3 ms·

So someone is evil because they answer questions by thinking through them? There are no questions in the universe that can’t be stopped and pondered over. In fa

So someone is evil because they answer questions by thinking through them? There are no questions in the universe that can’t be stopped and pondered over. In fact, it’s dangerous to even suggest that, that’s the exact mechanism that propaganda runs on.

pfraze 8mo ago
Ah yes, the real danger to the world isn’t a powerful man feeling ambivalent about our survival. The real danger is society using that moment as propaganda. This regarding Thiel, a man who most recently tried to make a “Greta Thunberg is the Antichrist” meme stick.
- ozmodiar 8mo ago
  Not to mention that he and his cohorts had such close ties to Epstein that I find it impossible to imagine he didn't know exactly what was going on. This is someone who's known for building profiles of anyone who mentions him online, not some ambivalent rich guy.
- EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
  Hesitating to answer a question that may have nuance is not being “ambivalent”. He literally says “there’s multiple questions implicit here” in response to the question asked of him. I genuinely think people like you making sweeping assumptions about others are way more dangerous. People who refuse to critically think or analyze a situation and jump to conclusions.
  - trinsic2 8mo ago
    You pair that with his behavior and you can see pretty clearly the guy does wants to control the world. Stop trying to see this in isolation of that one event.
- stale2002 8mo ago
  Question 1: If a human modifies with themselves with enough sci-fi tier technology are they still "Human"? (And therefore if humans "ascend" past their biology, humanity technically wouldn't survive) Question 2: If a person cannot conceive that the 1st question is an interesting question, with multiple nuances, are they basically an idiot?
  - monocasa 8mo ago
    The question wasn't "should all humans not modify themselves", but "should humanity survive". We currently legally protect mostly pre-contact civilizations like Sentinelese, so it stands to reason that regardless of what some people choose, other people will forgo transhumanist modifications, and "humanity" will survive regardless of what technology occurs or where your definition ends. Unless of course the end goal is only a few billionaires get to live with their AI ppowered city states at most using servitors and decraniated as robots.
Spivak 8mo ago
Actually evil, no. Forever changed by their enormous wealth which messes you up mentally in a lots of fun unique ways, changes the nature of every relationship you'll have post wealth, and feeds into your ego and all your latent neurosis further and further alienating you from and believing yourself above your fellow man, yes. Evil is just a shorthand.
- EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
  What you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong, I just don’t think it adds up cleanly to “evil”. Skipping nuance is bad, I think

pfraze 8mo ago

Ah yes, the real danger to the world isn’t a powerful man feeling ambivalent about our survival. The real danger is society using that moment as propaganda. This regarding Thiel, a man who most recently tried to make a “Greta Thunberg is the Antichrist” meme stick.

ozmodiar 8mo ago
Not to mention that he and his cohorts had such close ties to Epstein that I find it impossible to imagine he didn't know exactly what was going on. This is someone who's known for building profiles of anyone who mentions him online, not some ambivalent rich guy.
EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
Hesitating to answer a question that may have nuance is not being “ambivalent”. He literally says “there’s multiple questions implicit here” in response to the question asked of him. I genuinely think people like you making sweeping assumptions about others are way more dangerous. People who refuse to critically think or analyze a situation and jump to conclusions.
- trinsic2 8mo ago
  You pair that with his behavior and you can see pretty clearly the guy does wants to control the world. Stop trying to see this in isolation of that one event.
stale2002 8mo ago
Question 1: If a human modifies with themselves with enough sci-fi tier technology are they still "Human"? (And therefore if humans "ascend" past their biology, humanity technically wouldn't survive) Question 2: If a person cannot conceive that the 1st question is an interesting question, with multiple nuances, are they basically an idiot?
- monocasa 8mo ago
  The question wasn't "should all humans not modify themselves", but "should humanity survive". We currently legally protect mostly pre-contact civilizations like Sentinelese, so it stands to reason that regardless of what some people choose, other people will forgo transhumanist modifications, and "humanity" will survive regardless of what technology occurs or where your definition ends. Unless of course the end goal is only a few billionaires get to live with their AI ppowered city states at most using servitors and decraniated as robots.

Spivak 8mo ago

Actually evil, no. Forever changed by their enormous wealth which messes you up mentally in a lots of fun unique ways, changes the nature of every relationship you'll have post wealth, and feeds into your ego and all your latent neurosis further and further alienating you from and believing yourself above your fellow man, yes. Evil is just a shorthand.

EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
What you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong, I just don’t think it adds up cleanly to “evil”. Skipping nuance is bad, I think