These are major assumptions that make sense
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
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
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: 6317
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
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?Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:33 pmCO2 emission density + principle of least effort.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?
Minimum effort - maximum effect.
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".
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
And nature is good, but man is evil and must die, right?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:38 pm Extinction is a natural and process whereas war is man made.
The misanthropy is astounding!
Also. I have some natural homeopathic remedies to sell you!
You would sit around the camp fire and die together, yea?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.
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.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:38 pm The human species will die out anyway so it cannot be avoided
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.
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
80% - Pareto principle.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?
Yeah. It's unfair. Par for this universe.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".
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
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
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
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
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
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.
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
Doctors abide by the principle of no harm/least harm.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
Prevention is better than cure, but amputation is better than death.
I am applying the exact same principle to choose war over extinction.
The gamble is thus: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
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...
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
Every attempt that does not involve unnecessary human suffering should be taken to delay extinctionLogic wrote:
Doctors abide by the principle of least harm
I am applying the exact same principle to choose war over extinction
War however is not an acceptable means to achieve this for it is immoral and therefore unjustifiable
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
Delay but not prevent?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:04 pm Every attempt that does not involve unnecessary human suffering should be taken to delay extinction
So 0% human survival is moral, but 5% human survival is immoral ?!?!?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
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: 6317
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
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 pm80% - Pareto principle.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?
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 pmYeah. It's unfair. Par for this universe.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".
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
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
It's not "some 80% of something". Drastically reduce emissions or become extinct. It's trolley problem 101 stuff.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
I am not prepared to cause unnecessary suffering simply to delay extinction as this violates my moral codeLogic wrote:
How do you reason yourself into such a position ?
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
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
If your "moral" code results in the extinction of humanity - you should probably call it "immoral code".surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:19 pmI am not prepared to cause unnecessary suffering simply to delay extinction as this violates my moral codeLogic wrote:
How do you reason yourself into such a position ?
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
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
Find an alternative that is morally acceptable to me and I will help you save humanityLogic wrote:
If your moral code results in the extinction of humanity - you should probably call it immoral code
However if you cannot then I will not support you and this position is non negotiable
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6317
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: These are major assumptions that make sense
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.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 pmIt's not "some 80% of something". Drastically reduce emissions or become extinct. It's trolley problem 101 stuff.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.
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.
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.
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.