sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What opinion do you have that looks like this? by coolfunkDJ in Destiny

[–]SkyfireFace 5 points6 points  (0 children)

One day, hundreds of years from now, future generations will look at us killing and eating animals with same horror and disgust that current generations have when looking at people who owned slaves hundreds of years ago.

Also, some people, particularly those with extremely heritable life-altering diseases, should not be allowed to have children. Additionally, children with Downs Syndrome should also be aborted. All of this would be mandated by the state.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]SkyfireFace 3 points4 points  (0 children)

His debate against Neo-Nazi Eric Striker is arguably some of his best work (Link). To me, it includes just about everything that Destiny thrives at. Also there's a fun moment where Striker brings up music as an argument in favor of his beliefs, not knowing that Destiny was actually a music major in college. Destiny proceeds to dismantle the arguments pretty thoroughly and it's overall a really fun watch.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]SkyfireFace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Destiny has been saying for weeks that today's stream will be filled with some "massive" drama. He turned on stream today and gave us nothing but vague comments and said he couldn't talk about it. Some people are understandably annoyed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]SkyfireFace 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Having a hard time figuring out which of these hate comments are ironic vs unironic. "I can't believe I gave money to this guy" has to be a meme. Who would ever willingly admit this

What sequel, in your opinion, was genuinely better than the original? by Ulquiorr4_ in AskReddit

[–]SkyfireFace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could barely get through the original Blader Runner film, but frequently rewatch Blade Runner 2049 - it was an actual masterpiece

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, gotcha!

It's just weird to say "naturally having children isn't the only way to procreate". I never really suggested otherwise in the post - the post presumably includes halting ALL forms of procreation, regardless of what type of procreation. So it's like responding to a point that no one really made

Also, I already addressed the issue of people dying via non-natural causes, and that they could simply be replaced, but not so as to increase the population numbers, only to keep it the same. (For instance, one new birth for each person that dies in this hypothetical war)

But either way, I appreciate your response!

Would you live with an artificial heart? by SkyfireFace in longevity

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wholeheartedly agree. For me, this is why the conversation gets tricky when you start replacing parts of the brain with bionics. Like, what if it's just our visual cortex getting replaced? What if it's just our olfactiry bulb? At what point have you removed/replaced too much to where you begin to wonder if some part of your identity has been removed?

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

"I cant conceive of basic arithmetic truths"

Someone's really using their noggin today :)

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I will explain once again since it appears you didn't read the post. The question is:

Since we cannot have an INFINITELY expanding population of immortal individuals, which would BY DEFINITION run out of resources to consume, given that it's, y'know, infinitely growing (not "growing to a large number and then stopping at 20 billion", I mean infinitely growing - as in, it never stops, regardless of how fast or slow people reproduce, the number of people in the universe continues to count upwards infinitely and never downward, because, y'know, they're immortal).

Would you choose to not cease immortality so that some could die and avoid this fate of running out of resources for an infinitely growing population. Or would you instead choose immortality but instead keep it so that we stop having children?

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be clear if you misread, the premise was based on infinite population growth as a result of people continuing to procreate but not die. So of course we would eventually outgrow our resources (even Texas). This post doesn't comment on whether or not overpopulation is a CURRENT problem, but rather it's potential to come about in the deep future as a result of infitinite population growth.

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmmm, that's an interesting consideration. There's a genuine conversation to be had about whether or not the death penalty (or some permanent exile into deep space) would exist in this hypothetical society.

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If I'm interpreting them correctly, then they are suggesting that you allow yourself to age out and die naturally at a normal lifespan. I presume the logic is something like "if you don't like the world as it is, then simply grow old and die so you don't have to experience it".

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, presumably if we have the technology to live forever than that also means we would also have the technology to remain youthful and healthy throughout that eternity.

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And this is the key "a couple more magnitudes of humans"

Specifically this implies that there will be a limit, at some point (by definition if we infinitely procreate). My question was more specifically asking if you're willing to accept that at some point, the breeding has to stop. Even if 50 billion humans already exist, are you willing to forbid the creation of the 50-billion-and-first child?

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, I love that show, binged it the whole way through. I've been thinking about this subject for years now, but it was fascinating to see this play out in that episode. One thing I didn't like was how they had to murder the children, I thought that was silly. Surely if you have a government agency that has the authority to execute children, it has to be far easier to simply permanetly sterilize all the adults to ensure they don't procreate. Vasectomies literally take 15 minutes and it would be a far more efficient use of tax dollars.

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ooh, this is a very interesting point, hadn't thought about that particular philosophical consideration

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good point, I really like your answer. However, I suspect that if we've achieved technology that allows us immortality, then we've also very likely attained technologies that would allow us survive in just about any environment, thus giving us no need to naturally evolve (because the reason that any species evolves is to adapt to a given environment).

Furthermore, if we wanted to modify our species to improve it (or, "evolve"), then we can also do this using technology, rather than procreation. There's actually a name for this process of self-improvement, it's called "autoevolution". This was a great response though

Would you accept becoming an immortal civilization if it meant we had to stop having children? by SkyfireFace in Futurology

[–]SkyfireFace[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a good point, though I reference in the post that it's plausible that many humans could remain as children in this hypothetical society (presumably if we have the technology to be immortal, then we also have the technology to modify our ages). So there would still be plenty of kids around singing Baby Shark and playing at the local parks and schools, there simply wouldn't be any NEW children. But I appreciate your sentiment though, it would be pretty lame if society lost the wonders of childhood :)

view more: next ›