How many times until you disregard them?. Is it like if you see someone using it one time or is it after the tenth time? What’s the cutoff or frequency compared to a standard search? Is it if 50%+ of their searches are through AI or is it like 5%+?
More so if they go through your account and start downvoting everything.
We would have to do way way more than that, goodness it would be nice though if it was that easy. We were in hot water long before 2017.
If you’re moving for a job, stick your stuff in storage,. Find a room to rent or get an Airbnb or long-term stay hotel. Experience the place and job for a bit before fully committing to it so at least that way you have an easy exit if you want to move back.
That’s to say most people start with a very grounded sense of reality until they encounter something that model can’t deal with such as those epistemological arguments. Science like everything else is built from assumptions, things that seem true but we can’t prove. Stuff like didn’t the past actually happen. It’s typically when one notices reality is stranger than science can manage that one allows themselves to entertain other concepts.
Just a quick quip, it may literally be the case the universe is indeed physically infinite. We don’t know if it is or isn’t. That said, yeah we can indeed create mental constructs that don’t have to obey reality. Linguistically I can create contradictions. I can say on a flat plane there is a square with five sides which is even mathematically impossible yet I can put the words together, create the idea of it. Also yeah Cantor and the scale of infinities is fun. It may be the case we discovered the mathematics for something we’ve yet to discover in reality which happens from time to time.
As they say if it’s worth while it’s probably not easy, if its easy it’s probably not worthwhile. Hate and resentment are easy, forgiveness and peace is difficult. Until one’s enemy is their friend the war is never over. The best war is won without ever taking a single shot. Many things turn into this multivariate balancing act where there really isn’t an ultimate good option, something will have to give here or there, but as you said the intention and the attempt alone are commendable.
I mean more people literally means more technological advancement, more universities, more experimentation, more engineers, more ideas tested and developed.
I’m not sure how you think we would exactly motivate a global depopulation short of something extremely unpleasant aka the example I gave of just charging the actual cost for products and services. Maybe a one child policy and you kill the extra children and one of the parents for breaching the rule. Good luck roping the rich and powerful or developing nations into this. At least developing nations with a high fertility rate will (and do) argue that they should not be punished for the misdeeds of others.
You want to decrease the population by 7.3 billion. That’s not happening quickly and if it is then a lot of awful and unfortunate things will need to happen, namely death, starvation, disease, poverty, war, and the like.
The only real way we are managing this is through technology. Kinda paradoxical that technology gave us the capacity to get into this mess and is our way out but will likely cause other issues we will need to fix with yet again better tech.
Antinatslism was the topic, the meaning of the word is quite literally in the word itself but here’s the definition for you.
Antinatalism is the philosophical and ethical position that assigns a negative value to birth, arguing that procreation is inherently immoral.
We’ve yet to poison the earth to the same level as those photosynthesizing microorganisms that caused the first known mass extinction. I mean the O’Neal cylinders would be a tough one but the rest is well within our grasp today, particularly if we were motivated enough. Honestly it’s just that the economy is built for older very inefficient systems so deploying something new at such a large scale just doesn’t have the demand currently or the trust. Factories take decades to replace and so on. With a hot fire under our ass we could retool the system in the matter of a few short years.
I mean yeah everyone switching to a plant based diet that’s grown locally and in season, switching as many jobs to work at home, and so on would be great and we could nearly flip a switch for a lot of optimizations. I guess we could impose a two child policy globally and that would about handle it. I say just let things take the course that it’s already going, just optimize what we can.
For an updated infrastructure and strong urbanization aka decrease suburbs and rural areas and place urban centers in advantageous locations we are no where near the carrying capacity if we were efficient about it. Our current predicament is caused by fractured and poor planning, placing opulent cities in the hottest of desserts is a good example of a dumb thing we’ve done multiple times globally.
Real life though, if we just charged for everything what it actually costs including environmental impact the problem would solve itself. $5 ground beef would be $50, the cost of dumping unrecyclable waste would skyrocket for individuals and companies alike. Sure as shit people would have fewer kids as well.
Yeah I get you, there’s enough death cults trying to end the world already. I mean one can take it in different ways. In the most grounded sense it’s physically true. Like there’s not actually a gap between physics, chemistry, biology, sociology and so on, it’s one singular continuous reality. There’s no actual barrier between your body and everything else, that’s just a perception mainly due to a limited awareness.
Of course one can take it in a pansychism manner and I often do. It’s not too difficult to get there for a more rigid materially minded individual. As you already have one just has to make a trip through epistemology first. Like classic arguments such as Descartes demon, Plato’s cave, Chung Tzu’s butterfly, Boltzmann brains, and last Thursdayism. That is the most grounded science based version of reality isn’t as concrete as most minds would prefer it to be. If you don’t know those epistemological arguments I highly suggest looking them up.
I agree, a human mind’s version is likely limited. Like we’re aware of the limited perception of ants and chimps yet often assume we are not similarly limited. Another one I play with is causality. Like if it’s always true then everything in this moment was caused by something in a previous and those by something previous and so on until infinity or something happened that was not caused or causality and human thought isn’t capable of capturing reality as it is.
All the fun stories aside I always come back to base faith. That is it doesn’t matter if I’m a Boltzmann brain and reality just came into being a moment ago, the goal is to reduce needless and avoidable suffering for all minds whenever and wherever I can. Of course I suck at doing that sometimes (a lot of the time) but try not to dwell on the failures beyond the learning experience they can provide.
Like Ram Dass likes to say, be love now. If nothing matters I can still enjoy internally and externally manifesting the waking sensation of love all the same.
I get you, it’s just that if you follow the implications of antinatalism it bleeds into efilism. You’re explaining why they view birth as unethical but it leads to conclusions that work against the concept of personal choice as reasoned above. Now to add to the issue at hand i would imagine such individuals are more than willing to limit personal choice in other contexts. Like we should stop people from murdering even if that’s their personal choice and we should imprison them even if it’s their personal choice to be free. Absolute personal choice is a messy concept to get behind.
I do respect your time and appreciate our discussion. I get that you’re not in that corner so to speak. I guess I’m more of a non-dualistic unified reality nihilist, not only does it not matter but division between one thing and another is more so a perspective or illusion of domain than an actual aspect of the true nature of reality. Here is maybe a better explanation. Everything is one, Brahman fell asleep and everything is just incarnations of Brahman in the same way when you dream everything is just you, incarnations of your mind. You see a tree while sleeping, well that’s just your mind in the form of a tree.
It’s difficult to argue that homo sapiens all together are more destructive than other organisms and much more difficult to argue it’s all hominids. Like in contrast to what? For reference one of the first mass extinctions that killed like 99% of life was caused by photosynthesizing microorganisms. All said and done humans have yet to pull that off so far. All well and good photosynthesizing life forms are still around, now should we go kill them all because they caused that very nasty extinction event a while ago?
What you are arguing for would indeed work but it’s still not necessary. It’s like a trivial solution to a function. We’re more than capable now to maintain our current population and otherwise live in symbiosis in comparison to other natural forces at play. Although the more people there are the more difficult it is to manage short of us constructing O’Neal cylinders and just not living on earth. Then we could manage quite an astronomical population while mitigating our impact on the earth.
Instead of looking towards the trivial solution I would rather get creative and push our technology forward. Lab grown meat and plants (also very useful for space stations) and all around minimizing our footprint while encouraging natural biomass and natural processes. Humanities footprint could more than be compensated for even without space stations.
In short just decreasing the population seems like a child’s answer to the problem.
I mean multiple nations allow legally assisted suicide. To say that no one should be born or that birthing a person is immoral infers that one’s own birth was immoral which infers it should not have happened to begin with. Now a statement is all well and good until it’s actually applied and one follows their beliefs all the way to all of its conclusions.
Idk humans existed for a long time before society and our near ancestors have been around for millions upon millions of years. It’s maybe like the last 200ish years where we’ve been a serious ecological menace. It’s a bit odd to take like 0.07% of the time we’ve been around to be judged by. I guess you can argue it back to like the beginning of known civilization but that’s still like 3.3%. the other 96.7% to 99.93% of the time we were ecologically insignificant in contrast to greater forces like ice ages. I still find the view needlessly extreme.
Now of course we have indeed fucked shit up pretty badly the last 200ish years and we need to fix it quick, fast, and in a hurry and the absolute laziest and fastest way of doing that is just killing everyone. It’s like the answer of a five year old. Let’s use technology and policy? Nah just kill everyone.
If for instance one truly believes they should not have existed in the first place then action that would end their existence theoretically shouldn’t be met with resistance as per their own beliefs.
Seems the ones I’ve run into were both, particularly on their subreddit. The point still kind of stands. If one believes they ought not have been born then there are solutions to their dilemma and if they truly believe that then they are free to act upon that, particularly in locations with legal assisted suicide.
Now as to the morality of the act of having children. It really does depend on some axioms. The first one that comes to mind is whether or not we have free will, what was the state of a mind (if any) before being born, what is the overall state of reality. In a circumstance like samsara being or not being birthed as a human on this earth isn’t really going to change the overall circumstance, same kind of situation with pansychism in many versions. These are all things once again no one has any answers to either way so the best course is an agnostic take. Maybe having kids is immoral, maybe not, no one really knows and it’s okay that we don’t know right now.
It’s a take but if anyone went to kill any of them I’m betting they would attempt to defend their life or loved ones. It’s easy to say it’s less suffering to not exist although no one actually knows what if anything exists after death or before birth. In the case of pansychism or something similar to samsara the story could be more involved than many think aka it’s not as simple as just not being born a human or dying to end suffering.
I would specify that we ought to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for all minds. That is not all suffering is needless, for instance surgery, exercise, physical therapy, mental healing are often accompanied by great suffering but ultimately bring one closer to wellbeing. It’s the suffering that brings one away from wellbeing that ought to be diminished. Now the belief that there is no mind before birth or after death is based on assumptions the same as one believing there is mind before birth or after death. The most accurate stance would be an agnostic one, aka just admitting we don’t actually know one way or the other.
That’s a tad better but absolute extinction seems a smidge extreme when humans can indeed live in symbiosis with nature. I’m guessing a mind that has reached the conclusion extinction is the one and only way is quite unhappy.
Are they equally pleasant to talk to?
How far in the future are we talking? Far enough and this moment in time will essentially be totally lost to time.