Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Memento Mori" data-source="post: 46315" data-attributes="member: 1">I don&#039;t really care because it doesn&#039;t really affect me. It&#039;s your problem, not mine, if you are fervently pro-natalist.Having a high standard of living and having basic needs met is what I value more. I shy upon the notion of reproduction because I don&#039;t like the idea of bringing another consciousness into this world.Accelerationism seems to be the way forward, especially considering the rate of technological advancement we are seeing in recent times. Luddism is a reversion to the mean of recorded human history—tribalism, scarcity and high mortality. If there&#039;s an opportunity to make leaps and bounds in our progress as a species, we should just take it uncompromisingly.All the events in modern human history have been leading up to this crucial juncture, and for humanity to descend back into the primal swamp of bestial savagery seems to be a massive waste.Not saying accelerationism is without it&#039;s cons, we could be very well heading into a dystopic hell of our own making, but these concerns are cursory at best and the potential for immense gains more attractive than what the alternative of Luddism offers.I think there is a subset of the human population that could be considered &#039;useless eaters&#039;, but it&#039;s more a reflection of fundamental human inequalities rather than any personal judgement—it&#039;s not up to me to make that call. But I&#039;m hopeful about the potential of future technology to enhance the human species (ie. genome editing).Not really, considering how we can&#039;t foresee such a result occurring as we&#039;d expect it to, and for that reason it doesn&#039;t justify the large amount of suffering for what is ultimately an indefinite outcome. It&#039;s not something humanity can come together towards through democratic means, it&#039;d have to be done malevolently through bad actors. Some madman is probably working on this as we speak tho.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Memento Mori, post: 46315, member: 1"] I don't really care because it doesn't really affect me. It's your problem, not mine, if you are fervently pro-natalist. Having a high standard of living and having basic needs met is what I value more. I shy upon the notion of reproduction because I don't like the idea of bringing another consciousness into this world. Accelerationism seems to be the way forward, especially considering the rate of technological advancement we are seeing in recent times. Luddism is a reversion to the mean of recorded human history—tribalism, scarcity and high mortality. If there's an opportunity to make leaps and bounds in our progress as a species, we should just take it uncompromisingly. All the events in modern human history have been leading up to this crucial juncture, and for humanity to descend back into the primal swamp of bestial savagery seems to be a massive waste. Not saying accelerationism is without it's cons, we could be very well heading into a dystopic hell of our own making, but these concerns are cursory at best and the potential for immense gains more attractive than what the alternative of Luddism offers. I think there is a subset of the human population that could be considered 'useless eaters', but it's more a reflection of fundamental human inequalities rather than any personal judgement—it's not up to me to make that call. But I'm hopeful about the potential of future technology to enhance the human species (ie. genome editing). Not really, considering how we can't foresee such a result occurring as we'd expect it to, and for that reason it doesn't justify the large amount of suffering for what is ultimately an indefinite outcome. It's not something humanity can come together towards through democratic means, it'd have to be done malevolently through bad actors. Some madman is probably working on this as we speak tho. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread