somebody perceived it as rude, but i'm tired of this feeling of being stuck. we need to think long-term again.
-
Is this mars thing meant to be an analogy or do you mean people literally think they will have a better life colonizing mars?
