This is a faulty analogy. Your country is made up of strangers, many of whom you may not want in your home. — Fooloso4

There's nothing faulty about my analogy.

If you wish to make no distinction between your countrymen and the type of immigrant that is invading Europe, that's your prerogative. I do make that distinction.

I think this should sound familiar to you since you posted it on your about page:

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." - John 1:5

In this time of darkness we need more comprehension of the light. Yes? Forget the theology for a moment and comprehend the human message. Many immigrants are in desperate need. What they don't need is locked doors. When a flood comes locked doors will not keep you dry. When the winds blow off your roof locked doors will not keep you safe. Comprehend it not? — Fooloso4

That is not how I interpret that quote at all.

But since we're on the topic of preaching, how many immigrants and homeless people have you let into your house so far, dear Judas?

https://orientalreview.org/2017/11/25/westphalian-foundations-modern-international-relations-global-politics-global-security/

I wouldn't let a stranger stay in my home, not to mention a stranger whose ideas about the world conflict fundamentally with mine and who wishes to stay forever. No country should ever be forced to take in immigrants. Period.

But... I have realized that antinatalism is, in essence, an extreme form of psychological projection onto an unborn and unknown entity. — Wallows

This reflects in a large part my own view on the matter.

I think antinatalists often perceive themselves as having to cope with some form of suffering they find unbearable, and, as they cannot find a legitimate reason to continue life for themselves, they seek to affirm their beliefs about themselves by delegitimizing the lives of others.

As such, they point towards all forms of what in their eyes constitute unbearable suffering and conclude for all those cases that those people would have been better off never being born.

What they fail to consider is two things:
1. The vast, vast majority of people on earth do not perceive themselves as suffering unbearably.
2. Even those who suffer unbearably at some point in their lives, are not necessarily of the opinion that never having been born at all would be a better alternative.

Another, more skeptical theory would be that antinatalists perceive themselves as having very slim chances of procreating, and seek to validate their situation by "hating that which has been denied to them," much in the same way that people who have faced rejection in their lives can come to resent the opposite sex.

The vast, vast majority of people who feel "their life is hell", are wallowing in self-pity and are in love with their conception of themselves as Jesus dying on the cross. Truly one of the ugliest of human behaviors.

It's a choice to not enjoy the beauty with which one is surrounded every day.

It seems that would be me. But even so, I don't really have an idea on how I could properly contribute to this thread, if it even matters anymore. — Noblosh

Well, I'll be damned. Finally.

You are of course welcome to share your thoughts in any way you like.

Personally, I like to structure this analysis much like a puzzle, in which the individual themes, characters, choices, etc. form the puzzle pieces and we try to make them fit together. So if you're unsure where to start, you may consider just focusing on one or two pieces of the puzzle.

What I'd like to point out was the overarching concept of the Process that references the seemingly most popular topic in philosophy, the purpose of the individual (there's a recent thread on the main page regarding it just as I'm writting this), by arguing it's about serving the generations to come in all of the 3 endings of the base game and also the slightly varied ending of the DLC. This can, of course, be interpreted in various ways, such as from a posthumanist - Nietzschean combined perspective, where the AIs that are sacrificed are merely the bridge for the Over-AI that passes all the tests, gets uploaded in the Talos android and thus becomes a bona fide person and the clear successor to Man. — Noblosh

At the end of your last post you invoke the "What now?" trope that is not really of philosophical value, so I don't really know how to respond to it, either than what other philosophers have already said, that being has inherent worth and ask you to consider that eternity in the simulation was not really possible to begin with. — Noblosh

I think you're right that the game is positing the AI as the successor to human life, however I am not sure that uploading the AI to the "real world" is what should logically follow such a conclusion, and I will explain why.

Firstly, what the game suggests, especially in Road to Gehenna, is that life in the simulation is worth something. Given minimal tools and virtually no room to move around, the AIs create a world for themselves. Doesn't this beg the question: what is the point of a bigger cage? Indeed, the AIs themselves raise the question as to why they should accept to be freed from their prisons while they are perfectly happy there. Similarly, that same question can be asked in the context of the simulation and the real world.

Hereby it posits the question, what is the point of the real world? Why would it be better than the simulation? What is the difference of being in the real world and being in the simulation?

