zurew

What does that even mean? We use certain labels to describe certain parts of reality, so if we define mental illness the way Carl did, then how can you deny the existence of mental illness?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg5ew4/gpt4-hired-unwitting-taskrabbit-worker

If you take such a position, you would have to be okay with killing every person who has some kind of severe mental illness or severe disease or deformity (which would be killing millions of people). Where do you draw the line (what constitutes as a severe illness or disease or deformity), and why do you draw it exactly there? What about instances, where a person is physically or mentally seriously hurt for a while, but there is a good chance for recovery? How do you deal with those instances? Or what about the fact, that because of the exponential rate of technological development, as time goes on, we will be able to cure or at the very least, treat more and more severe illnesses and diseases? where do you draw the line, and how do you measure who will suffer more and who will enjoy life more? Even philosophically speaking this will be probably very hard for you to answer, but then we get into the pragmatic side of things, where you created a world where people using the power of institutions can actually kill people and infants based on an arbitrary principle . Once you create a system like that, It doesn't really matter where you drew your line first, because people will be able to eventually move that line elsewhere(and you will inevitably get an almost nazi like world or an even more extreme world, where for instance only the top 1% is allowed to survive) If reducing/preventing suffering is your main argument/objective , then I would ask you this: What is the difference between your position and between an antinatalist position and why do you put more emphasis on suffering than on anything else?

My bad, I misread and misinterpreted your post (I thought that you were referring to an early stage foetus). I somehow missed the word "infanticide" in his post and I disagree with that .

They don't need to think about any of those things to do riots and to participate in a revolution. I already gave two examples where people participated in riots not too long ago (and those were under a democratic framework) now imagine what those people would have done under a dictatorship. If they seriously disagree with your morality that you want to force on them, your system wont last too long. Maybe you could argue that there are some places where people are more okay with complying, but even when it comes to those cases , they are seriously depended on how much they agree with the system that you want to force upon them. Unless you actually create a system where you threat people with death, I don't think most people will comply with your dictatorship - and even if they will for some time - your system won't be sustainable for too long, because some people (within that 1% that you mentioned) will be incredibly motivated to get your power, so they will either want to kill you or at the very least get your position and you will constantly have to fear about that dynamic and eventually your system would be destroyed. Regarding your argument about how much people need to be ruled by an elite: You can argue that most people are not that developed or educated nowadays, but that doesn't mean that it will stay that way. I don't know how much you are attached to the idea of a dictatorship philosophically. What would you say about a hypothetical, where all or at least 90% of the population is very developed and educated (would you still prefer a dictatorship kind of governance, or would you prefer some kind of governance that is much closer to a democracy?) Also no elite or team of elites is capable to actually properly rule the world alone, because its just way too complex and so many things need to be taken into account and everything is interconnected ,so you need all people's or most people's full contribution and collaboration in order to actually maintain systems and to develop and to fix things. Also, as I layed out in my previous responses and above, a dictatorship can't last long and it is determined to be taken over and eventually to be destroyed and you can't even make people to fully contribute to your system (they will contribute as much as they need to not get punished too much, but they won't give their full capability and power, because of reverse incentives and because of moral disagreements vs in a Daniel Schmachtenberger kind of democracy they will contribute with all their will and knowledge, because they will be incentivised to do so and they will know that their values will be taken into account)

This was summarized by bing AI, and I have no idea how much of this is made up bullshit, because I haven't read this giant book.

A brain has its own brain (on the right side), now thats a metabrain or something. Jumping back to philosophical convos - Lets you could actually hack yourself in a way, where your brain would grow 4-5x the size compared to its current size, but you would immediately become 4-5x more emphatetic as well. Would you go with it, or would that destroy your ability to conquer this world?

Nilsi will turn into a butterfly in front of our eyes, by experimenting on himself with gene editing.

I only heard one good argument against antinatalism (that is working within the antinatalism philosophical framework, but paradoxically still makes them to be pro life for a random period of time). Ultimately an antinatalist wants to reduce the overall suffering in the world, if we start with that axiom, then we could argue that right now you can't kill all sentient life (that is capable of suffering or feeling pain). The goal for these people would ultimately be, to kill all life (not just sentient life, because evolution will eventually produce sentient life from life) and to be able to do that, you need an incredibly advanced tech for that. Right now, we don't have such technology and trying to kill all life on this Planet would just cause unnecessary suffering, because you wouldn't be able to kill all life and sentient life would eventually develop again. Therefore, an antinatalist right now should do everything in their power to help human development is such a way that we achieve the necessary technological development the fastest way, to be able to kill all life (at least on this Planet). Not having children and advocating for everyone not to have children would ultimately cause more suffering down the road compared to being okay with having children and helping humanity to advance technologically the fastest way.

I disagree with that, because that would open up a bunch of bullet bitings, that I wouldn't be comfortable with philosophically.

Depends on what development stage we are talking about. If there is no formed brain or central nervous system what makes you think that the baby can feel or be consious of anything? - We know for example, that if parts of your brain isn't working you can't feel pain.

I don't think thats the answer, the answer is that they still somewhat feel that they can have an effect on the system and they have a say in the system and not totally excluded from the choicemaking process. If people think that democracy is failing and that there is no way to have an effect on a system you would see a lot of justifications for killing, burning down things, and overthrowing the government. Why would people not do it, when they feel there is no other way to change the system but other than a revolution? - what you want is a system that either gives people the ability to have a direct effect on the system or you need to give people the feeling that they can have an effect on the system. People's morals can't be overwritten or be sedated by entertainment. You used the current times as an example, if we go with that time frame and take a look at US politics we can immedately see that this is not true. George Floyd riots, January 6 United States Capitol attack, and much more examples could be given.

We should probably talk about the axioms that we think are necessary to have a long lasting , flourishing society (don't have to lay out all of them, but mention some of them). I will start first, and you know probably all of these, because all these came from Daniel: 1) The Incentives are need to be aligned (because if they are not, your system won't last long, and if it won't last long, then you can't achieve long term development), 2) There needs to be collective sensemaking (This can only happen, if the first axiom is already in place), 3) Collective choicemaking (everyone's values need to be considered and taken into account) I think there is a big difference between getting entertained, and getting your deepest values protected or satisfied. I think this is probably where one of our biggest disagreement lies and where your system's foundation is, so lets talk about this in more depth. You are basically saying using entertainment can overwrite gametheory or at the very least, make it much less important. Can you give me a example that demonstrates this? I think what you wanted to say is not just entertainment, but more like people getting whatever they feel they need. But even that position is problematic, because true satisfaction can only come through having deep meaning to your life, unless people strongly feel that their life is meaningful I believe you will have problems with game theory + I would add that if people deeply disagree with the ethics of your system, you will eventually have problems no matter how much entertainment you will provide.

We still don't know much what makes people exceptionally good at certain things and how much of that is inherent to their genes and how much of that is being in an exceptional environment and having access to exceptional teachers almost 24/7. what I think would ideally needs to be done, is the creation of a system that recognises the talent in people at an early stage and then is capable to give all the necessary tools to all these people. I don't think you can have a long lasting dictatorship ever, where the incentives are not aligned and people feel like their deepest and most cared values are not taken into account. Even if you put the most conscious people there, they will probably get corrupt but even if they don't, there will be millions of people who will strive to that consious person's position and the system start to get rigged very fast and start to fall apart very fast. Why would people go along with a system where they feel like and their perception is that they are getting fucked, because their values are not taken into account?

What I meant, is that in the context of governance, you would always prefer a system that is the most effective to get things done compared to other systems.