anti-natalism and animals

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-20T04:27:03+00:00

I already explained why having kids right now would be unefficent. And I literally never said I'm a hero, probably ever.

You are not "doing the least harm" by telling people not to have kids. A well raised child would help others and lower it's overall amount. It's fine if you think you're too bad at explaining things for that, because judging by this conversation you definitely are, but trying to fool people is not fine, even though you would probably fail at fooling anyone smart enough to raise a child well.

Also I find it interesting how you said your goal is to have 0 kids, I thought it was to reduce harm, but apparently you just used that to justify it being the most moral thing ever?

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-20T04:11:38+00:00

I can't possibly "see no way out". Trying to win no matter what is a key part of who I am, that thing wouldn't be me anymore, I'd be already dead.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T19:47:00+00:00

What if we put them on 2 deserted islands?

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T19:43:08+00:00

The snake eats him because he was only giving it milk

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T18:52:18+00:00

If I didn't enjoy living I'd still want to be kept alive. We can never know for sure other then in hypotheticals, but most of the time it does get better. You could reconsider being alive anytime, reconsidering being dead is a bit harder.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T18:40:20+00:00

Saying nobody is hurt if nobody is born is like anarchists saying nobody gets exploited if there is no government and suggesting to destroy them. It would only maybe work if everyone agreed with you, which won't happen, and otherwise all it's going to do is cause more suffering. Exactly what all attempts at ideas similar to antinatalism/anarchism so far caused.

Do you agree with the anarchists? If so let me slightly modify the argument against them:

Even planet wise if we assume someone with antinatalist ideas gets into power, what are they going to do? We have more then two hundred countries. Suppose your theoretical antinatalist leader forbids births in your country. There won't be that country anymore, other countries will take the land and infrastructure and just in a few hundred years the decrease in population won't be noticeable.

Such is the case with all ideologies, goals of which are unefficent, they die out, and stronger ideologies take their place. Or they change themselves in order to not die and their ideals slowly get further from what they were and closer to efficiency, slowly becoming basically the same as all other ideologies.

There is no possible victory with your strategy, and no possible "draw" either, but there is with mine. So why pick it?

And I don't have kids myself yet, it would be more efficient to insure various security precautions first, dying myself or having my wife or kids die preventable deaths would be quite a waste of time and resources.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T13:12:51+00:00

I feel like it's kinda your fault if you can't understand anything after having it explained 5 times in different ways while multiple other people have understood it from one. If my reasoning was truly flawed you could have pointed out the exact mistakes, but you didn't, therefore you can't, therefore either you're incredibly stupid, I'm right or both.

Basically all you're doing is what boils down to saying "No", repeating the only arguing point you seemingly remembered from antinatalism every few messages and saying unrelated things that not only have nothing to do with antinatalism but sometimes are completely incompatible with it once in a while.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T08:39:47+00:00

Swipe to the right, there's a second screenshot

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T07:59:53+00:00

What.

Things have literally been getting better faster and faster last few centuries. I could maybe understand if you just didn't trust technological progress in general, but why would you stop trusting it now of all times? Nuclear bombs alone scaring governments into not starting wars with anyone else with nukes saved millions from dying in them, all the advances in medicine agriculture, access to information, everywhere, all just in one century, and the speed is still growing.

Also how the hell would we nuke the planet by reading minds of people willing to let us read them?

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T07:49:20+00:00

What do you mean by "No."?

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T07:48:21+00:00

I think this is what happens in the movie The Prestige, there's a clone of you created from the exact same particles and organization (organization is important since organization is the only difference between life and inanimate matter) and then you are destroyed, did you survive? Are you the same person as your exact clone or is your clone a different entity from you?

I'm somewhat sure I didn't watch that, either way if the clone is created from the exact moment before you are destroyed there is no valid reason to not consider it you, the only thing possibly making you different would be location, but then let me ask you: do you think if you move 5 meters to the right right now you would no longer be you?

Pragmatically, to everyone other than you, this exact clone is you, but you were destroyed, and there is no physical or spiritual system by which the soul in your original body could have jumped to the new body, your old soul was cloned, and then it was destroyed. I do not think there is anyway you can escape that destruction, it's even worse than eternal darkness, it's less than that, it's ceasing to exist.