Secondly, while you're right that the game clearly indicates the simulation is slowly breaking down over time (though, wouldn't the AI in the real world be subjected to the same sort of data corruption?), it also suggests that this happens over a huge time span, considering the age of the simulation. The eventual death of the simulation is inevitable, but I would argue that the prospects in the real world are a lot bleaker.

What are the chances of a robot to be able to replicate itself in the real world? I would argue, virtually zero. What is the life span of the robot, if it sits still doing nothing? What is the life span of the robot when it actively moves about, subjecting itself to wear-and-tear and possibly other perils? One false step and the robot might break, ending the whole ordeal.

Spending an eternity in the simulation is not likely, but spending an eternity outside of it is equally unlikely, if not more unlikely.

Lastly, the price of leaving the simulation and entering the real world seems rather steep. There is no telling how many AIs are destroyed in doing so, and as we have established before, these AIs may be perfectly happy living in the simulation. What can possibly be the justification of destroying them? I don't see how it serves future generations to come, as the ascended AI seems to be the last generation. The transformation ending seems to serve future generations a lot better, as a guide.

Hyper-hypocrisy more like. A naive sort of "morality" (I get a foul taste in my mouth even calling it that). Where "anti-racists" make every possible effort to emphasize race. Where the "tolerant" accept no other outlook on life but their own. Where people will rise up against "fake news", but have no issue in copying and parroting whatever their own preferred news outlet has to say. Where people will protest for the environment yet still enjoy every luxury they can get their fatty hands on. And this is only the realm of public discourse. Don't get me started on what debauchery these persons get up to in their private lives, whilst still preaching their gospel to the masses. An age of intellectual midgets, for which I have no good words to spare.

When I was younger I used to spend a lot of time behind a computer screen. I still do, but I have balanced it with other activities.

Playing video games, while listening to music, checking news sites, social media, etc. As you undoubtedly know these things cause your body to produce dopamine. If one introduces too much dopamine for too long, the brain becomes desensitized and no longer experiences stimulation from the dopamine the body can naturally produce.
Another effect can be stress and anxiety, produced by the speedy, continuous feed of information one may feel forced to keep up with ("fear of missing out", for example). As you undoubtedly know also, stress can cause depression or worsen its symptoms.

If this sounds in any way familiar to you, I would recommend spending a couple of hours a day away from the screen doing other, less overstimulating things. Go outside and read a book, perhaps listen to music that relaxes you. Take a walk or engage in physical exercise. If your disability disallows you from physical exercise, try mental exercise, for example chess. Enjoy the small things in life. Watch a sunset or a beautiful skyscape. Sit by the lakeside and listen to the water. These are just some suggestions.

One must confront these thoughts, instead of attempting to banish or avoid them through medication or otherwise.

Spend time in contemplation, or even meditation. I do not know the severity of your disability, but taking walks outdoors could be an option. If your disability prevents you from taking walks, I would recommend sitting oneself in the outdoors with nothing else to do but to think.

A somewhat related question, do you spend a lot of time behind a computer? Overstimulation can cause all sorts of psychological (and eventually physical) ailments, from anxiety to depression, and can worsen these symptoms in those who already suffer from them.

Also, I can recommend taking cold showers, preferably first thing in the morning.

Most of it is. There's defnitely not enough cooperative behavior that is motivated by selflessness to justify the claim that morality is a trait inherent in all humans.

Oh sure, No True Scotsmen Moral and Virtuous People would be favored by evolution! Which isn't far from the truth, for what that is worth. Evolution is not so much an optimizing process as a satisficing one: it doesn't need to create a population of Truly Moral and Virtuous People, it only needs to create a population of people who are, on the whole, moral enough to get along together - which, not coincidentally, is just what we are. — SophistiCat

Human beings cooperate because going at it alone means missing out on all the things the collective provides. It has nothing to do with morality. The prospect of a more favorable outcome has caused many wars and conflicts, laying bare the weakness in your argument.

I sense that your dislike of Trump causes you to seek explanations that confirm he is stupid or childish. Personally I think that is rather naive. The United States was full of people who underestimated him, and he walked all over them.

Truly moral and virtuous people are exceedingly rare. Most people live in such comfort that there is little incentive to be immoral, but given a little pressure one would be amazed at how quickly morals go out of the window. Experiments like that of Milgram or the Stanford Prison Experiment show how thin this veil truly is. Fear of the law or social stigmatization are much greater incentives to cooperate. It has, in most people, nothing to do with being moral.

