3 ms·

"From a gods-eye perspective, this is actually a good thing, as it brings down the costs of serving peoples' needs." Why do you define 'good' as servicing need

"From a gods-eye perspective, this is actually a good thing, as it brings down the costs of serving peoples' needs." Why do you define 'good' as servicing needs of members of homo sapiens species? What if a good thing(objectively) is actually servicing members of 'fire ant' species? You attitude smells like speciesism. "From the perspective of someone who loses their job, it sucks because that person now has no way to feed themselves." Yep, just like a lot of other animals. You look at some of those animals in the jungle - maybe you'll eat if you're lucky and survive long enough to reproduce. It's a struggle for them. When a zebra is killed by a lion, it ain't nice for the zebra. "So, we want to get around that by being able to say to someone: "Here is a free $700/month. Move to rural Maine and spend 6 months learning to code and eating food delivered by the driverless truck which stole your job. Then join us in automating more people's jobs away." Again, this smells like speciesism. Why do you want to spend your time helping members of homo sapiens species? Was that the result of brainwashing during your childhood or did you independantly discover that it is your duty to help members of homo sapiens species? "Very few people think that sex is a basic right or think that the existence of sexually frustrated folks indicates a flaw on the part of society." You forgot to add 'today' or 'these days'. Why is what majority thinks an indicator of truth? "Most people don't put sex and food/shelter/medicine/etc in the same categories." Again, you're going by what majority thinks. Do you care about truth or what majority thinks? "Also, we can't really automate the production of sex." Modern tech can certainly help. For example, you spy on people to see who is attractive and having lots of sex. Then, you sexually tax those people. You locate, kidnapp and take them to someone who is unattractive. From the perspective of the receiver, it will be automated, 'cause they'll be getting women frequantly with no effort.

afarrell 11y ago
> Why is what the majority thinks an indicator of truth. I'm not arguing about The Great Objective Truth That Pervades The Universe or whatever. I'm arguing about why HN readers are in favor of one thing but not another. > You attitude smells like speciesism Yep, I am explicitly speciesist. I value the lives and experiences of humans more than I value those of non-humans animals. > kidnap someone...'cause they'll be getting women frequantly with no effort I assert without evidence that for most people, sexually assaulting someone would be a very unpleasant experience. I certainly find the idea utterly repugnant. In fact, this point I'm going to say its pretty likely you're just playing with utterly repugnant concepts for either the joy of saying repugnant things on the off-chance that it will result in us finding some interesting and useful way of explaining a part of the world. Just to let you know, I don't think most people here want to join you in this exploration. I certainly don't. Seriously. Also, examine your gender assumptions.
drdeca 11y ago
I was looking at the start of this comment, which I found merely wrong, and then I got to the end. Wat. An approximately rational truth seeking community can reasonably be expected to come to a reasonably good approximation of the truth, compared to what they have access to. As such, such a community can be used as an (approximate) indicator of the truth. Moral relativism can fall down a well. (emphasis on the ism. I don't mean ists. It is a rhetorical statement, not a literal one.)
- sly_foxx 11y ago
  "An approximately rational truth seeking community can reasonably be expected to come to a reasonably good approximation of the truth, compared to what they have access to. As such, such a community can be used as an (approximate) indicator of the truth." - You're writing about a rational truth seeking community when the user @afarrell is writing about majority of people. Do you see the difference? People (members of homo sapiens sapiens species) have not evolved to seek truth, but to survive and reproduce. "Moral relativism can fall down a well." - How can moral relativism fall down? What does that even look like? Fall according to what standard? Is the standard relative or not?
  - drdeca 11y ago
    see: "It is a rhetorical statement, not a literal one." I was expressing [distaste/dislike/disapproval] [for/of] moral relativism. Was this somehow not obvious to you? Are you merely feigning incomprehension? If you are, to what end? (Would you think that I would think that it benefits your reproductive fitness?) > You're writing about a rational truth seeking community I included the word "approximately". Do you think that if I was asked if I included it for no reason, that I would answer "yes"? Which would occur more, with nothing else changed arbitrarily: A collection which is more capable of achieving ends, or one which is less capable of achieving ends, becoming more prevalent than the other over time, if both have being prevalent as an end? Would a correct understanding of decision theory predict that having more or less true information, all else being equal, would result in an entity being more or less successful in achieving its ends? What do you mean when you use the word "to"? Do you mean "such that ___ occurs"? Is that what the word is commonly used to mean? (What about in the question immediately preceding this one?)

afarrell 11y ago

> Why is what the majority thinks an indicator of truth. I'm not arguing about The Great Objective Truth That Pervades The Universe or whatever. I'm arguing about why HN readers are in favor of one thing but not another. > You attitude smells like speciesism Yep, I am explicitly speciesist. I value the lives and experiences of humans more than I value those of non-humans animals. > kidnap someone...'cause they'll be getting women frequantly with no effort I assert without evidence that for most people, sexually assaulting someone would be a very unpleasant experience. I certainly find the idea utterly repugnant. In fact, this point I'm going to say its pretty likely you're just playing with utterly repugnant concepts for either the joy of saying repugnant things on the off-chance that it will result in us finding some interesting and useful way of explaining a part of the world. Just to let you know, I don't think most people here want to join you in this exploration. I certainly don't. Seriously. Also, examine your gender assumptions.

drdeca 11y ago

I was looking at the start of this comment, which I found merely wrong, and then I got to the end. Wat. An approximately rational truth seeking community can reasonably be expected to come to a reasonably good approximation of the truth, compared to what they have access to. As such, such a community can be used as an (approximate) indicator of the truth. Moral relativism can fall down a well. (emphasis on the ism. I don't mean ists. It is a rhetorical statement, not a literal one.)

sly_foxx 11y ago
"An approximately rational truth seeking community can reasonably be expected to come to a reasonably good approximation of the truth, compared to what they have access to. As such, such a community can be used as an (approximate) indicator of the truth." - You're writing about a rational truth seeking community when the user @afarrell is writing about majority of people. Do you see the difference? People (members of homo sapiens sapiens species) have not evolved to seek truth, but to survive and reproduce. "Moral relativism can fall down a well." - How can moral relativism fall down? What does that even look like? Fall according to what standard? Is the standard relative or not?
- drdeca 11y ago
  see: "It is a rhetorical statement, not a literal one." I was expressing [distaste/dislike/disapproval] [for/of] moral relativism. Was this somehow not obvious to you? Are you merely feigning incomprehension? If you are, to what end? (Would you think that I would think that it benefits your reproductive fitness?) > You're writing about a rational truth seeking community I included the word "approximately". Do you think that if I was asked if I included it for no reason, that I would answer "yes"? Which would occur more, with nothing else changed arbitrarily: A collection which is more capable of achieving ends, or one which is less capable of achieving ends, becoming more prevalent than the other over time, if both have being prevalent as an end? Would a correct understanding of decision theory predict that having more or less true information, all else being equal, would result in an entity being more or less successful in achieving its ends? What do you mean when you use the word "to"? Do you mean "such that ___ occurs"? Is that what the word is commonly used to mean? (What about in the question immediately preceding this one?)