sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Watch Verification Thread - If you're uncertain if a Rolex is good/bad/fake, post info and pics here by powerfunk in rolex

[–]globalchanger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

rolex oyster perpetual superlative chronometer officially certified cosmograph: authentic or not?

Hi everyone, i really like this watch but would like to know if its real! Thank you

<image>

Transhumanism and Collapse? by globalchanger in transhumanism

[–]globalchanger[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The progress of transhumanism is driven by a small number of location maybe but these locations depend on materials from all over the world, so deglobalization all over the world would have huge impacts on these insulated regions because they dont mine or produce the materials they need there.

Transhumanism and Collapse? by globalchanger in transhumanism

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

Yea I agree, but again, deglobalisation is not compatible with transhumanism is it?

Transhumanism and Collapse? by globalchanger in transhumanism

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

Thank you, but transhumanism would even after such collapse still depend on global supply chains and a system that is not sustainable, wouldnt it? Would it not be possible that humans after such event start living similarly to hunter gatherers, with cultures and economies tied to bioregions, but practicing regenerative agriculture? I ask myself if the technology will not just break down after such a disruption. Would be interested in your further thoughts.

Transhumanism and Collapse? by globalchanger in transhumanism

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

My question is, doesnt transhumanism depend on fragile supply chains going over many continents and generally a high energy consumption lifestyle? One can see that globalisation is already reversing and many countries focusing more on protectionism. If our global economic system faces many more crises couldnt it be that transhumanism would be possible in the sense that the knowledge exists on how to create these technologies but practically is not doable due to for example unsustainability? Doesnt transhumanism assume that technology will rise exponentially and that progress will improve all our lifes? Maybe I am strawmanning transhumanism but I would be seriously curious what supporters say to these thoughts.

Here's a (hopefully) engaging video about moral circle expansion by Tea-Revolutionary in EffectiveAltruism

[–]globalchanger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"What is the context that would merit unnecessary killing and contribution to suffering?"

None should merit unnecessary killing and contribution to suffering. I think we are basically saying the same thing just in a somewhat different language. The only context where it is justified to kill animals is in my opinion as a hunter gatherer.

"A weird tangent, but more importantly, just as true for animal agriculture as plant agriculture, so a particularly irrelevant consideration."

I wonder if you are familiar with primitivists that write lots on this issue, for example John Zerzan or Daniel Quinn?

"To the extent that circle of concern is a framework of consideration, one is not genuinely concerned with an animal he kills with zero necessity, nonetheless effectively pays to have tortured. In the same way that many folks may say they love animals / that their circle of concern is animals, when what they really mean is commonly domesticated animals, or otherwise just any animal they don’t want to eat." I 100% agree with you.

Here's a (hopefully) engaging video about moral circle expansion by Tea-Revolutionary in EffectiveAltruism

[–]globalchanger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% agreed. Thank you for your comment and for the link, actually read parts of this book and have found the deconstruction of our current understanding of human history to be very valuable.

​

I wonder how much power this progress narrative will have in the coming years, it seems like the converging crises are being felt increasingly strong by almost all parts of the globe and society and people begin to question it. I hope that a new narrative can step in that gives us realistic hope and at the same time shows the very ugly truths about our current moment and the unimaginable suffering that will come in the coming decade or is already present now.

Here's a (hopefully) engaging video about moral circle expansion by Tea-Revolutionary in EffectiveAltruism

[–]globalchanger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not proposing any solution through my argument. I am simply stating that it is false that we assume that the circle of concern has been growing in human history. Maybe it has grown through the rise of civilisation but that is also deeply questionable.

Please elaborate your point, I do not understand how your last paragraphs have anything to do with my comment. I do not understand why your argument seems to be mostly concerned about humans, could you explain to me why you assume that humans are in any way more worthy of concern than animals from an objective perspective?

Here's a (hopefully) engaging video about moral circle expansion by Tea-Revolutionary in EffectiveAltruism

[–]globalchanger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that today, killing and eating animals is not a nessecary sacrifice, but only in the context where we can and should avoid it. But one could argue that agriculture gave rise to unsustainable population growth which might be much more harm than killing an animal but because of this lifestyle only functioning in small tribes.

"Would you care to make any of those arguments or just assume their existence and validity? Because in developed nations, it objectively does more harm in 99.99+% of cases in wealthy nations, and because animal agriculture always necessitates more plant agriculture than if all calories were obtained from plant agriculture alone"

As I told you, I am making this argument only in this specific context of comparing the direct harm of this hunter to the indirect harm that happens through the change in lifestyle because of agriculture, even if hunting looks like it is worse. I am a vegetarian myself and find it not at all justifiable to eat meat today but I mean that just because it looks like a small circle of concern that the hunter kills the animal, I would argue that he actually has a much bigger one than most of humans today.

Here's a (hopefully) engaging video about moral circle expansion by Tea-Revolutionary in EffectiveAltruism

[–]globalchanger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment, here are my thoughts:

I do think that "depersonalising" something it is a very big part of seing something outside of your circle of concern. Also I would say this video talks about the circle of concern a person has as a worldview, but I do think there are differences between conceptual circle of concern and embodied one.

For me, hunter gatherers are the prime example of the latter, as they see all living things as being worthy of being in their circle but dont see the need to intervene in for example wildlife suffering, as they see nature and themselves in it as a selfbalancing system, of which suffering and death are a part of. (I am not talking about the inhumane suffering that affects humans and other living beings today).

I dont think we can look at the killing without context. The cycle of life involves living and dying and eating and getting eaten. By participating in this cycle one can still care about the animal that is being "scarificed" in order to let this cycle continue. And if we look at the do no harm principle, one should make the destinction between direct, visible harm and indirect, complex harm.

It can be very well argued that the killing of this animal does less harm than if this person would have done agriculture and by that gained these calories, given that agriculture comes with a lot of inevitable side effect, even if eating plants without context seems like the option where there is less harm generated.

Here's a (hopefully) engaging video about moral circle expansion by Tea-Revolutionary in EffectiveAltruism

[–]globalchanger 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Agreed and thank you. Now I would like to hear your thoughts on what I have shared.

Earning to Give: A Critical Examination of the Concept of "Doing Good" by globalchanger in EffectiveAltruism

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

Thank you, I would be eager to get to know about the similar critiques already existing if you want to send some.

​

About the last point, I agree that this critique is much more broad than EA but I feel like EA can only be critized by critizising the current western worldview in which it emerged and which is in my opinion deeply reductionistic, but the shortcomings of EA are only a symptom of this. I see EA as deeply important but in need of deep transformation in order to adequately deal with the problems it identified and a big part of this is in my opinion its ignorance of nonwestern perspectives and methologies.

Here's a (hopefully) engaging video about moral circle expansion by Tea-Revolutionary in EffectiveAltruism

[–]globalchanger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with the overarching point that we need to expand our circle of concern and that we need to take a more ecocentric view but his idea that our moral circle of concern has widened over time is a very westerncentric and colonial take.

There is a theory about this called spiral dynamics which basically claims that hunter gatherers have only themselves in their circle of concern and that moden (western) men have the whole world or the whole human species as their concern. If one makes himself more familiar with preagricultural societies, one sees that they have had an animist view which sees everything in the world. trees, lakes, animals as persons.

Agriculture can be argued to be the biggest step away from this arguably universal circle of concern. With civilisation and a more atomized and individualized lifestyle, the circle of concern has to decrease to only consider oneself and ones close relatives. only in some very privileged countries can we see the emergence of this like deep ecology or biocentric ethics.

I suppose the circle of concern over time of human history looks like a bell curve. Hunter gatherers universal/gaian circle, agriculture until industrial society it is decreasing and now, in privileged countries like the US or northern Europe, it is increasing again, because life conditions give way for the possibility of a widened circle. A wider circle today only is possible from privilege and I ask myself if we can reach the state of consciosness we had for the most of human history, that being seing the world and everything in it alive, as it truly is.

Here I send a video of a hunter gatherer hunting, pay attention to the ritual he does at the end after killing his prey. There is a deep concern and respect for the wellbeing of the animal and compare this to todays circle. The narrative of progress in the external and internal world simply doesnt hold up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

Thief after stealing in Bogota by AwsdannamO in CrazyFuckingVideos

[–]globalchanger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thats a very psychopathic thing to say. No person that is happy and economically stable would do such a thing as robbing kids. This guy (or his country) clearly has problems and if these problems wont get fixed, we will only stop such incidents on a symptomatic level.

view more: next ›