Post scarcity is kind of an odd man out here. The idea predates tech broism by a solid half century, and informs a lot of contemporary leftist theory. There is nothing inherently wrong with using utopian thinking as a guiding principle for iterative policy. I'd argue that anything which doesn't do that is cynicism.
post
I choose death
Depending on how serious you are:
Choose weed instead
Or the crisis line. You probably already know where to find it. Help is available. You do not have to suffer alone. I love you homie.
He's an assassassin. He never said the death was his own...
Just kidding, unless given that exact choice lol. Weed has been a great help this year. Love you too fam, appreciate the thoughtful comment.
Or the crisis line.
What happens is that they “triage” you, where depending on how you answer their script you get cops at your door and a trip to hell on earth, or you are on hold for 20 minutes to speak with someone who also is reading a script and doesn’t give a rats ass about you.
Maybe states that aren’t Oklahoma have mental hospitals which are preferable to drinking yourself to sleep, but who knows.
We are all stardust though. Billion-year-old carbon.
yes but do you consider that important in any way? if you do you are closer to the person on the left
I would say it is a neutral fact.
Imo there is no meaning to life, everyone decides for themselves what to live for.
If someone likes the fact that we are made from starstuff, why yuck that yum specifically? It is kind of a nice perspective to take sometimes when life gets stressful.
It is also a part of a nice song by Joni Mitchell and a nice speech by Carl Sagan, both people I admire, but not something I think about a lot...
we will make global anarchy by tomorrow. no more money, capitalism and suffering, trust
I mean scientifically speaking, we are all made of stardust. Everything in the universe is. Including the existential crisis your trying to forget by disassociating.
Stellaris players: How it feels to have a Spiritualist empire on one side of your border and a Materialist empire on the other.
I choose neither, and instead day dream about fully automated luxury gay space communism, knowing I'm gonna die before such a thing could ever come to fruition.
Basically the dark shadows of the Hippy Age Of Aquarius and sandal-wearing tech Utopianism corrupted Into evil by the baby boomers ageing into the dominant political class in the West.
I just want to drop in and call out "death is a design flaw" specifically. It is not. Without death, there can be no evolution, and any change to the environment is extinction.
The mountains seem eternal, but there were forests before many of them, and though the trees will be different in the distant eons when the mountains are worn to nothing, the forests will live on.
That's pretty cool in nature, especially with plants and fungi that don't think. But applying it to people is kinda eugenics-y. "Billions should die so that our genes can improve"
Oh, giving ourselves endless lifespans is a fine endeavor. We've got plenty of ways to adapt to changing environments without changing our bodies, and we're pretty close to being able to do that without dying and evolving anyway. Shit might get weird, but it always does with us.
Based. I always think stories about "immortality is bad actually" are weird because people are fundamentally capable of change. Lots of people choose not to change, but I think that's because the boredom in their life is smaller than other forces like poverty, oppression, trauma, and culture. Give people infinite time to heal from their traumas and I think they eventually will. I think enlightenment is a more stable state than ignorance.
This is interesting because you propose that eugenics is inherently bad because it requires a lot of sacrifice, is that right? Because it doesn't have to. This line from Gattaca always stuck with me:
[Vincent's parents are planning a second child, and are shown four candidate embryos] Geneticist: We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn't need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply, the best, of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result.
I could argue, could, that not doing eugenics on this level would be immoral. If we can use science to make people less prone to disease, to make them stronger and smarter, why wouldn't we? I'm not a fucking nazi here, I'm looking for a serious debate. We are already doing this in a different categorical scope with modern medicine. If we claim that all births must be "natural", then perhaps disease and death are also "natural" and we shouldn't intervene, and do without medical science and just have nature run its natural course.
Hmm, why can't there be evolution without death? As long as organisms reproduce, genes are passed on, and some reproduce more successfully than others, why would it matter if existing individuals stay around or not? I don't see how it makes evolution fundamentally impossible.
Without death you can't have reproduction, you'd get way too many organisms to be sustainable in any way.
So we could go visit our great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents and they'd look like Jabba the Hutt. Holidays would be a beast.
I honestly think most of these bugfuck crazy views stem from we humans not having evolved to deal with the modern world. People feed us the simple answers we crave.
What’s option 3?
I don't know how to put this to you guys but the one on the right is significantly more plausible than the one on the left.
Also I don't like turmeric.
post-scarcity society
RAM prices going up
Really? Are people out there that thinks that death is a design flaw? I know it's shitpost, but it's based on something after all
Depends on how literally you mean it, in general, those most likely to say it wont think that humans are literally designed not to die and only do so because someone made a mistake, but more that humans might be redesigned or modified not to (or at least not from biological aging). Not a hard to find sentiment if you hang out in spaces with transhumanists, but I find the ones that overlap with AI bros, that tend to have an attitude like "this will totally happen in my lifetime and with no effort because the AI singularity is going to come and give us everything in a few years" impossible to talk to, because all too often they will cite even the tiniest listed improvement in any AI system as proof that literally everything possible or impossible is about to happen and then insist you arent paying attention when you give them skeptcism.
Yes, there are people who believe we will find a way to transcend death via technology. I personally think a world ruled by immortal omniwealthy methusalas that will never let even death release their boot from the necks of the common man is a bad thing, but...
Once I read a creepypasta where the wealthy spent a lot of money paying research and development of immortality, only achieving a worse version of cancer. The wealthy obviously went dead.
I’m also hung up on “Crypto is UBI”. Surely this is a one off crackpot quote and not a thing, right?
This one is empirically falsified. I never heard it before, and even though I can believe somebody is saying it somewhere, it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Oh almost forgot
More than three years ago we founded Worldcoin with the ambition of creating a new identity and financial network owned by everyone; the rollout begins today. If successful, we believe Worldcoin could drastically increase economic opportunity, scale a reliable solution for distinguishing humans from AI online while preserving privacy, enable global democratic processes, and eventually show a potential path to AI-funded UBI.
https://world.org/cofounder-letter
It’s the iris scan one

I believe this is an idea most legitimately championed by Nick Bostrom. Here is a video explaining his perspective.
I feel like, at least from the stance of abstract philosophy, he makes some good points. And I'm not enough of a philosopher to refute them (though I'm sure some have). Personally, my stance is "I'll cross that bridge when I arrive at it" - I expect to die before that happens.
Well, I'm already sort-of the right one. I made an AI organize my documents, suggest articles for me to learn from, etc. I vent to AI, I ask AI for advice, AI is secretly running my life in the background.
I always remember someone that came to my country, Chile, without getting a visa, because chat GPT told them they didn't need a visa, they were denied entry and had to flew back.
Was that you?
and there is increasing evidence of a correlation of "AI therapy" and suicides, or AI emotional dependency in general, character AI is really good at killing autistic people too.
We scoff at them both, but seriously pick one and get comfortable, looking reality right in the butt-cheeks is bad for the soul.
I choose not to be an idiot.
I want science and progress, but progress at the service of the wellbeing of mankind, not to enrich idiots who outsourced their critical thinking to chat GPT.

all 64 comments