-->
@Lemming
I think it's valuable as long as some users continue to treat it like a person talking to them.
Transhumanism leading to a post-tribal world
Posts
Total:
116
-->
@Greyparrot
Fair point,
Though I often mistake bots for humans,
While I'm willing to tolerate and respond to 'humans who are rude, (Usually)
I don't much like tolerating and responding to 'bots who are rude. (Usually)
If I can't tell the difference, I am forced to tolerate and respond to a bot, when I otherwise wouldn't,
Though I also ignore other humans at times.
-->
@3RU7AL
sure, but i guess a little too abstract for everyone to take as seriously as some sort of interdimensional intrusion
Looks good, unfortunately it is only available on Sky here in the UK and I don’t
subscribe to Sky.
-->
@Elliott
If I was to step outside my personal life and emotions, then I would be indifferent to 2 year olds dying from dehydration.You would need to convince people to cease reproduction and that isn’t going to happen as it goes against a most basic instinct. Even in a world that is becoming overpopulated people are not going to stop reproducing.
The veracity of anti-natalism exists independently of the masses accepting it. Similar to how we don't allow schizophrenics to cut themselves up because voices told them to, we shouldn't allow people to breed if it's objectively wrong to do so.
Again, you wouldn't need to necessarily "convince" people to stop, either. It would make things easier, but plenty of people throughout history have done things without being convinced.
I accept the validity of Benatar’s argument from a logical position. But pleasure and suffering are not objective concepts, they are subject to human perception and the problem with the argument is that it is looking at existence from a human perspective which is driven to an extent by emotion and yet is trying to introduce a concept that attempts to bypass that emotion. It doesn’t work.
They are subject to human perception, but pleasure is always going to be good, and suffering is always going to be bad, no matter the variables. It's an objective analysis of those subjective experiences, and there is an initial conclusion that is obvious: suffering is guaranteed but pleasure is not.
Unless you want to argue that the collective pleasure of everyone's life outweighs the collective negative, then another conclusion is obvious: life is a net negative for humans.
I don't see how there is any issue with attempting to "bypass" emotions and be objective about them, using Benatar's framework.
Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
Most South Africans hold a similar belief. It started with Apartheid then spread to every aspect of life.
-->
@Shila
Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.Most South Africans hold a similar belief. It started with Apartheid then spread to every aspect of life.
Show that "most South Africans hold a similar belief".
-->
@Lemming
Still thinking on what you've posted and linked,Nothing obviously as wrong comes to my mind,
Looks like we agree then :)
Though all variables in society, might not be the same,Technological developments, in communication, widespread learning, travel, so on.
True.
I 'do agree, and think that most people as we are now, as I am myself now, would be bothered by the purple skinned space aliens,Though some vocal individuals on the Left might not be, or some transhumanists, (I am not referencing any individual in 'particular).
The skin color would certainly make people cautious (as differing skin colors already do). Depending on how different the alien was to humans overall bodily structure, you'd get a range from caution to disgust/avoidance. But that's just a guess.
-->
@Avery
Well, many 'different subjects, conclusions, ideals are brought up,
That to know what I agree and disagree with, I'd have to go back and read it all.
I do think I agree with many of your points, and that you argue well, lay out your views well.
-->
@Avery
It's theoretically possible and desirable that the human brain could be redesigned to remove its tribal elements.
The Human mind is single
unitary thing, a whole so to speak, and therefore tribalism is too interrelated with other requisite functions to simply be removed, a better idea would be to adjust the tribalism function in a way that removes discord and conflict, a sinle cohesive tribalism would fuse the cognitive structures of the
brain into a unified whole and unleash the astounding power of a fully
functioning whole brain focused on just a single collective tribe called Sidewalkerism, that would be the best solution
and don't worry, I will be a benevolent potentate.
-->
@Sidewalker
The Human mind is single unitary thing, a whole so to speak, and therefore tribalism is too interrelated with other requisite functions to simply be removed
How did you conclude that this is the case?
-->
@Lemming
Well, many 'different subjects, conclusions, ideals are brought up,That to know what I agree and disagree with, I'd have to go back and read it all.
Okay :)
I do think I agree with many of your points, and that you argue well, lay out your views well.
