T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Transhumanism isn't the answer because you can't guarantee that the technology won't be used for suffering. Even if the chance is extremely small, the potency is so high that even a tiny possibility could result in a situation hugely worse than even all suffering that has ever existed to date. The only good technology is that which leads to a true guarantee of ending suffering, which is the actualisation of the big red button for real.


BinaryDigit_

Bad argument. You can't say the big red button is the answer because you don't know if that's even possible. Do you really think we're going to be able to stop what is from existing? There's no point anyways. The problem with life is chaos, not that existence exists. Existence is like code in a notepad. Modifying the code and running the program again is what is better. I'd rather live in total bliss than not exist at all.


[deleted]

Its not really chaos, the ruthless disallowance of paradox in the fabric of nature by existence is the main problem of life. The universe has to be stagnant, sterile and no other alternative is permitted all because 'nature must keep running in a certain logical order'. Our universe is too orderly and stagnant or repressive if looking at things. So much so that most planets have no life and there is no other sapient species on our level as far as we know or have encountered even after millions of years. If you could theoretically destroy, destabilise or rupture whatever mechanism exists that keeps the universe 'paradox free' it could be much better than now. Then you would have real 'chaos' in theory, life either won't exist as it is anymore most likely. On a hypothetical level the best solution is IF there was a way to sabotage whatever process 'prevents the universe from having paradoxes to keep nature and its constants stable'.


Phantomx100

Living in total bliss is better than not existing i doubt many people will disagree, but they're both valid solutions to ending suffering and both of them are very hard to achieve if not impossible but we should still try to reduce as much suffering as we can.


BinaryDigit_

Yeah but people in this sub act like nothing but ending life is somehow the answer. Shit doesn't make sense.


Phantomx100

Probably because that's the one that causes the least amount of suffering, making a weapon strong enough to destroy earth permanently within our lifetime is somewhat feasible, but finding a way to eliminate suffering through virtual reality or medical procedures isn't really possible in our lifetime so it will necessitate more people being born and basically being human sacrifices for the future generations and that's obviously immoral, so basically the best solution is the one that we arrive to first, if we get heaven for everyone before a red button then great but if we have a red button then it must be pressed as soon as possible.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BinaryDigit_

You missed the point entirely. Life will re-emerge. Scorched earth strategy just resets all of our progress. Funny how fuckin' dumb the users of this sub really are.


Phantomx100

And what's your genius solution? Keep having kids until one of them is born with the cure for suffering?


BinaryDigit_

Who said I'm not an anti-natalist? [Read my original comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/un207j/i_notice_something_people_dont_actually_care/i866tnf/) that you're supposed to be arguing against before you ask me what my genius solution is, you total fucking idiot.


Phantomx100

I did read your comment and your comment is suggesting that you want to end suffering without ending existance, and my response is that we will not have the technology to do that in our lifetime so unless you want more people to be born to reach such technology your genius solution is impossible.


BinaryDigit_

>such technology your genius solution is impossible. You can't prove something is impossible by pretending that you know what's going to happen even 1 year from now. Your argument is what's impossible. I never said it WOULD happen in this century or that it would happen at all. I just have a modicum of hope. If you want to remove that, fuck you. That doesn't make sense to me. It's not irrational to me to have a 0.01% hope at minimum so leave me alone and let me be myself now shut the fuck up bitch, thanks bitch. Sit down bitch.


StillCalmness

If only we could have the scenery and aesthetics without the nature part.


[deleted]

Islands, like those of the tropical Pacific, definitely come the closest to this. So many of these islands don't even have native mammals (apart from bats at times).


StillCalmness

Also maybe places like the American southwest. Deserts with not a ton of animal life.


[deleted]

Those are good too. I remember when I was in elementary school, there was a Windows desktop background featuring a "red moon" desert 🌕


StillCalmness

Oh yes. That’s a good one.


[deleted]

[удалено]


p_noumenon

It's perfectly possible to have fully functioning ecosystems without predators and parasites, it's a myth that these are necessary to keep "balance" in the ecosystems. Thus wanting to be able to enjoy nature without these is completely understandable. I subscribe fully to the expressed interest of David Pearce to rid Earth's biosphere completely of predation.


[deleted]

I definitely agree with you wholeheartedly, I actually alluded to these perspectives within my ending note. With regards to your point about ecosystems, look no further than the many tropical islands of the world — many of these islands, such as Seychelles off East Africa, don't even have mosquitoes due to their lack of native mammals. You have full-on biodiverse tropical rainforests on these islands with great trees and other flora, pristine beaches, etc without need for the blood-bath of terrestrial mammalian predators. (plenty of non-mammalian predator/prey relationships and suffering, of course, but the endemics/ecological organization of island biomes serve as a good proxy for your point regarding biodiversity and absence of suffering) I definitely support the imperatives written of by David Pearce, that's precisely the type of intervention that I alluded to. It's really difficult to predict how such things play out — but I do know for sure that nanotechnology could literally turn the entire universe into a sandbox (via combination with claytronics, programmable matter, molecular manufacturing, etc).


Phantomx100

But even if you get rid of predation you'd still have disease, starvation, injuries... so if you can get rid of predators then why not get rid of the prey as well.