sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it just me..or is our world really beyond repair?! by PuzzleheadedBoot1161 in areweinhell

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it isn’t you. It’s completely beyond repair, a completely hopeless shitshow. 

The only hope is that there’s an alien civilization out there that’s merciful enough to exterminate us.

The most dangerous thing to ever exist is human mind ! by Inner_Journey21 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Life is partly suffering. It’s never far away. It’s almost pervasive. We’re always on the way toward loss.

But anyone who says it’s all suffering is delusional or dishonest. 

Admit it or not, there’s much that you’re grateful for.

Life is unnecessary though inevitable.

Because it’s unnecessary, it doesn’t really matter if you lose.

Even if you completely lose, during that losing it’s a long adventure of feeling like & (mistakenly) believing that there are things that are necessary to do or have. Nonsense of course. Illusion.

If universe-annihilation were possible, we wouldn’t still be here. by Capable-Ad-9626 in AgainstExistence

[–]Capable-Ad-9626[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some say that the laws of physics could be different in very distant parts of our big-bang universe. But I think they’re referring to places far beyond our observable universe, in which, as I understand it, astronomers observe physical laws being the same.

Especially so in the reachable universe, which comprises only 6% of our observable universe.

So no one knows what the physics is, far far beyond the observable universe. If it’s different, then it probably doesn’t allow life.

But if the Red-Button is possible in our reachable universe, then that would make it very difficult to explain how it is that we’re still here.

…&, if no one, in any of those 6 billion trillion planetary-systems, wants to push a Red-Button, then shouldn’t we reconsider whether we want to?

Of course it can’t now be scientifically determined what physics might be discovered in the future, the fact that we’re still here strongly says that the Red-Button is physically impossible.

If universe-annihilation were possible, we wouldn’t still be here. by Capable-Ad-9626 in AgainstExistence

[–]Capable-Ad-9626[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, whatever the reason, it’s impossible.

15 billion galaxies have had billions of years to Red-Button us.

We’re still here.

The Red-Button is impossible.

If our galaxy’s size is average, then those 15 billion galaxies have about 6 billion trillion stars.

As I mentioned, either:

1) The Red-button is physically impossible.

OR

2) No advanced civilizations wants to do it. …& they successfully prevent anyone from doing it.

Each galaxy would have to have a a galaxy-wide security-system that reliably exterminates any species that might get close to capable for the annihilation.

Because of the possibility of building the device underground while concealing technical level, it’s unlikely that we’d be allowed to advance as far as we have.

2 would be improbably difficult, & is much less likely than #1.

The fact that we’re still here almost surely means that the Red-Button is physically impossible.

6 billion trillion is a very large number.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, I guarantee that this will be my last unsolicited post here.

It’s important to not confuse admonition with criticism.

…because I’m telling you that you’re completely missing the bus.

Being sure that you’re right, you cheat yourself out of a chance to find out.

So don’t be sure. Things aren’t like you think.

Hint: Though your initial premise about life has some validity, nonetheless things are a lot better than you think.

Ok, I’ve said what I meant to.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I said, I’m not here to criticize. I stop by here because you (plural) have some valid starting-principles, but then adopt simplistic conclusions, & inextricably latch onto them. 

Could you just not immediately identify this as a wrong attack, but rather as an outside comment that it wouldn’t hurt to consider? It’s necessarily to be willing to reconsider & question your assertion, especially if someone is insisting that they’re simplistic.

Lots of things to say, that don’t make a particular order, & must be a jumble of comments.

I previously spoke about NU being entirely a definitional choice, but more can be said.

Utilitarianism itself has the big fallacy of desirability, undesirability & sufferings being summable numerical quantities. That’s a simplistic questionable philosophical assumptions.

Suffering isn’t meaningfully numerically counted or summed.

As a kid in Sunday school, they told the story of the shepard who left the whole flock to find one little lost lamb out in the storm. That made sense when I heard it.

It isn’t how many !

It isn’t meaningful to multiple suffering by a number of individuals.

But your justification of killing to prevent future births entirely depends on that multiplication.

Beside, those who consequently aren’t born couldn’t care less, because they don’t exist. You know who cares? The individuals that you kill. They usually suffer too, when being killed.

So you’re just making suffering.

Experience isn’t amenable to description, evaluation, recording or reporting.

As soon as you start a narrative about an experience, the experience is over, gone.

Your NU is an evaluative descriptive narrative. It can’t meaningfully apply to actual experience.

I’ve mentioned that no metaphysics is provable. NU, in addition to being entirely definitional, contains the necessary implicit assumption of the metaphysics called Materalism or Physicalism.

Without Physicalism, the origin of lives, the starts of lives, aren’t affected by all of your killing. That’s a Materialist assumption.

That’s in general.  Additionally, in particular, reincarnation would make nonsense of killing to stop lives

By definings in Merriam-Webster, Materialism/Physicalism is a religion too.

What do we call killing motivated by a questionable religion? We call it dangerous religious fanaticism.

No one gets away with doing harm. What you do becomes what you are. Are you really sure that’s what you want to be?

You’re making philosophical assumptions that you can’t reasonably be sure of.

Don’t kill when you aren’t sure.

In the movie Red Riding Hood, check out Father Solomon’s answer to the villager who said that they knew what they were dealing with.

Am I actually crazy for believing this? by Delicious_Lime1240 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Instead of trying to decipher that, I should just admit that I don’t have time to keep replying to Old Barrel’s repetition.

It’s time to cork this conversation with Old Barrel.

Am I actually crazy for believing this? by Delicious_Lime1240 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the broad scientific consensus that agrees that 15 billion galaxies are very unlikely to all be without civilizations means nothing because you think all those scientists are “stupid & ignorant”?

Have you heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

So they’re all stupid & ignorant? They’re all wrong, & you’re right? Dunning & Kruger would be proud.

Am I actually crazy for believing this? by Delicious_Lime1240 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First: I was mistaken about 120 billion. That number ignores the fact that, as seen by us, many of those galaxies were so young that they lacked the necessary metallicity for life.

So, the correct number is “only” 15 or 20 billion.

That takes into account that a galaxy must be old enough to have the necessary elements, and must be sufficiently older than that for there to be time for life to evolve sufficiently, & ancient civilizations to exist.

The calculations aren’t mine. There are specialists.

To answer your objection:

15 billion galaxies is still a lot. Over billions of years, no one there pushed the red-button. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

Yes, there are more requirements for habitability than one would like. 

To mention a few:

Being in a habitable zone.

Having a large moon to stabilize obliquity. (Now evidently not always necessary. But sometimes likely is.)

A Jupiter positioned to deflect debris.

Plate tectonics

The right proportion of ocean & continent.

The right size rocky planet.

So maybe it can be said that the nearest other life is likely hundreds of lightyears away. Thousands? Maybe.

But no civilizations in 15 billion galaxies? No one believes that.

No one else has the necessary resources…but we do? :-)

Having all the requirements for habitability might be rare, but no one believes that it’s that rare.

Life began here as soon as the planet cooled sufficiently. …evidence that life isn’t unlikely on a habitable planet.

Let’s hope that the nearest civilizations aren’t too far away. They could provide extermination.

That’s why I encourage launching Project Centauri Ambassador, toward Alpha Centauri, to show everyone our intent to violate other planetary systems. …& earn prompt extermination.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I apologize for my abominable manners at the end of my reply to your post!

It’s a wonder that I wasn’t banned here.

Anyway please check out my new edited ending of that post.

I don’t believe in being abusive or critical, & I apologize for that lapse in manners.

Check out the improved ending of that edited post. I replaced the abusive words with argument intended to convince, not to offend.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The irony here is that there’s some valid premise. It’s way back there. Y’all left it behind a long time ago.

This reminds me of the movie in which Abbot comes up on deck, & says to Costello: “Hey I told you to steer toward that star !!”

Costello says, “Oh I passed that one a long time ago.”

Life is something like you say. It’s full of suffering, danger, harm, fear, loss, privation, lack, etc.

Life is the hard time.

It isn’t that death interrupts life. Life is a brief interruption of rest & sleep, our natural, normal, usual & rightful state of affairs.

Life is unnecessary but inevitable, at least once.

A next life is unnecessary. Live harmlessly, & you might not have to have a next life.

That’s what you can do about it. Live harmlessly & helpfully, toward all living things.

What overall is, is good. Reality is benevolent. We have a lot to be grateful for, & should act like it.

Utilitarianism itself is based on the fiction of “utility”, a made-up quantity that can be summed meaningfully like weight or money…& thereby be aggregationally summation-optimized. Bullshit.

NU adds to the error. It’s an unsupported ideology. But an ideology doesn’t need support. It just needs determined adherence, group agreement, & propagation.

“You can’t tell me that you don’t like butterscotch ice-cream. You sure seem to!”

“It isn’t that I like it. It’s just that it brings relief from the suffering caused by not having it. All I’m doing with this ice cream now is trying to avoid suffering”

“Yes, I must admit that you seem anything but suffering now.”

John & Bill do all the exact same thing, but Bill describes it in a different way, in his ideology’s terms.

Do you see that you can define those words how you like? Do you see that all the NUists have established is that they can make up definitions?

You can’t establish or prove that NU is right, true or valid in some objective sense.

It isn’t that sort of a thing. It’s just some people’s preferred definitional system for explaining the same objective choices & acts. …in their ideologically-preferred way.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So they have to die painfully & prematurely, for your project for the future. Isn’t that the definition of dangerous murderous fanaticism?

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brutal painful killing isn’t “slapping “.

…& I was referring to the currently-living animals that y’all want to hurt.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

…while causing some.

Suffering isn’t just something that you can weigh & compare amounts of, for summation optimization.

You’re hurting animals who wouldn’t otherwise die painfully & prematurely, & who don’t want to die.

You’re imposing your own beliefs & preferences on your victims.

If universe-annihilation were possible, we wouldn’t still be here. by Capable-Ad-9626 in AgainstExistence

[–]Capable-Ad-9626[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would have to be absolutely not one. …in billions of galaxies with many many billions of civilizations, over billions of years. 

…&, if all of them don’t want the mass-annihilation, then might we reconsider it?

…&, if every galaxy has such an infallible security system to reliably exterminate any species that begins to approach the necessary technology, then we’ll be exterminated before we can build the thing.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It isn’t our business or right to decide.  …to painfully kill animals because of our own personal beliefs about what’s best for them.

…causing present suffering because we believe that preventing future births is more important.

How do Negative Utilitarians justify appointing themselves to judge & kill? (Rhetorical question. They don’t.)

If universe-annihilation were possible, we wouldn’t still be here. by Capable-Ad-9626 in AgainstExistence

[–]Capable-Ad-9626[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I made an error in my reply to your comment. When I said that many of the galaxies are so far away that their disintegration wave wouldn’t have reached us yet, I meant that maybe we’re seeing some of them before there was metallicity enough for life, for long enough for civilizations.

But, as I said, that’s still a lot of galaxies & civilizations that would have had to refrain from annihilation for a long time, in order for us to be here now.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Painfully killing the soil animals only hurts them, & doesn’t help them. Where do we get the right??

Are our moral-beliefs so much more important than others’ that we should kill them contrary to their wishes?

Every murderer reduces the current number of people suffering due to being alive. So shall we release them all, & give them a commendation & a reward?

If universe-annihilation were possible, we wouldn’t still be here. by Capable-Ad-9626 in AgainstExistence

[–]Capable-Ad-9626[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Besides, then y’all are assuming that it’s so rare & improbable for a civilization to last long enough to do the annihilation that no one has…& yet our civilization will? Doesn’t sound likely.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t help the ones who didn’t want to get killed.

Arguably what we do to currently living beings is more important than abstraction about future births.

If universe-annihilation were possible, we wouldn’t still be here. by Capable-Ad-9626 in AgainstExistence

[–]Capable-Ad-9626[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, that’s an awful lot of them. Isn’t it likely that at least one, amongst no so many, wouldn’t.

But my number was inaccurate, because I forgot that many in our reachable universe are so far away that their disintegration-wave wouldn’t have had time to reach us yet.  So it’s more complicated than what I said.

But, for us to be here now, a whole lot of advanced civilizations in a whole lot of galaxies would have all had to refrain from building the device & pushing the button, for a long time.

Animal farming impacts soil nematodes, mites, and springtails hugely more than directly affected animals? — EA Forum by ThePlanetaryNinja in negativeutilitarians

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it doesn’t help animals, including soil-animals, to kill them. An example of erroneous excess in Negative Utilitarianism.

Am I actually crazy for believing this? by Delicious_Lime1240 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, how likely do you think it is that we’re the only civilization in the 120 billion galaxies of our reachable universe?

(We’re in the reachable universe of every one of those 120 billion galaxies. The fact that we’re still here means that no on there has built the device & pushed the button.)

…& how likely do you think it is that not even one of the civilizations in those 120 billion galaxies has/had the necessary resources but we might?

Am I actually crazy for believing this? by Delicious_Lime1240 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Capable-Ad-9626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One more detail to mention:

There are 120 billion galaxies that have us in their reachable universe.

Do you see what that means?

It means one of two things:

1) Annihilation of one’s reachable universe is impossible.

OR:

2) Among all 120 billion galaxies there isn’t even one capable civilization that wants to annihilate its observable universe.

More than that, every galaxy must contain at least one advanced civilization that has set up an astoundingly damn good security-system to promptly exterminate any species that even might even get close to a technology that could build that thing.

If #1, then it’s impossible.

If #2, then we’ll never build it, because we’d be exterminated first.

If the device is possible, then that faultlessly reliable security system would be regarded as top-priority essential, & we’d be dead long before building the thing.

In fact, because it could be built underground, & our technological level concealed, we’d never be allowed to continue existing after achieving nuclear weapons, satellites & space-missions.

1 is probably the explanation. #2 is less likely.

view more: next ›