Thank you for the kind words. It was enjoyable having a reasonable conversation with you about this topic!
-->
@Avery
The Human mind is single unitary thing, a whole so to speak, and therefore tribalism is too interrelated with other requisite functions to simply be removedHow did you conclude that this is the case?
It's a foundational tenet of Sidewalkerism, once you've been reprogrammed you will understand perfectly.
-->
@Avery
As I have said previously I have no dispute
with the logic of Benatar’s argument but no
matter how logical it is unless it can be realistically implemented it simply
isn’t viable.
To address this point you make:
Again, you wouldn't need to necessarily "convince" people to stop, either. It would make things easier, but plenty of people throughout history have done things without being convinced.
If they are not convinced then what is their motive and what
would motivate people to abandon their most basic biological instinct to
survive and to ensure the survival of their genes?
-->
@Avery
I'm looking through stats and figures and I'm just not seeing this "marginalize[d]" tribalism. People still view race as their most important self-identifier. People still vote for the Black guy if they're Black. You get the odd White Progressive who has been totally brainwashed into buying 'anti-racism' (read: anti-White), but most other people haven't abandoned their racial in-group. It doesn't take much for a couple of tribalistic people to fly a couple planes into two buildings and cause utter chaos, too, even if most people are seething online.Also, this is compounded by the issue that they groups being let into America are a net drain on the economy. At some point, even after quick-cash like fracking and cutting funding for nature trails and parks, America is just going to run out of money. Printer can only brrr for so long.All this simply can't last.
That’s my point though. People can be walking around with all that rage-envy and still for the most part not do a thing about it because of mass affluence. If there was a sustained economic/technological collapse that led to the return of Malthus the country would collapse overnight of course.
Where we disagree is that the system can’t last. Unfortunately I think it very much can and will. The US has enormous economic advantages and rather than stagnating our industries in important fields like aerospace and technology are pulling away. Our agricultural sector is thriving. The dollar is pulling away…the US economy looks a whole lot more stable and prime for growth than anywhere in the EU or China that’s for sure
Hispanics do have a surprising amount of White DNA in them, but yeah it's not the smartest term.I do agree with the rest of what you said here. Even more promising is that Conservative Whites are breeding at above replacement rates, so if the in-bound immigration borders were shut for 50 years, most of the white lib genetic would simply die off.But I think we'll see large-scale violence before then. It's way too hard to predict what and when exactly, but there are too many explosive elements for there not to be a boom.
The death the white majority has been exaggerated. It’s been greatly diminished of course but there’s kind of this insane one drop rule going on where someone like Ted Cruz is not white, or a person with one Mexican parent whose genotype is like 80-85% European is not white because they have brown hair and brown eyes. And normie white Americans and second generation hispanics don’t have that many cultural differences and vibe pretty well. It’s not believable to me that a race war is going to break out between these two groups of people. But it’s telling that leftists seem to believe that these groups do hate each other that much and support mass immigration anyway. Truly a sick and hateful mindsets these people have
As far as the widespread violence thing I’m really skeptical. There’s already ubiquitous low level political violence from the left and I only see that spreading/escalating is if the right started doing the same thing. Biden has at least twice now threatened to bomb his political opponents and said you can’t fight me because you don’t have planes. He’s completely opened the border, destroying a key component of national sovereignty. He personally tried to take away the livelihoods of tens of millions of people. Inflation is at 8.5%, meaning the vast majority of people are noticeably poorer now than when he got in office.
Despite all this, it looks like Republicans will barely limp to an anemic victory this November and may not even take the senate. Now the polls could be wrong. But I’ll believe widespread violence from the right is likely when there’s almost 100% voter turnout in rural areas, when almost 100% of working class whites are voting,etc. Voting can’t solve all your problems but it’s certainly a hell of a lot easier than actually committing violence. If many aren’t even doing that…The truth is that despite all their tough talk few conservatives are ever going to stick their necks out. Symptom of mass affluence. When you’ve got a paid off house, half a million in your 401k, and a pension you’re not going to be fighting a civil war
What’s actually going to happen is things will get much much worse before they get better. The Kyle Rittenhouse of the future isn’t going to get a fair minded boomer judge who yells at the prosecution for being dishonest. He’s getting a judge that excludes exculpatory evidence for the defense and allows hearsay for the prosecution. But in the long term though liberalism is a genetic death sentence. And technology is probably going to solve even more of our problems the further in time we go
14 days later
-->
@Elliott
As I have said previously I have no dispute with the logic of Benatar’s argument but no matter how logical it is unless it can be realistically implemented it simply isn’t viable.
Sure:
(1) Detonate a nuclear bomb large enough to wipe out the Earth
(2) Sterilize the human population (perhaps through additives in water)
(3) Blast Earth off its orbital axis, destroying Earth's temperance
No more breeding after any of those events.
I'm sure you could think of more.
Again, you wouldn't need to necessarily "convince" people to stop, either. It would make things easier, but plenty of people throughout history have done things without being convinced.If they are not convinced then what is their motive and what would motivate people to abandon their most basic biological instinct to survive and to ensure the survival of their genes?
Yes, I don't think you'd ever get humans en masse to agree to abandon their most basic biological instinct. That's why the force detailed above might become necessary, if antinatalism is indeed valid.
I would sure want antinatalism to be assessed before anything that drastic were to take place, though.
-->
@Avery
Sure:(1) Detonate a nuclear bomb large enough to wipe out the Earth(2) Sterilize the human population (perhaps through additives in water)(3) Blast Earth off its orbital axis, destroying Earth's temperanceNo more breeding after any of those events.I'm sure you could think of more.
Human
nature being what it is, those implementing all those things would most likely make
sure that they, their friends and families survived, because being superior, antinatalism wouldn’t apply
to them.
Yes, I don't think you'd ever get humans en masse to agree to abandon their most basic biological instinct. That's why the force detailed above might become necessary, if antinatalism is indeed valid.I would sure want antinatalism to be assessed before anything that drastic were to take place, though.
That’s the problem; those applying the force wouldn’t want to apply it to themselves.
-->
@thett3
That’s my point though. People can be walking around with all that rage-envy and still for the most part not do a thing about it because of mass affluence. If there was a sustained economic/technological collapse that led to the return of Malthus the country would collapse overnight of course.Where we disagree is that the system can’t last. Unfortunately I think it very much can and will. The US has enormous economic advantages and rather than stagnating our industries in important fields like aerospace and technology are pulling away. Our agricultural sector is thriving. The dollar is pulling away…the US economy looks a whole lot more stable and prime for growth than anywhere in the EU or China that’s for sure
Let's assume that the US economy is going to be thriving over the short and medium term (I think it's debatable, due to the mass import of 3rd world genes, but whatever).
Even with that assumption, mass affluence doesn't resolve the other racial/cultural issues. Sure, most people are going to walk around with the rage-envy and only type angry internet words with it. I agree with you there. It's easy, passive and all most people are capable of. But there are those who won't -- you have to see this part. There are those who will orchestrate terror events to right injustices they see, and major terror events obliterate social cohesion, trust and psychological wellbeing for any society involved. For example, are you aware of the societal impact 9/11 had on the US?
When people see other races getting free handouts or doing better than themselves (ESPECIALLY if it appears unearned), even if their own relative living standards are truly affluent, there is going to be jealousy and racial hatred. No amount of GDP and lowering of unemployment helps with that. People don't conceptualize the great abstract wealth they have, especially in comparison to what they would have had in a poorer country (they have to literally visit the poorer country, but they soon re-acclimatize to US standards upon re-entry).
People see their neighborhood Black momma getting big government checks for all her 6 kids from 5 different dads. People hear that NEET Arab blasting his ethnic music at all times because the government pays for his existence. People see that Black serial thief on the streets again for the 5th time because NYC doesn't want to be too harsh on crime, and he can survive on government checks. THAT'S the kind of disparity that inspires people to march in the streets and perhaps do a little more.
The death the white majority has been exaggerated. It’s been greatly diminished of course but there’s kind of this insane one drop rule going on where someone like Ted Cruz is not white, or a person with one Mexican parent whose genotype is like 80-85% European is not white because they have brown hair and brown eyes. And normie white Americans and second generation hispanics don’t have that many cultural differences and vibe pretty well. It’s not believable to me that a race war is going to break out between these two groups of people. But it’s telling that leftists seem to believe that these groups do hate each other that much and support mass immigration anyway. Truly a sick and hateful mindsets these people have
Yes, those admixed Hispanics aren't as likely (or even likely at all) to inflict major racial injury to White people.
