Things are getting better!

[Farm Boy]

Strange.

 

[metalhead]

But a lot less plastic.

You don't need to muck about with plastic when you can just dump leftover petrochemicals directly into the nearest stream.

 

[Narz]

I don't think dogs care too much about choice.


Compared to... being hungry half of the time, potentially starving, and as an alternative being likely to die young because of an infection or a wound? I don't know about that. I mean... might be an interesting looking choice for humans, but I think for animals, the only real way we can quantify how "good" an animal's life is by how much suffering it has to endure.

And there I have to say, on average the suffering of being a dog in society is likely much lower than the suffering of a wolf in nature.

But sure, in the end it boils down to opinions.

So to be mentally handicapped and taken care of in a home is preferable by your standards than suffering the slings and arrows of life of 'regular' life.

Life is more free of suffering yet people are more unhappy and less optimistic (as rated by surveys). Pure pain avoidance is not the only goal of life.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think there is a fundamental transition that occurs once you move from sentience to sapience. You can't really use a perspective born of sapience in order to make predictions regarding a solely sentient experience.

 

[Ryika]

So to be mentally handicapped and taken care of in a home is preferable by your standards than suffering the slings and arrows of life of 'regular' life.

That doesn't make any sense.

First of all - and I know that's not what you're saying but still - dogs are not "less mentally capable" than wolves, so no idea why you'd choose a mental handicap instead of a physical condition. While their cognitive abilities have evolved in a way that made them lose some of the skills they originally had, they've learned quite a few new skills they require to be able to interact with humans. It's not possible to directly compare the mental states of both animals, but with as far as we can go, there is no clear winner. Both are better at the things that are required in their environment, with about the same level of ability to learn.

Secondly, dogs and humans are not the same. Dogs do not have the cognitive abilities to even comprehend the idea that they might be considered an animal that is a "pet". Due to their long history with men, they've come to see living with humans as their natural state of being, and accept them as part (and leaders, if trained properly) of their pack.

Thirdly, even when we talk about humans... yeah... being mentally handicapped and being taken care of is probably a great state of being, at least as long as the mental handicap does not prevent a person from experiencing joy in life. Obviously most people would not want to degrade to such a state, but that's because they have a sense of self that sees that state as a "lesser" state of being. But have you ever seen a mentally handicapped person express sadness over the fact that they're mentally handicapped? I think they perceive their lives as being rather good.

Life is more free of suffering yet people are more unhappy and optimistic (as rated by surveys). Pure pain avoidance is not the only goal of life.

Sure, but we have no reason to assume that dogs (in the hands of people who treat them well) don't have lives that make them feel fulfilled. A dog has not the instincts that a wolf has, we have bred them to enjoy life as pets.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Wrong thread...

 

[El_Machinae]

Feed them well, educate them, raise them in a clean environment, and help them find meaningful work that provides a decent income.

Gosh, don't stop there. There are many interaction scenarios where everyone pursuing their own agenda creates reasonably consistent efficiencies, but there are so, so many more that require a sense of community in order to enact. If you want a clean and healthy environment for you kids, you will need to create a common good that people pursue by forgoing short-term self interest.

You need to raise your kids well, obviously, but you also need to help create roadblocks where certain scenarios are degraded due to zero-sum thinking.

So because poverty still exists that means we aren't doing any better? You don't see the flaw in that logic?

That's not the logic. The logic is that we know that there's a problem when the absolute number experiencing that problem increases. Obviously, the absolute end goal is zero poverty, but is 'the average is going down' an acceptable outcome? Certainly not. We won't know that we're on a path that's acceptable until both the average and the absolute number are coming down.

So I assume you have sold off all your crypto currency and now advocate for the banning of them due to the negative impact crypto mining is having on the environment. Especially since 60% of all crypto mining takes place in China, and the computers that do the mining are connected to a power grid that gets most of its electricity from burning coal.

This is just outright hostile for no reason. We all do things that 'destroy the environment' while pursuing money. It's a function of the way our economy runs. Everyone hustles. We all try to make personal choices to limit the harms we cause, but we all have a floor that we're willing to tolerate. People have a hard time with individually being charitable (even in the form of foregoing consumption or profits) when we see everyone else just seizing those profits instead of us. The best we can do is being moral to the edge of our tolerances, and then asking society to change the system so that it's easier to make the right choice.

If I say that I think that donations to poverty are super-important, especially once you cross the median wage, then someone saying to me "yeah, but you saw a movie last week when it could have bought a bed net, so you don't actually give a crap" is tiring. Well, it would be, if it happened.