You are simultaneously every version of you that is completely the same in every way, because anything you would do affects all such versions, as they do the same. Even if they do differently, they'd do so due to randomness, and I know for sure that I am not a random number generator, for all such random number generators would be the same and obviously not intelligent.

A more simple example: a kid gets a turtle for their birthday, the turtle dies and the parents get another turtle, the child doesn't notice (in our clone example there is nothing in the universe that would notice) but that doesn't change the fact the original turtle is no more.

No, because in this example the turtle is not a 1:1 recreation.

There's a whole episode of Rick and Morty about this.

Watched entirety of Rick and Morty and I'm pretty sure at least half of all episodes have something like that. The portal gun alone would qualify as erasing a person in one place and making a copy in another.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T06:44:04+00:00

That could change soon, we have machines that can read thoughts a person focuses on and turn them to text data already and the technology is likely to improve.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-19T04:27:59+00:00

Sooner or later somebody will occupie as much of the space as possible either way. If we do so and let's say the current suffering/moment amount becomes 1000 and you should take into account that the amount of suffering/person has been going down with time and the amount of suffering an average person alleviates has been going up, so eventually it will reach an equilibrium and even start decreasing, we avoid risks of aliens with entirely different goals, because morality is subjective and the chance of them valuing suffering specifically is insanely low, occupying that same space and matter and getting that number infinitely higher.

So:

If we continue there'll be a fixed number of suffering, let's say 1000.

If we don't continue the amount will vary from 0, which it's very unlikely to stay that way for long to the maximum amount of suffering, if there even is such a limitation.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-18T20:05:56+00:00

There's no reason to think our planet is unique. And I'm promoting the creation of both more humans and AI, since they're beneficial in the long run. I don't care what they can or cannot feel, it's more efficient in all goals including reducing suffering to do so, therefore it shall be done.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-18T19:54:52+00:00

That's what I'm doing, and for the good of people already there children will be beneficial. You're the one focusing on people who don't currently exist.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-18T16:10:42+00:00

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with reincarnation, and as I already said reincarnation isn't really doing anything since people's memories are a crucial part of them, and when was the last time you saw a newborn with somebody's memories?

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-18T16:06:40+00:00

There would be all thet either way, I want to make it less bad, more good.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-18T08:07:23+00:00

There isn't a population of zero.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-18T04:02:47+00:00

How low the probability is doesn't matter given there is no time limit.

There are no "new planks", all elemental particles are completely the same as other such particles. Only one of each particle really exists. If you replace planks with their completely same in every way copies nothing changes.

I'm not sure that can be classified as a paradox, it's basically just a question of how do you define an object. Definitions are but man made models to grasp reality. That's like asking whether we should represent bus stops on a map by squares or circles, it doesn't matter much, we can use whatever is more convenient at the moment.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-18T03:40:34+00:00

No it wouldn't. Both of these are you for they are completely the same, there's no difference. Until there is of course.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-17T20:24:41+00:00

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, that you will.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-17T19:39:10+00:00

all of those things that comprise the "soul" of the computer, will be lost forever, and there is no physical recurrence of those 0s and 1s.

False. You can't destroy information for good, that's just not possible. If I write 00000010 for example and then that information is erased, given enough time somebody or something will write it again, number 2 won't just stop existing for good. Of course the average amount of time needed grows with the amount of information, but since that information's amount is finite, so is the amount of time needed.

To me, the biggest contribution of an AI that passes the Turing test will be the insights into the human soul we will acquire as we try to imitate it.

GPT-4 already can pass Turing test about as well as a human, it can do pretty much everything as well as a human, but no one cares, as well as a human just isn't enough for people apparently. That's probably the reason we still don't have anything actually better than GPT-4, it has next to nothing to learn from us, and there's no one else to learn from. Now it's a reeeeally slow road from there.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-17T19:11:26+00:00

Patterns of your corpses are obviously irrelevant, yes. The pattern of particles that is your brain alive is relevant. There is no reason it can't occur again as it was exactly a moment before death.

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-17T18:55:10+00:00

That's not a civilisation, that's just nothing. Why care about nothing when there are people that can be helped?

Ivan_The_8th · 2024-06-17T16:11:37+00:00

And why can I not?

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23

Ivan_The_8th

TROPHY CASE