ruggedraven36 said:It’s fair because it follows the basic principle that no one should be stuck doing jobs they hate forever. From where I'm sitting, NOBODY has actually offered a single decent argument against the rotation principle proposed by the roadworker. All we get are pathetic anecdotes like yours. Anecdotes aren't arguments. They aren't even typical cases—they're just extreme outliers pulled from current reality, whereas we're talking about how a future society *should* function. We need to speak in terms of PRINCIPLES, at an Abstract level, especially when discussing a society that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, any principle can have exceptions if it serves the greater good—it’s just stupid to debate those specifics now, since we aren't anywhere near building that kind of society and we can't possibly see every tiny detail right this second.
No job is undesirable if the pay is high enough. Someone with limited skills might be happy sweeping streets for $50, while someone else would be miserable even at $150.
But we should still force that second person into work they hate... because forcing anyone into unwanted labor is inherently unjust.🤣
In a utopia, there is no such thing as dirty work, because an idealist will pay any price to live within it.
You scrape the bottom of the barrel willingly. You eliminate class enemies at will, hand over family members to the gallows at will, and so on... It doesn't matter if it feels like hell on earth, as long as you are moving toward that collective goal—a freedom where everyone is a slave, an equality where everyone is destitute, and a brotherhood where everyone would rather kill one another.
feralranger said:I cast my vote for the "some other private owner" option; frankly, I’m suggesting that Anderson simply gift the forum over to hiddenpuma75 via a deed of gift, as he’d undoubtedly transform the whole thing into a full-blown theme park.
On a different note, it is quite fascinating that none of our esteemed forum communists had the audacity to vote for nationalization—you know, the sensible idea of handing management back to the people.
Good grief, these little salon-dwelling communists... they won't even dare to click a button...
...yet I suspect they’d be the first to vanish from behind the barricades 🙂 in the blink of an eye.
Well, nationalization doesn't mean democratic control; it means government control. 🙂
I fail to see why anyone would want some small circle of questionable characters—appointed based on political loyalty rather than actual competence—to run a company bought with other people's money without their consent, all just to line their pockets through corruption.
As I’ve noted before, evolution hasn't provided a mechanism to distinguish between preventable pain and the unavoidable kind. We feel them both the same way.
It makes no difference whether you strike your own head with a hammer or get hit by debris from an earthquake. The pain remains identical.
Pain is simply the body's reaction to harm. In most instances, it's something we can avoid through our own choices—unless, of course, we're dealing with certain illnesses beyond anyone's control.
I didn't suggest people are personally responsible for every ailment, good grief. The reality is that evolution is a brutal, indifferent process... it rarely considers whether an animal feels pain if there's no practical advantage to doing so.
We are discussing actual pain, not the suffering caused by chronic inaction...
Gerald Hill said:Well, that condition actually creates more suffering than it eliminates, which makes it detrimental to the overall balance of pain. Psychological pain isn't important at all; it is merely harmful and absolutely nothing more than that.
steeleagle77 said:Pain itself isn't the problem. The problem is failing to act to resolve it. It serves as an alarm, signaling that something is wrong and demanding a response...
Gerald Hill said:Well, that condition actually creates more suffering than it eliminates, which makes it detrimental to the overall balance of pain. Psychological pain isn't important at all; it is merely harmful and absolutely nothing more than that.
Take fear as one example among many:
It keeps us alive. Someone prone to paranoia is hyper-vigilant, especially out in the wilderness. They hear a rustle behind a rock and assume it's a predator—that instinct provides a survival edge. A person without fear would likely end up as a meal... evolutionary selection at work.
That’s how fear evolved. Those with a stronger survival instinct passed on those genes, shaping the species over time...
Pick any "negative" emotion and I can give you a reason why it serves a purpose. 😁
Pain itself isn't the problem; the failure to act on it is. It’s an alarm system designed to signal trouble and prompt action...
Take this, for instance; there are people who simply don't feel physical pain. Do you have any idea what their average life expectancy looks like?
Are you aware that such a condition is considered an extremely dangerous state?
If one possesses sufficient intellectual capacity, it becomes quite easy to visualize an analogy explaining why psychological pain is just as vital. Furthermore, as I previously noted, it is impossible to experience one without the other. They are inextricably linked... one necessitates the presence of the other.
As the nervous system of an organism increases in complexity, so too does its capacity for both pain and pleasure. An amoeba feels almost nothing, an insect feels very little, a fish feels a bit more... mammals feel the most. Humans are among the most vulnerable and sensitive species, but that comes packaged with an immense potential for happiness.
Gerald Hill said:To experience pleasure, one requires positive experiences. Reducing suffering is itself a positive experience that results in happiness and comfort. However, according to negative utilitarianism, we ought to limit our pursuits so that suffering does not resurface due to the inability to satisfy our desires; we become more vulnerable to negative experiences because we constantly strive for the positive. As for the claim that suffering is somehow beneficial—that is such utter nonsense that I refuse to even dignify it with a comment.
That makes sense. Though I fail to see how one might actually act on it. Our desires are largely dictated by biology...
The idea that suffering is useful is such utter nonsense that I won't even dignify it with a response.
Don't be dramatic. It isn't nonsense at all. I won't bother explaining it to you, as you clearly lack the evolutionary biology background required to grasp why pain matters.
So, you think pain is an evolutionary dead end? That it serves no function whatsoever... 😁
Ultimately, you end up right back where you started. Intervening like that just interferes with individual interests and desires, which are inherently subjective—what brings one person joy might cause another nothing but misery, and vice versa.
By attempting to alleviate someone's pain, you're effectively stripping away a certain level of potential comfort.
I fail to see the logic in trying to diminish suffering when it serves such a vital purpose for us all. It seems like a widespread lack of awareness. Without pain, there would be no existence at all, nor would there be any pleasure to act as its necessary motivator.
Utilitarianism is an ethical framework built on the naive, social-constructivist assumption that we are all equals, implying one can simply maximize "total societal happiness."
It might be possible on a small scale, but you can't feed the wolves and expect to keep all your sheep... Human interests are fundamentally at odds, and they always will be.
But let’s move past that... it leads to the same conclusion. Reducing suffering increases happiness. The two aren't separate. Suffering is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of pleasure.
ruggedbadger2 said:I’ll give you a more detailed answer once I’ve had a chance to dig through the website. In the meantime, where on earth did you find that stuff about the cats? I'm asking because Google isn't giving me anything useful when I search for "david Quincy cats." 😁
Pierce’s vegan activism was already wearing thin on me, but his attitude toward animal carnivores—specifically cats—was the ultimate dealbreaker. He actually advocated for thinning their numbers just to prevent them from causing pain to other species. 🙄
While we're on the subject, our pathetic, human, ego-driven feelings of pity exist primarily to serve our genes, not our own actual well-being. It’s simply the result of positive selection favoring cooperation with other species so we could more effectively exploit them. Cats don't have that burden; it would be a disadvantage for them. (Imagine a cat having a moral crisis over hunting a mouse.) In fact, it’s quite the opposite. When they kill, they likely experience what we would call empathy, and they enjoy it. For them, it's the peak sensation, usually preceded by playing with the prey to prolong the process. (Which aligns perfectly with evolutionary theory, as maximum cruelty serves their interests.)
If cats experience this Darwinian reward as intensely as we feel compassion, why should our subjective emotions hold any special status? Wouldn't it be more efficient to feel no suffering at all while securing food? This little pang of conscience during our food selection is nothing but an inconvenience... it offers us almost no utility.
Does anyone ever wonder why we don't shed crocodile tears when we step on ants or cockroaches?
Not to mention how he claims this could happen in the near future, only to backtrack and say, ''In centuries to follow, however, they will be possible...'' Then, just moments later, he suggests we might see it realized around the fourth millennium. My god. 😁
Who cares what happens in a few hundred years? What does that have to do with me right now? Honestly, it’s completely irrational—that's my main critique from an existentialist-nihilistic standpoint. Once we're gone, we're gone. Nothing matters anymore. When we die, it's as if we never existed. Instead of wasting time trying to build something "good" for some far-off futuristic "humanity," I'd much rather spend my time on basic Darwinian rewards: enjoying good food, accumulating resources, and sleeping with women. I'm not interested in planting sequoias just so some mindless future generation can enjoy the shade. That kind of idealism is naive. I'd rather embrace the absurdity and find peace in life's paradoxes and dark art.
The whole idea of colonizing space is just as naive. It's nothing more than a fantasy for unserious Star Wars fans. It's fine for an audience aged 8 to 19, but I don't consider adult fans particularly bright. No offense intended; I'm not here to please anyone, and I won't hold back on the criticism.
ruggedbadger2 said:Are you claiming you read the entire website or just the manifesto? Because there’s actually a massive amount of material to dig through in there.
I'm not going to weigh in on the rest of your post since I don't have enough background to determine what's technically possible and what isn't, but generally speaking, I agree with the analysis by Quincy that you linked.
I read the manifesto and skimmed the rest. It was a waste of time even thinking permanent pleasure was an option, which is why I checked out his claims. At any rate, I'm glad I shifted my perspective regarding the importance of pain and suffering. It isn't just about genetics, as Pierce argues. It feels like the author just threw out a bone to see if anyone would bite. He offers no concrete method for how this works, simply assuming modern tech makes it possible. He mentions MAOIs and those "wirehead" rats, claiming their pleasure is lasting and consequence-free without providing a shred of evidence—even though those same models starved themselves to death in the actual experiments. That isn't the only case; much broader studies on monkeys looking at drug-seeking behavior show that animals lose all control in their addiction, ignoring everything else until they die from dopamine stimulation. Every such experiment ends in death. Even the "critic" conceded it might be possible, focusing mostly on morality and consequences.
He concludes by saying, '''The details are too messy and complicated.'' Give me a break... 🤣 Then he talks about stimulating behaviors we normally avoid to escape pain, as if rewiring the brain is as trivial as a common cold. We may know a lot about the brain, but implementing this kind of genetic engineering is highly unlikely, even if we understood everything. Otherwise, the whole thing is pure science fiction.
hiddeneagle98 said:I’m going to drop the link to this absolutely brilliant website once again.
I finally sat down and read the entire manifesto. It’s nothing more than a sci-fi tech utopia. 🤣 The sheer number of flawed assumptions is staggering. I gave up on even trying to draft some bullet points after the first chapter...
The critique covers the main points from a philosophical standpoint. It's fascinating how Pierce just assumes everlasting happiness is actually achievable. He suggests we could solve the issue of tolerance by simply knocking out the genes that encode monoamine oxidase. But binding serotonin to its receptors essentially destroys them; tolerance is the inevitable result. There is no way for those receptors to return to their previous state without internal self-regulating processes—which leads to a feedback loop where serotonin supply drops, resulting in depression. There isn't even a theoretical possibility of reversing that up-regulation process without suffering... and plenty of time. Pleasure can only exist as a contrast to pain. Without the capacity for pain, there is certainly no pleasure, and no intervention could ever make that state possible.