3 ms·

It's like sneaking up on someone from behind with a knife to slit their throat while talking about how they just "should" accept that, but since they won't, you

It's like sneaking up on someone from behind with a knife to slit their throat while talking about how they just "should" accept that, but since they won't, you have to force it on them. And of course people who say different things with different sides of their mouth don't see a problem with that. Of course people who identify with necrophilia more than biophilia don't see a problem with that. Blind people walking across paintings don't see a problem with that.

yorwba 9y ago
I'm not sure what you take "going into oblivion" to mean, but I interpret it as most humans no longer reproducing or even ditching their biological forms in favor of an upload. Obviously eliminating humans by violent means would be immoral, but I don't see the problem with individuals deciding not to sustain humanity as it exists now.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  The fact of doing it in the shadows makes that interpretation impossible though.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    I don't know who you are talking about, so I can only work from my own interpretation, but there are all kinds of reasons you might want to do something in secret, even if it does not involve killing all humans. For example, if you want to replace all human labor by robots, a lot of people would be against that, because they fear being unemployed. But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal.
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      That's the best case, I'm talking about the worst case. It's a bit like you don't have unprotected sex with strangers because "they might not have HIV". You don't play around with this stuff. I'm furthermore encouraged in my "skepticism" (to put it mildly) by the abstract, alienated language some people use. > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. -- Stephen Hawking in a very lucid moment, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... Those who don't address that first, who cannot ENSURE that they're building a nuclear power plant and not an atom bomb, have no excuse.
    - hueving 9y ago
      >But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal. Taking away peoples' roles and turning them into welfare recipients is not universally seen as a good thing. Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. Taking away their job and providing them food and shelter does not solve that problem.
      - miguelrochefort 9y ago
        > Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. You don't feel like you contribute to society when your job is easily obsolete/easily automated.
        hueving 9y ago
        That's wrong. Most cooking is easily automated (still expensive) but people get fulfillment from cooking food for other people.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        > Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. Many people got fulfillment from playing Chess, or Go, or weaving, or tilling a field with their own hands. Many, but fewer people, still enjoy doing these things today, although machines are better at it than them. Others have moved on to other ways of self-fulfillment. If you oppose automation of activities people find fulfillment in, you should oppose game-playing AI much more than jobs being automated away. There are much fewer people that hate playing board games but have to do it anyway because it's the one skill they have that will put bread on the table.
        hueving 9y ago
        You missed the point. The fulfillment isn't from the activity, it's from being depended on by other people to perform the activity. An interesting hobby like Chess or Go by definition can't replace the need to be depended on and feel like you are contributing.
miguelrochefort 9y ago
When species become obsolete, they go instinct or get put in a zoo. I expect the same thing will eventually happen to humans.

yorwba 9y ago

I'm not sure what you take "going into oblivion" to mean, but I interpret it as most humans no longer reproducing or even ditching their biological forms in favor of an upload. Obviously eliminating humans by violent means would be immoral, but I don't see the problem with individuals deciding not to sustain humanity as it exists now.

thinkfurther 9y ago
The fact of doing it in the shadows makes that interpretation impossible though.
- yorwba 9y ago
  I don't know who you are talking about, so I can only work from my own interpretation, but there are all kinds of reasons you might want to do something in secret, even if it does not involve killing all humans. For example, if you want to replace all human labor by robots, a lot of people would be against that, because they fear being unemployed. But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    That's the best case, I'm talking about the worst case. It's a bit like you don't have unprotected sex with strangers because "they might not have HIV". You don't play around with this stuff. I'm furthermore encouraged in my "skepticism" (to put it mildly) by the abstract, alienated language some people use. > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. -- Stephen Hawking in a very lucid moment, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... Those who don't address that first, who cannot ENSURE that they're building a nuclear power plant and not an atom bomb, have no excuse.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal. Taking away peoples' roles and turning them into welfare recipients is not universally seen as a good thing. Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. Taking away their job and providing them food and shelter does not solve that problem.
    - miguelrochefort 9y ago
      > Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. You don't feel like you contribute to society when your job is easily obsolete/easily automated.
      - hueving 9y ago
        That's wrong. Most cooking is easily automated (still expensive) but people get fulfillment from cooking food for other people.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      > Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. Many people got fulfillment from playing Chess, or Go, or weaving, or tilling a field with their own hands. Many, but fewer people, still enjoy doing these things today, although machines are better at it than them. Others have moved on to other ways of self-fulfillment. If you oppose automation of activities people find fulfillment in, you should oppose game-playing AI much more than jobs being automated away. There are much fewer people that hate playing board games but have to do it anyway because it's the one skill they have that will put bread on the table.
      - hueving 9y ago
        You missed the point. The fulfillment isn't from the activity, it's from being depended on by other people to perform the activity. An interesting hobby like Chess or Go by definition can't replace the need to be depended on and feel like you are contributing.

miguelrochefort 9y ago

When species become obsolete, they go instinct or get put in a zoo. I expect the same thing will eventually happen to humans.