I also own banking shares, even given my opinion on the value of buying financial assets (though I'm heavily weighted in Pharmaceuticals too!). Not because I'm a hypocrite, but because I project that I will have certain needs in the future. We all do damage with our hustle. And we all do damage with our consumption. But I will outright bet that my consumption damage is lower than many who disagree with me (politically). And my hustle causes damage, but I do the hustle I do because that's what I'm paid to do.

I'm not sure that yelling at low-income hippies about their environmental footprint is the best use of one's "I care about the environment" emotional quotient.

I need to detail this in the other thread, because Bitcoin is especially insidious when it comes to damaging the environment, because none of its utility is maintained through high levels of price support, but its damage to the environment is entirely proportionate to its market price.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

So I assume you have sold off all your crypto currency and now advocate for the banning of them due to the negative impact crypto mining is having on the environment. Especially since 60% of all crypto mining takes place in China, and the computers that do the mining are connected to a power grid that gets most of its electricity from burning coal.

If not, then this statement just goes to show your raging hypocrisy. Practice what you preach

oh why of course! I sold my ole' bag of bit coins at the market. furthermore I:

- sold my car and used the money to buy two llamas, who I now use as transportation device
- sold my fridge and started curing my own meat and growing my own plants
- sold my central heating, my oven, my burner and all electronic devices
- I now only eat raw foods in order to not strains the earths ressources
- I repurpose my own poop as fertilizer
- All my clothes are hand-sewn from the hemp I grow in my backyeard
- I spend most of my days rummaging through the forests picking up trash
- I've planted thousands of trees to offset my 25 years of carbon footprinting
- I have stopped breathing and farting in order to generate less CO2

I am posting this from the local library and am increasingly curious if this meets your dumb list of arbitrary criteria!

 

[Ryika]

I believed you until you claimed that there are still libraries where you live.

 

[Commodore]

I am posting this from the local library and am increasingly curious if this meets your dumb list of arbitrary criteria!

It's not arbitrary or dumb when you rail against the destruction of the environment while simultaneously partaking in an activity that has been proven to have a negative impact on the environment. Which is what Narz has been doing. Not only that, but he shamelessly brags about his Bitcoin investing in the Bitcoin thread we have going.

So I was just pointing out that Narz doesn't care about environmental protection nearly as much as he claims and, in this particular instance, is a raging hypocrite. I also find it funny that people are increasingly trying to find ways to defend their hypocrisy like you are doing here with the classic "just because I'm benefiting from it doesn't mean I can't criticize it!" defense. Sorry, but if you are partaking in something and benefiting from it, then yeah, you kinda do lose your right to criticize it. Unless of course you don't mind looking like a fool to everyone else.

This is just outright hostile for no reason. We all do things that 'destroy the environment' while pursuing money.

Sure, but most of us also don't go around lamenting the destruction of the environment while actively taking part in its destruction.

And the reason for the hostility is because I simply can't stand the hypocritical attitude Narz has displayed in this thread. He (and others like him) drones on and on about how horrible our world is and how destructive humanity is, yet doesn't think twice about reaping the benefits of the system he thinks is so horrible and destructive.

Also, if the world is as big of a sack of crap as Narz is saying it is I must ask: What has he done to make it any better besides complain about it on the internet? And before you try to fire back with "well what have you done?" I don't have to do anything. I think the world is more or less fine the way it is. There's some good and some bad, but overall we are making steady progress as a species.

 

[Lexicus]

Sure, but most of us also don't go around lamenting the destruction of the environment while actively taking part in its destruction.

I think most of us do, actually. Speaking for myself I lament the fact that I live in structures that basically force me to contribute to destroying the environment. That's why I consider it an ethical imperative to change them.

 

[El_Machinae]

So wait, he's doing better than you are on a dimension that he cares about, but you're the one who's superior? Because he won't jump through the hoops that you have artificially imposed upon him? Give me a break.

You're mad because someone has ethical standards higher on a dimension that you do, but is failing to meet them. All ethical standards are unachievable, if you think you're doing fine, it's because you've set your standards too low. So yes, "what have you done".

Seriously, if you're yelling a low-income hippie in today's society, you're probably really misallocating your outrage energy. If bitcoin bothers you so much, yell at the speculators who live like you do, but also speculate in bitcoin. Hell, write a fricken letter to a legislator asking them to remove bitcoin contracts from what we'll waste taxpayer dollars on.

Four paragraphs complaining about him, eh? "Poor person won't live my straw man of his life". Dude, People gotta hustle. If we want their hustle to do less damage, we gotta change the world. You don't, obviously. You don't have to do anything. We just have to put up with your crap and work around you.

 

[Commodore]

but you're the one who's superior?

Where did I say anything about being superior? In fact, I'd say the tone of my post is quite the opposite. I'm criticizing him for acting somehow ethically superior when in reality he's really no better than anyone else on this planet.

Seriously, if you're yelling a low-income hippie in today's society,

Are you calling Narz a low-income hippie? Because I didn't get that impression of his lifestyle at all from his posts here.

Or are you saying that you think I just go around all day yelling at poor people?

yell at the speculators who live like you do,

And how exactly do you think I live?

You know, for someone who just chastised me for acting superior, this whole post of yours is dripping with condescension and a general "I'm better than you" attitude.

Dude, People gotta hustle.

Agreed. I'm not the one you should be saying this to though.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you calling Narz a low-income hippie? Because I didn't get that impression of his lifestyle at all from his posts here.

Yes.

And how exactly do you think I live?

As if you think you're doing a good enough job.

You know, for someone who just chastised me for acting superior, this whole post of yours is dripping with condescension and a general "I'm better than you" attitude.

Meh, chastising an inappropriate chastiser is literally the only tool in the tool kit. I am judging that you were being inappropriate, and I am using social pressure in order to reduce it.

Look, I actually get along with you really well. But your posts were all types of condescending. "You don't actually care, unless you do X". You're presuming to get into their ethical model, and then telling them how they should behave. This is especially true when low-income people are trying to earn money. Society determines how we make money, it's how we spend it that truly matters. Some people intentionally shift their consumption so that they need less money. And some people intentionally make more money so that they can increase their consumption. One of those is worse than the other. By a large margin.

There are nearly zero people in any of the developed world that truly live a sustainable lifestyle. There are a whole lot people who're trying to. And there are a lot of people trying to do their money-making in ways that help increase sustainability.

If bitcoin is as bad as you say, we should be writing our legislators. On the upside, defending Narz helped me articulate why people should drop bitcoin, and so I've posted in the bitcoin thread. I would value your feedback there.

 

[Narz]

Also, if the world is as big of a sack of crap as Narz is saying it is I must ask: What has he done to make it any better besides complain about it on the internet?

Ask your girl.

Moderator Action: This sort of statement is inflammatory and unnecessary. Please refrain from posting this sort of comment in future. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Narz]

Seriously, if you're yelling a low-income hippie

Give me a few more years...

As for environmental impact of bitcoins I plan to cash out at what I perceive the ceiling is or within a year. Hoping to get in on the next generation of alt-currency that's thousands of times more efficient.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd ponder my post in the btc thread more. By perceiving a future ceiling, you're creating a higher price of BTC now. And all of the upside you're capturing for yourself is being magnified in vast amounts of damage lower down. It's not zero-sum at all.

This isn't like speculating in oil, or in silver, or any real commodity where price-support creates more real supply.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I think the world is more or less fine the way it is. There's some good and some bad, but overall we are making steady progress as a species.

I call this piece '21st century shizoid mantra'

Sorry, but if you are partaking in something and benefiting from it, then yeah, you kinda do lose your right to criticize it. Unless of course you don't mind looking like a fool to everyone else.

So I cannot complain on the internet about things relating to the internet? So I cannot vote in democracy yet critisize it? So I cannot be a productive member of society and at the same time critsize its inner workings? If I work in a factory with horrible conditions, but I get payed barely enough to feed myself, I lose my right to critisize those conditions? If I am a literal serf I lose the right to critisize my king because I receive some benefits?

Sorry, just pointing out your flawless logic.

 

[Farm Boy]

I believed you until you claimed that there are still libraries where you live.

??

 

[Commodore]

So I cannot complain on the internet about things relating to the internet? So I cannot vote in democracy yet critisize it? So I cannot be a productive member of society and at the same time critsize its inner workings? If I work in a factory with horrible conditions, but I get payed barely enough to feed myself, I lose my right to critisize those conditions? If I am a literal serf I lose the right to critisize my king because I receive some benefits?

Ah man, you totally just destroyed me...except for none of those being valid analogies to the argument I'm making.

A more apt analogy would be a murderer talking about how evil and terrible murder is as he's slaughtering his 40th victim. Or someone advocating for gun control while selling the very guns they think people shouldn't have.