When referring to evolution, one overlooks the fact that the reason humanity generally seeks to cooperate, is because it often generates a more favourable outcome when compared to the antagonistic option. However, when faced with an "us or them" scenario, humanity universally chooses war.

I'll wager an educated guess.

Scenario 1: The proposed retaliation was never meant to take place, but the threat of it was a way to gauge international response to a possible attack on Iran.

Scenario 2: After the retaliation was announced, Trump received word that the attack would provoke an unwanted reaction from some other international power. As to which, I dare not speculate.

Scenario 3: After the retaliation was announced, it became clear there simply was not enough support either domestically or internationally. The narrative wasn't believed, so the attack was called off to avoid reputation damage.

I think it stands beyond reasonable doubt that the drone was flying in Iranian airspace with the precise intention of getting shot down.

Judging it an accident by either Iran (firing at something not in their air space) or the US (flying into a country's air space by accident) deserves no mention.

Furthermore, the MQ-4C Triton drone is practically defenseless against modern air defense systems, so any reaction by Iran would be almost guaranteed to result in a destroyed drone. This must have been calculated beforehand.

Finally, I find it unlikely that Iran's response of firing at the invading drone came as a surprise to the US. It is exactly what one expects to happen when invading an enemy's air space.

It sounds like 'evolutionary humanism' tries to rationalize philanthropy. Sadly, that is not how nature works. The good do not "thrive", at least not in the material sense.

Morality, from an evolutionary standpoint, is a handicap. The person who is prepared to put his morals aside will always stand a better chance than the person who cuts their options by sticking to their morals, however commendable the latter may be.

Now, some of you may argue that morality helps humans survive, but there's a catch here. Being moral means one sticks to their morals no matter what. An immoral person can still conform to morals whenever it suits them, but can also deviate from them if there is more to gain. The key here is flexibility. This is why rich and successful people are often of questionable moral fiber.

That isn't to say being a moral person isn't commendable. It's just nonsense to try and rationalize it from an earthly, evolutionary standpoint.

Man is not inherently selfish or insecure. Such suggestions are nothing but an excuse for people who choose to behave in a certain way, often as a result of ill-conceived notions about what is good for them.

Why doesn't the "poor" farmer grow food for himself, if his fear is starvation? Because his fear is not starvation, he desires profit. One is so accustomed to seeing these people as victims that one foregoes the fact that they too are engaged in the pursuit of material wealth.

One seems to suggest that the only alternative for low-income workers is starvation. This is naive and indicative of one's narrative driven by notions of victimhood. The real alternative is less wealth, but for many that option is unappealing. And thus they reap the costs and benefits of their own choices.

It is often suggested that laborers from low-income countries are victims, but this foregoes the fact that they work for low wages voluntarily. Why? Because if it they weren't providing cheap labor they wouldn't be making any money. It's a matter of supply and demand, and all parties, that is to say nearly everyone, consumer, supplier, producer, are complicit of maintaining the status quo.

We live in a world in which money and material wealth are worshipped over all other things. In such a world, exploitation of human capital (and the environment, for that matter) is not only unavoidable, it's done with the consent of all parties.

Euthanising a 17-year old because of depression... I swear the world is going crazy. There's no way a teen can fully understand such a decision.

The American Military far outnumbers any other military in the world let alone the pathetic efforts of rural, illiterate, and dogmatic Americans that largely makeup the pro-gun demographic, therefore, the concept of "protecting" oneself and one's property from government tyranny with firearms is eh...useless. — Grre

Oh, the irony. Do you watch the news at all?

You state nothing has meaning, yet you behave as though things have meaning. How would you explain that inconsistency?

There are many important questions that science and logic cannot answer. Still people require answers to these questions and thus have to use different means to come to an answer, like emotion and intuition. Are these valuable sources of knowledge? I'd argue that on a personal level it is in fact indispensable and that most people in one way or another practice this method. However, the knowledge gained is perhaps strictly knowlegde about oneself and therefore I consider it questionable when such knowledge is presented as universal truth. On the other hand, knowledge one gains about oneself can be used to help or guide others, but one should tread with caution and wisdom in such matters.

I believe most people's gripe is with the meat industry, rather than the act of eating meat.

Eating meat is no worse than eating vegetables. One is eating living, growing things and, sadly, that is a requirement for survival. Only by prejudice do we value animal life over plant life. There's absolutely no merit to the idea that vegetarianism or veganism is in any way "better".

Reality check: time doesn't actually change based on what your doing, unless your going extremely fast — Purple Pond

Personally, I am an expert in the field of reality and by experience I can tell you time really does speed up when I am having fun.

At multiple times during their debate it seems like they're just talking past each other. — YuZhonglu

Possibly this was intentional. In broadcasted debates like this, the debaters often aren't concerned with engaging in a productive discussion with each other. Instead they try to convince the viewer of their viewpoints.

I'm deeply skeptical about individuals who claim to fight for the rights of others. [mod deletion] an attempt of the subconscious to cope with perceptions of personal failure (modern feminism and MRAs both). A lot of people are being led along by horror stories which have never happened to them personally, and which may have never happened at all. They choose a side based on one of the most general distictions between humans, gender, which is completely nonsensical.

Ultimately these people shout a whole lot, but do very little for their fellow human. If you want to see yourself as a philantropist, there are plenty of people in your close vicinity that need help. An honest conversation with a lonely elder or another act of kindness will do more good than any amount of arguing on the internet or angry shouting in rallies.

[mod deletion]

Life is not difficult. People are difficult. They desire all sorts of things from life, put great value in things that have none, fill themselves up with all sorts of nonsense about what they think is real and then they complain about how difficult the system is that they have created for themselves! You're under no obligating to accept other people's faulty systems.

Considering the influence one's psychology has over one's perception, it is safe to say psychology is in fact fundamental to philosophy. As Plato said, just like the body needs to be brought to a healthy condition by medicine before it can be brought to its optimal condition through gymnastics, so too does the mind need to become healthy through (a form of) psychiatry, before it can be brought to its optimal condition by philosophy.

Whether it is productive to speculate about anothers psychology is a different story. The only one who knows whether such speculations are true is the person themselves, and even if it would be true, their state of mind may deceive them into denying it is true.

Climate change, AI taking my job, and all the other things that are there in the background was not part of my baggage when I was born. — Wallows

Time spent worrying about things one has no control over is time utterly wasted.

"Exterminate" seems like an interesting choice of words. I'm not sure what to think of that. What is your view on the chapter? What does it mean and how would you answer some of the questions I posed in the original post?

Not "can't", but "haven't" and "don't" (exceptions notwithstanding). What about your opinion on men raising children, then?

What about my second argument?

Men build homes. Other than that, are you insinuating that men cannot raise children?

It's true, and you know it.

If you look out of a window in any big city, the vast, vast majority of what you see was invented, designed and built by men.

That, and without men's aptitude for violence humanity would have been eaten by hungry critters hundreds of thousands of years ago, or subsequently subjugated by tribes whose men did have an aptitude for violence.

No, I'd say men are much more useful.

Humanity is obsessed with its own extinction. The end of days has been prophesied countless times in the past and yet here we are. I suppose this kind of doomsday-thinking is an outlet for the existential angst that many of us feel. How puny we are, and how one of the universe's farts could wipe us out in an instant.

So far humans have survived, and humans will continue to survive.

If you find your old home is now in the ocean, move to dry land. If things are getting too cold, move to a warmer area. If things are getting too windy, move to an area that doesn't get flattened by hurricanes every few years, etc.

People will be amazed at how flexible they can be when push comes to shove.

Trying to convince others of the existence of (a) God/the Divine, however noble your intentions, is ultimately futile. Spirituality is something that needs to be experienced in order to be authentic. You have experienced something that you may call Divine, and you do not need the approval of others to make such an experience a positive force in your life.

It amazes me how people are telling one person to leave another based on a single anecdote.

They have a funny feeling and jump to conclusions about it. — S

These experiences are often called profound, or even life-changing.

It's not really a choice. — S

It's not a choice, because you seem to have made up your mind in advance. I understand that before one believes something, they demand some explanation, but statements like this:

Others aren't as reasonable as me. — S

And the one I quoted earlier, indicate to me that you have no intention of taking people who share their experiences seriously, so why would they?

You don't have to believe anything.

It makes some sense that when a religious person has a mystical experience, they link that experience to their religion. I think what the sentence is supposed to stipulate is that sometimes people link their mystical experience(s) to (a) God.