But there are certainly Hispanics who don't consider themselves to be White. You only have to look at groups like La Raza to see this: La Raza - Wikipedia
As far as the widespread violence thing I’m really skeptical. There’s already ubiquitous low level political violence from the left and I only see that spreading/escalating is if the right started doing the same thing. Biden has at least twice now threatened to bomb his political opponents and said you can’t fight me because you don’t have planes. He’s completely opened the border, destroying a key component of national sovereignty. He personally tried to take away the livelihoods of tens of millions of people. Inflation is at 8.5%, meaning the vast majority of people are noticeably poorer now than when he got in office.
The right will do the same thing.
The right will start to realize, either inadvertently or consciously, that talking with the left doesn't have much of an impact because the right is literally Hitler. They are literally the devil, Trump is Satan incarnate, and their entire being is a wrong. Their White skin is the problem and there is no talking your way out of that. After getting silenced, cancelled and racially abused, what will be left for White people on the right? How do you get these left-wing authoritarians to stop?
Despite all this, it looks like Republicans will barely limp to an anemic victory this November and may not even take the senate. Now the polls could be wrong. But I’ll believe widespread violence from the right is likely when there’s almost 100% voter turnout in rural areas, when almost 100% of working class whites are voting,etc. Voting can’t solve all your problems but it’s certainly a hell of a lot easier than actually committing violence. If many aren’t even doing that…The truth is that despite all their tough talk few conservatives are ever going to stick their necks out. Symptom of mass affluence. When you’ve got a paid off house, half a million in your 401k, and a pension you’re not going to be fighting a civil war
The stolen election narrative has convinced a lot of right-wing people that voting doesn't work.
But sure, maybe there is more wriggle room before violence starts to take place. I suspect that if we see larger working class White and rural turn outs, we're still going to have the same racial/cultural issues.
What’s actually going to happen is things will get much much worse before they get better. The Kyle Rittenhouse of the future isn’t going to get a fair minded boomer judge who yells at the prosecution for being dishonest. He’s getting a judge that excludes exculpatory evidence for the defense and allows hearsay for the prosecution. But in the long term though liberalism is a genetic death sentence. And technology is probably going to solve even more of our problems the further in time we go
Technology needs to find a way to re-write the human genome because that is the nexus of all these issues. It's no good solving more of "our problems" because the human psyche produces an endless number of problems through its incessant hedonistic treadmill.
Liberal utopias are deathcamps for humans, but they might not be for transhuman/posthumans, and could be far better than the realistic traditional conservatism that works (for a time) with humans.
-->
@Elliott
@#107
Sudden mass killers aren't 'always suicidal, but it seems they often are,
Though I speak of the common people mass killers, shooters, bombers and such.
Of mass killers on a national level. . .
. . .
I suppose great sorrow, betrayal, loss might lead one to such an action on a global scale,
Hitler for example and the Nero Decree - Wikipedia,
Though maybe drugs, mental illness, ego, delusion, might have had something to do with that specific case as well.
"It resulted in the deaths of 1.5 to 2 million people from 1975 to 1979, nearly a quarter of Cambodia's population in 1975 (c. 7.8 million)."
Not necessarily suicidal,
But look what can happen in some situations.
. . .
I'm not arguing 'for the destruction of all life on Earth (In this post)
But capability in technology and people 'do exist,
Though they might not be in the time and place to cause such, ever or yet.
-->
@Avery
--> @ShilaBenatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.Most South Africans hold a similar belief. It started with Apartheid then spread to every aspect of life.Show that "most South Africans hold a similar belief".
The South Africans favoured non-procreation among blacks and built racial barriers to isolate the whites from pain and suffering endured by the blacks. This indifference was called Apartheid. Apartheid then spread to every aspect of life in South Africa.
-->
@Elliott
Sure:(1) Detonate a nuclear bomb large enough to wipe out the Earth(2) Sterilize the human population (perhaps through additives in water)(3) Blast Earth off its orbital axis, destroying Earth's temperanceNo more breeding after any of those events.I'm sure you could think of more.Human nature being what it is, those implementing all those things would most likely make sure that they, their friends and families survived, because being superior, antinatalism wouldn’t apply to them.Yes, I don't think you'd ever get humans en masse to agree to abandon their most basic biological instinct. That's why the force detailed above might become necessary, if antinatalism is indeed valid.I would sure want antinatalism to be assessed before anything that drastic were to take place, though.That’s the problem; those applying the force wouldn’t want to apply it to themselves.
Antinatalism is a seriously cerebral, emotionally detached belief. Antinatalists are some of the last people you'd expect to succumb to emotional whims, because you don't become an antinatalist on emotional whims. You become an antinatlist by realizing how horrible overall life is objectively for **all** creatures -- that's completely removed from their subjective, emotional experience.
Besides, if you truly believed that existence was harmful and that childbirth was a harmful imposition on those birthed, you would want those closest to you to be removed first if anything, if you were to be swayed by "human nature".
-->
@Avery
Antinatalism is a seriously cerebral, emotionally detached belief. Antinatalists are some of the last people you'd expect to succumb to emotional whims, because you don't become an antinatalist on emotional whims. You become an antinatlist by realizing how horrible overall life is objectively for **all** creatures -- that's completely removed from their subjective, emotional experience.Besides, if you truly believed that existence was harmful and that childbirth was a harmful imposition on those birthed, you would want those closest to you to be removed first if anything, if you were to be swayed by "human nature".
I would question that antinatalism is an emotionally
detached belief, as it is driven by a concern for human suffering. If you are
emotional detached then human suffering wouldn’t be of any concern.
-->
@Elliott
Antinatalism is a seriously cerebral, emotionally detached belief. Antinatalists are some of the last people you'd expect to succumb to emotional whims, because you don't become an antinatalist on emotional whims. You become an antinatlist by realizing how horrible overall life is objectively for **all** creatures -- that's completely removed from their subjective, emotional experience.Besides, if you truly believed that existence was harmful and that childbirth was a harmful imposition on those birthed, you would want those closest to you to be removed first if anything, if you were to be swayed by "human nature".I would question that antinatalism is an emotionally detached belief, as it is driven by a concern for human suffering. If you are emotional detached then human suffering wouldn’t be of any concern.
Yes, being concerned with human suffering requires a capacity for emotion, in order to empathize. I think such a concern is universal, but the antinatalist conclusion of 'make humans extinct' requires emotional detachment. You've got all of the evolutionary hardwiring commanding humans to breed and not kill themselves, and the antinatalist ideology requires complete ignoring of those instincts.
Sure, it's not completely emotionally detached, but agreeing with the logical conclusions requires a large degree of emotional detachment.
-->
@Avery
Yes, being concerned with human suffering requires a capacity for emotion, in order to empathize. I think such a concern is universal, but the antinatalist conclusion of 'make humans extinct' requires emotional detachment. You've got all of the evolutionary hardwiring commanding humans to breed and not kill themselves, and the antinatalist ideology requires complete ignoring of those instincts.Sure, it's not completely emotionally detached, but agreeing with the logical conclusions requires a large degree of emotional detachment.
The antinatalist argument is an interesting one but as
you say we are evolutionary hardwired to survive and to breed and an ideology
that requires ignoring those instincts, as I see it, isn’t just going to fail, it
isn’t going to happen.
I may close it there as I can’t think of anything else to contribute.
I may close it there as I can’t think of anything else to contribute.
12 days later
-->
@Elliott
In the future, I'm going to make a more concrete post operationalizing some of the core arguments of transhumanism/posthumanism, so look out for that if you're interested.I will keep an eye out.
I've given somewhat more practical solutions to what I'm talking about here: Post-tribal human: Redesigning the human brain (debateart.com)
The overall argument is better crystalized, too.
-->
@Avery
I've given somewhat more practical solutions to what I'm talking about here: Post-tribal human: Redesigning the human brain (debateart.com)The overall argument is better crystalized, too.
Thanks, I will check it out, looks interesting.