@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

agamemnonymous

@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Why not just have Scotty beam your shit out directly?

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I’d guess that having children, in the long run is more environmentally harmful than you eating meat the rest of your life.

This just strikes me as silly. What is the “environment” but children of various species? Obviously an environmentally harmonious life is best, but life isn’t just what the environment is for, it’s what the environment is. This is the same mindset as people who have a couch that no one’s allowed to sit on.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

And not enough wolves causes an unchecked increase in prey which is bad for the rest of the environment. As I said, harmonious coexistence is best. We have the knowledge and tools to live harmoniously. My problem is with the trend of un-nuanced universal anti-natalism.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

We moderate, not eradicate. The middle path, not extremism.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

As does every other life form, given the chance. We are the only one, that we know of, which even has a concept of conservation. We have the power to consciously regulate our behavior.

In the end, my point is that either life is valuable for its own sake, including humans, or it isn’t, including the rest of the ecosystem. Any philosophy which posits that the existence of other life forms is more valid than that of humans is foundationally inconsistent. I’m certainly not saying that human life is more valid than others, but either life is valid or out isn’t. Humans aren’t special one way or the other.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Didn’t say that. Un-nuanced universal anti-natalism is extremism.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

is your life more worth than the future of our own species?

Where exactly does the future of the species come from if no one has kids?

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

That is the implication of

not having kids, is the best environmental friendly option of them all.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Sure. But your framing of not having children as “environmentally friendly”, if embraced, results in only the unconscientious people having kids. That’s literally the premise of Idiocracy.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Framing not having kids as conscientious means only the unconscientious will have kids. That is an everyone problem.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Don’t know how you jumped to that conclusion, but okay.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

All I’m saying is that there’s a logical breakdown at play. Any argument in favor of “the environment” had to be based on the value of individual life. I’m not even saying that we shouldn’t be moderating our population growth, we should. I’m just saying the environmentally friendly angle is a logically strange argument, from first principles.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Try to regularly imagine yourself on your death bed, looking back on life. I find that inspires the optimal blend. You don’t want to look back on a life of mindless work, or of fruitless sloth. If old-you would look back happily on a decision, it’s probably the right one.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

It’s an anti-meme. The original isn’t about STEM majors, and the destinations are -sexual, -polar, and -tch.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

At a certain other of magnitude, failure requires clever deliberation.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Clap the whole bag between your hands and rub them together like a scheming villain

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

“Element” is a fairly general word, we just generally use it colloquially to refer specifically to the chemical elements. If you interpret his usage in the same way we use “states of matter”, it’s not horrendously far off. Earth, water, air, and fire roughly correspond to solid, liquid, gas, and (extremely rudimentary, very low ionization) plasma (or perhaps a more general energetic concept). In any case, an object “wanting” to get to its “natural” place also isn’t terribly far off from a statement of consistent physical laws. Solids do “want” to accumulate with other solids by gravity, energetic gases do “want” to rise above less energetic ones through buoyancy.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

As a very sociable introvert, I feel seen.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Nope. Capitalism doesn’t have good intentions, just good PR.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Capitalism isn’t about freedom, it’s about exploitation. The “freedom” it prioritizes is the freedom of individuals to lay private claim to the value of public resources (land, natural resources, etc), then use their control of those resources to lay claim to the value of the labor of others (the employee/employer relationship). It’s literally parasitism.

Capitalism is the “freedom” to extract profit. Profit is the difference between the price you sell something for, and the cost to produce it. It naturally results in paying employees less than the value of their labor, and/or charging the customer more than the value of a product. It is fundamentally a grift, profiting by skimming off value as a middleman. The freedom of the capitalist comes fundamentally at the restriction of freedom of everyone else, the majority “averages down”, that’s just a mathematical truth.

The longer capitalism exists, the more “freedom” is siphoned into generational wealth, and the more extreme inequality becomes. Capitalists gain the freedom to live a luxurious life without actually doing any work, while everyone else loses the freedom to use land and natural resources. It’s literally just “dibs” metastasized.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The wife and I will do dumplings every once in a while, but it’s definitely not worth the trouble unless we do a couple hundred at once.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #