These are major assumptions that make sense

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:38 pm

Extinction is a natural process whereas war is man made. So had I to choose between them them I would opt for extinction every
time as I would not want unnecessary deaths on my conscience. The human species will die out anyway so this cannot be avoided

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:40 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:33 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:30 pm
Why are we arbitrarily counting the amount of co2 that China emits as the bad portion and everyone else's minus theirs is ok?
CO2 emission density + principle of least effort.

Minimum effort - maximum effect.
This all seems a very lazy way to plot the deaths of a billion people. If it's worth carnage on such a scale, is it not worth knowing what target to reach?

And isn't it a little bit unfair to decide who dies by just determining that you can kill those people more cheaply that some other people? As the flames engulfed my city, I wouldn't be thinking, "well at least it took less effort to kill my family than to stop using so much Chinese steel in giant American SUVs, effectively exporting a large chunk of American co2 emissions to that country".

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:42 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:38 pm
Extinction is a natural and process whereas war is man made.
And nature is good, but man is evil and must die, right?

The misanthropy is astounding!

Also. I have some natural homeopathic remedies to sell you!
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:38 pm
So had I to choose between them them I would opt for extinction every single time as I would not want unnecessary deaths on my conscience.
You would sit around the camp fire and die together, yea?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:38 pm
The human species will die out anyway so it cannot be avoided
So we mustn't even try ?!?!? Well - lets just tell doctors and scientists trying to prolong human life that they are wasting their time then.

Turns out everybody's been happy to go ASAP. We are the idiots striving for health&well-being.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:44 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:40 pm
This all seems a very lazy way to plot the deaths of a billion people. If it's worth carnage on such a scale, is it not worth knowing what target to reach?
80% - Pareto principle.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:40 pm
And isn't it a little bit unfair to decide who dies by just determining that you can kill those people more cheaply that some other people? As the flames engulfed my city, I wouldn't be thinking, "well at least it took less effort to kill my family than to stop using so much Chinese steel in giant American SUVs, effectively exporting a large chunk of American co2 emissions to that country".
Yeah. It's unfair. Par for this universe.

Like I said - this is break-glass option. Sounds to me like you are making an argument that much of China's emissions are as a result of feeding USA's demand? So China can cut its emissions by simply cutting off the USA supply or... Oh yeah. Economics :)

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:52 pm

You specifically asked me to choose between extinction and war so I did
Now you are talking about doctors and scientists prolonging human life
But the two have got absolutely nothing to do with each other do they

Not going to war and prolonging human life are mutually compatible and so I actually made the right choice
Whereas you favour war over extinction while also wanting to prolong human life which is entirely illogical

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:53 pm

Deja poo: https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1 ... 4858039296
If @AOC really thought that global warming was an existential risk to humanity, it would be worth solving even if the solution radically _increased_ economic inequality.

She obviously doesn't believe it's a true X-risk. For her, it's just a hammer for smashing capitalism.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:56 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:52 pm
You specifically asked me to choose between extinction and war so I did

Now you are talking about doctors and scientists prolonging human life
But the two have got absolutely nothing to do with each other do they
Doctors abide by the principle of no harm/least harm.

Prevention is better than cure, but amputation is better than death.

I am applying the exact same principle to choose war over extinction.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:52 pm
Not going to war and prolonging human life are mutually compatible and so I actually made the right choice
Whereas you favour war over extinction while also wanting to prolong human life which is entirely illogical
The gamble is thus:

Do nothing: Extinction. 0% of humans survive.
Destroy top polluters (war): 0-50% of humans survive.

Of course this is entirely based on an assumption that ceasing emissions will have any effect. It may not - in which case. It was all nothing...

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:04 pm

Logic wrote:
Doctors abide by the principle of least harm

I am applying the exact same principle to choose war over extinction
Every attempt that does not involve unnecessary human suffering should be taken to delay extinction
War however is not an acceptable means to achieve this for it is immoral and therefore unjustifiable

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:08 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:04 pm
Every attempt that does not involve unnecessary human suffering should be taken to delay extinction
Delay but not prevent?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:04 pm
War however is not an acceptable means to achieve this for it is immoral and therefore unjustifiable
So 0% human survival is moral, but 5% human survival is immoral ?!?!?

How do you reason yourself into such position?
Last edited by Logik on Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:09 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:44 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:40 pm
This all seems a very lazy way to plot the deaths of a billion people. If it's worth carnage on such a scale, is it not worth knowing what target to reach?
80% - Pareto principle.
Even assuming there is some 80% of something involved in this off the cuff equation, that's just a rule of thumb. You might as well have flipped a coin or drawn straws.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:44 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:40 pm
And isn't it a little bit unfair to decide who dies by just determining that you can kill those people more cheaply that some other people? As the flames engulfed my city, I wouldn't be thinking, "well at least it took less effort to kill my family than to stop using so much Chinese steel in giant American SUVs, effectively exporting a large chunk of American co2 emissions to that country".
Yeah. It's unfair. Par for this universe.
It's not a great strategy to argue that opposing your will is immoral, but then to just accept that your own position is unfair.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:44 pm
Like I said - this is break-glass option. Sounds to me like you are making an argument that much of China's emissions are as a result of feeding USA's demand? So China can cut its emissions by simply cutting off the USA supply or... Oh yeah. Economics :)
They will anyway. There's only so much economic growth to be achieved by manufacturing bulky goods for export or large quantities of tat. China will naturally move towards a more service based economy just like every other developed economy if they wish to ever have a developed economy. Of course, by then, you can expect them to have a similar level of carbon emissions per capita as the EU.

Quite a lot of their emissions do indeed stem from the energy used in manufactures for export, as well the burning of coking coal to make steel, much of it for export, and so on. As we are all excellent economists today, we know that when a supplier is removed from a market, we can expect other suppliers to enter into that market in order to meet demand. So economically speaking, you now absolutely must annihilate America to squash demand that would otherwise be met by India once you have destroyed China, necessitating their destruction also.... Economics :)

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:09 pm
Even assuming there is some 80% of something involved in this off the cuff equation, that's just a rule of thumb. You might as well have flipped a coin or drawn straws.
It's not "some 80% of something". Drastically reduce emissions or become extinct. It's trolley problem 101 stuff.

You are still pursuing fairness rather than results.

If the pursuit of "fairness" is what stops us from doing the necessary and leads to human extinction then "fairness" is immoral in my booklet.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:19 pm

Logic wrote:
How do you reason yourself into such a position ?
I am not prepared to cause unnecessary suffering simply to delay extinction as this violates my moral code
I do not think the survival of the species is so paramount that any moral catastrophe is entirely justifiable
So find other means of delaying extinction that do not involve unnecessary human suffering like war does

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:20 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:19 pm
Logic wrote:
How do you reason yourself into such a position ?
I am not prepared to cause unnecessary suffering simply to delay extinction as this violates my moral code
I do not think the survival of the species is so paramount that any moral catastrophe is entirely justifiable
So find other means of delaying extinction that do not involve unnecessary human suffering like war does
If your "moral" code results in the extinction of humanity - you should probably call it "immoral code".

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:27 pm

Logic wrote:
If your moral code results in the extinction of humanity - you should probably call it immoral code
Find an alternative that is morally acceptable to me and I will help you save humanity
However if you cannot then I will not support you and this position is non negotiable

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:55 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:09 pm
Even assuming there is some 80% of something involved in this off the cuff equation, that's just a rule of thumb. You might as well have flipped a coin or drawn straws.
It's not "some 80% of something". Drastically reduce emissions or become extinct. It's trolley problem 101 stuff.
The real thing you can learn from the trolley problem is how to spot a fraudulent moral philosopher. Anybody peddling a solution to it doesn't understand the subject matter properly.

You gave me this 80/20 rule stuff with no explanation of what the 80 or the 20 is. That was supposed to be your answer to a charge of laziness related to your target selection for genocide. It wasn't sufficient, therefore it was just an extension off the laziness.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 pm
You are still pursuing fairness rather than results.
You have yet to show a real reason why it has to be the Chinese that die. All you seem to have is that it feels convenient for you to pick that section of the world population to murder. You've declared that if a terrible price must be paid, it should be paid by distant people who you have never met.

You might as well set up death camps in every country. Use a lottery to decide which 20% of the population you murder and then render into food for the survivors. You can then rest assured that the remaining 80%, having eaten man flesh from a cold tin, will definitely conserve fuel in future, only drive very very small cars, and almost never go on distant holidays by air. Otherwise there will be a new lottery.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 pm
If the pursuit of "fairness" is what stops us from doing the necessary and leads to human extinction then "fairness" is immoral in my booklet.
Your booklet is not that great. You are sort of citing lots of things that sound like cold logic, but you are using them sloppily. What you have here is a flawed mishmash of sort of objective sounding concepts being thrown into the mix to justify unacknowledged subjective choices. This, incidentally, is the fundamental error that had led Prof to entirely waste his life. One of his books purports to hold a solution to the trolley problem by the way.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests