Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

I'm always a bit wary of this 'freedom fetishism' (notice the ''s). What additional specific freedoms do you want/lack? (Assuming you live ina western country, of course.)

I don't have a list, but I bet there are choices I don't have, or are discouraged so strongly that I might as well not have them, that wouldn't hurt anyone if I did. I don't support freedom at the cost of the well-being of others, if that's what you think I'm saying.

A family was basically the ancient version of an old-age pension, just as it still is in some parts of Africa - having a family was worth a lot more back then, and even today I at least would be willing to sacrifice a lot for that possibility. And just stop and think for a second: Would you rather be free and starving (Starving! As in No food!), or fed, clothed and doing some job under acceptable conditions? (Obviously not talking about household servants here and not the slaves on gallleys or in the mines.)

If I'm starving though, in antiquity or more recent times, it would generally means there's either a famine (which being a slave isn't going to save me from) or it the conditions I'm living under are so dire and tyrannical that I can hardly be said to have my freedom (ie: ancient China). There are others (such as farm mismanagement or war), but yeah, in those situations, I would rather be free, because then I have the opportunity to better my lot, a slight opportunity in some cases, but I prefer the chance.

Of course, since starvation is rarely a direct consequence of the freedoms you have, I don't see why I need to choose. A landowner would still have a family and one that would presumably take care of them better than an owner, and famine can still affect a slave's owner, and I'm gonna guess you're gonna be a low priority as a slave in those situations.

[10ebbor10]

There are other ways to starve. Say you own a farm. With some meager gear and stuff. You're rather poor. Now, in order to farm you have to buy supplies, probably water and fertilizer, or animal fodder if you're a cattle rancher. Now one day, you go to the market and find that the prices are so low, that you can no longer profit from your farm.

Welcome to third world reality. No real options to better your lot. And free market capitalism isn't exactly tyranicall(or maybe it is, but then it's oposite of it's own ideals.) Not much of a chance to better your lot either.

((What were we talking about, actually.))

[fqllve]

Again, that usually happens under societies that are so tyrannical that the people can hardly said to be free. Starvation was such a problem for peasants in ancient China that they had to supplement their income by weaving handicrafts, despite the absolutely back-breaking nature of rice cultivation, and that didn't really help.

But I don't know why we're comparing the absolute worst possible situation as a yeoman to the best possible situation as a slave. Is it really surprising that the former is worse? I don't really think it's a useful comparison.

The conversation started with slavery in the Bible.

e: I... dunno why you're bringing free market capitalism into this. I haven't said a word about economic models.

[10ebbor10]

Not really. This is the result of pure free market capitalism we're speaking of here. On agricultural level, things used to be better during the colonial and semidictorial times*, because then the markets were closed and concurrention didn't kill you.  Similair things are happening in the States. If you're a small farmer, you have to sell to the big guys in the market. If you don't, though luck. They decide the prices, and they will force you to take loans to increase production, so they can decrease prices again. If you don't, you loose your contract, and you're out of luck.

Repeat for all relatively low income/ easily exploitable jobs in quite a lot of countries.

* On oh so many levels, they were not.

Edit: Nigeria, currently a democratic state, is one of the examples for the earlier explanation.
Edit 2: It's just an example of how absolute freedom, or increasing freedom isn't always a good thing. Free market capitalism and globalisation are the main examples there. The healthcare systems could be others.

[fqllve]

Ok. But the most important point is why are we comparing the worst possible situation as a yeoman to the best possible situation as a slave? I'm not seeing how this is an enlightening comparison.

[10ebbor10]

Ok. But the most important point is why are we comparing the worst possible situation as a yeoman to the best possible situation as a slave? I'm not seeing how this is an enlightening comparison.

It's not the worst possible situation. It's just a counterargument against the idea that more freedom is automatically always better.

((I have absolutely no idea which point I'm defending right now))

[fqllve]

Yeah this whole thing started mostly because I said I would always prefer freedom to bondage, whereas Wolfy seemed ok with it and that seemed like the main source of our disagreement. I never said anything was automatically always better.

We're basically ten miles from the topic or more now. :p

[10ebbor10]

It's a strange topic (or maybe it's the forum). Other topics always swerve of to religion at some point, and here we're not talking about it 25% of the time.
.

[Descan]

How about we talk about what a strong AI would mean for the soul theory?

Or whether a created biological sentient creature would mean... anything?

Or uplifted creatures, like a gorilla turned sentient. :3

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's all pretty clear there. We have people like Thecard, who thinks only humans can have souls so all of those things are impossible, people who think that only humans have souls but those things are possible, people who think those things would also have souls due to their nature, and people like me who don't believe in souls at all.

[kaijyuu]

Or uplifted creatures, like a gorilla turned sentient. :3

Gorillas fit most of the definitions of sentient already.

Have some interesting reading.

[Descan]

Okay, better thought: All that, but instead of what it would mean, what would the various organizations THINK it means?

Like, the Pope. What'll the pope say? O:

E: Kai, sentient is the wrong word. Vocally communicative, cultural, and (not necessarily but it would make it clearer) a part of human culture. Like a gorilla chart-topper, or a elephant head-of-state.

[kaijyuu]

I'm unsure about vocal communication (well, language as we use it), but I DO know that most those apes listed have culture. It's been repeatedly shown that they invent techniques for food gathering or something (such as making simplistic tools) and pass it on to their children. Non-instinctual behaviors that spread among members of the community.


There really isn't much difference between humans and many species of ape, except we're a bit smarter. We're better at gathering, retaining, and spreading knowledge, and that's just been snowballing for the past few thousand years.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Pope would probably accept it, as the Vatican has already said that any hypothetical aliens would also by definition be creations of god and thus have souls.

Protestant churches are widely divided and without central authority, so that would be case-by-case.

Orthodox churches are more centralized, but individual Patriarchs would still have their say.

Islam (Sunni and Shiite would probably not be divided on this) is tricky, but as it is a fairly conservative religion overall I'd imagine they'd reject it. On the other hand, the Quran talks about things like Dijinn, so thinking beings besides god and humans isn't unprecedented.

Hinduism and Buddhism would not be phased. Almost everything has a soul already, so more thinking beings are just a product of our technological advancement.

[PanH]

The pope accepting AI ?

Galileus theory was only authorized (not accepted) in 1741. It was only accepted along with Darwin's theory in 1979 - 1996.

Even if the Vatican said that alien should be defined as creations of god, the Vatican is also mostly conservative (and rarely lead by someone as smart as JP II).