Wait, what?
That’s like saying you don’t have to drive faster to win the race, you just have to cross the line first.
Wait, what?
That’s like saying you don’t have to drive faster to win the race, you just have to cross the line first.
I’m pretty much on board, though how much anyone can agree is a matter of relativity.
We know about the closest stars and the planets within them, and based off spectrometry, we’re confident the planets “close” to us haven’t had life, though they might be capable.
The chances of there being no mass extinction events in the millions of years following abiogenesis is arguably smaller than surviving the five or so we’ve had. Given everything we know about astrophysics, we owe the asteroids a few clean hits, we have been astronomically lucky, and that’s not even taking into consideration every other cause of mass extinction.
15 billion years is still considered early in the grand scheme of things, it’s likely that we are the early ones. A billion years head start is plausible, sure, but it’s certainly less plausible than our existence.
All of this is to say that life is rare enough without them being a stones throw away.
And this is all disregarding any possible intent behind a visit. Any being capable of space travel does not need our resources.
Unless they’re sex tourists, which would explain all the anal probing.
On second thought, I choose to believe.
I mean… The child never saw who gave birth to them, so there’s that…
The chances of extra terrestrial life to have visited earth is very, very small.
The chances of life to occur are small enough,
The chances of evolution to pass through multiple extinction events and producing a being capable of higher intelligence is even smaller,
The chances they have done this faster than humans is smaller still,
The chances they have evolved close enough to us to have visited is near impossible.
The universe is huge, there’s almost certainly life elsewhere - but to ask whether they visited earth is like speculating on whether ghosts exist.
Also the universe is expanding at such a fast rate that unless we develop faster-than-light tech, we will never reach another solar system.
used once
I’ll use it until the spines wear down.
Statistically better than the choices I’ve made thus far I suppose.
Two things:
You are responsible for the choices you make, but there’s a difference between learning, and beating yourself up.
Once you understand the underlying causes for your decisions, you become a different person, and it becomes harder to associate those old thoughts to who you are now.
I used to think my parents had shit figured out, then I realised how dumb they were.
Then I thought I had shit figured out, then I realised how dumb I was.
Then I thought I found my own guru who had shit figured out, but then I realised how dumb they were.
If you get lucky and find someone who provides valuable insights, understand this is gambling - eventually they will give bad advice.
Okay you’ve convinced me this is a good idea.
How do I give consciousness to the “antivirus” software on my parents computers, so I can digitally rape if for a thousand years?
Did you come here from Tumbler?
Good to know, though the point remains; people will readily accept claims which absolve them of guilt.
You essentially just illustrated it. Even though they aren’t screaming, it says nothing about whether they feel pain.
Thanks for taking the intuitive to flip the question.
The next question is: what metric are you using to determine that 100 cat deaths is roughly equivalent to one person having a fingernail pulled out? Why 100? Why not a million?
Do you think there is an objective formula to determine how much suffering is produced by?
In the example the sadist is torturing the AI because it’s convenient and safe, not because they hate the AI.
If they wanted to hurt real people too, but couldn’t because they would get found, then it wouldn’t be a hate-crime.
If I was torturing a Korean because a Korean was the only one who responded to my All-You-Can-Eat-Tteok-Bokki-In-My-Basement flier, then I would be torturing them because they’re Korean, but it wouldn’t be a hate-crime because I’m not doing it because I hate Koreans.
Don’t worry, I haven’t made any judgements about you.
And I wasn’t implying that you were implying that I was implying genocide being comparable, I just thought it was funny that we both thought that.
In some sense the combined suffering of all people involved in a genocide is horrific. But if you were to lay out the experiences of everyone involved in a genocide end-to-end, and compare that to an equivalent length of time to ceaseless sadistic torture of one person, the torture is going to be worse.
However, there is value besides personal experience which is lost during a genocide. That’s what makes it hard to compare the two.
Had to edit the post to change “crime” to “atrocity” because people were taking it literally.
It’s funny that when I considered this, I thought about asking whether people would think it was worse than genocide, but decided against that because some people might think my opinion is “genocide isn’t as bad as bullying a robot”.
I’m not cultured enough to have read this.
imagine wasting all 387.44 million miles of circuitry on the word “hate”. TLDR NPC. Get skinpilled hater.
Suppose for the sake of the hypothetical we can plug a human brain into the same network, and offload a fraction of the consciousness to confirm the pain is equivalent, and it is not just comparable, but orders of magnitude greater than any human can suffer.
You say you care about other human beings most. So I have two questions for you.
Q1: Which is worse, one person having a finger nail pulled out with a pair of pliers, or a cat being killed with a knife?
Q2: (I’m assuming you answered killing the cat is worse) how many people need to lose finger nails until it becomes worse? 10? 100?
I hear what you’re saying, but a “hate crime”, as a legal definition, necessarily must be directed towards a person because of an innate trait.
Crimes against ethnicities, genders, orientations, or lifestyles all count.
Three examples:
I don’t hate Koreans. A Korean spits in my face, so I punch them. Not a hate crime.
I hate Koreans. A Korean spits in my face, so I punch them. Not a hate crime.
I hate Koreans. I punch a Korean because they’re Korean. Hate crime.
I’m on board with what you’re saying.
Doctors used to be told “human babies don’t feel pain, they just react like the do”.
Which is basically like saying “lobsters don’t scream when you boil them alive, that sound is just air escaping”
To me, it seems less like an intuitive position to hold, and more like a fortunate convenience.
“I sure am glad that lobsters don’t feel pain. Now I don’t need to feel guilty about my meal”.
No doubt, there would be a large demographic claiming the pain isn’t real, it’s just “simulated pain”. - like, okay, let’s simulate your family fucking dying in the most violent and realistic way possible and see if you don’t develop incurable PTSD?
Quick to call other people kids as an insult.