Print

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

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sergarr]

In society of altruists egoists have competitive advantage. Human body and cancer cells is a good example of this.

Long term altruistic society is plain impossible. Evolution will do its job.

A society of altruists as a whole has a clearly visible competitive advantage to the society of egoists, though. This is why altruism has evolved in a human society. The better version of altruism is, of course, the one that's only altruistic to altruistic people, and that's exactly how actual human societies operate already.

All notions of "most humans are egoists" are just libertarian propaganda.

[wierd]

Not really sergarr-- Humans cooperate only where it suits them personally, and specifically, only where they see a direct payoff.

Killing off fossil fuel use, to escape the anthropocene mass extinction?  "What about my stock prices! OMG!"

That's the problem.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Killing off fossil fuel use, to escape the anthropocene mass extinction?  "What about my stock prices! OMG!"

BTW, why exactly should we care about mass extinction as long as we prosper?

[SirQuiamus]

The better version of altruism is, of course, the one that's only altruistic to altruistic people, and that's exactly how actual human societies operate already.

"Only help those who help you" is pretty egoistical, though.

[wierd]

Clearly, you do not understand how ecology works, and think that technology is magic.

There is no other explanation for that kind of thought. 

Just to rouse you from that idleness of thought, here's what you could expect from just a single species-- bees-- going extinct.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140502-what-if-bees-went-extinct

Massive extinctions make the biosphere much harder to sustain, and reduce the number of food sources available. Science can't magic that kind of systemic problem away.

You are literally trading a livable future, for a night out on the town.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

The better version of altruism is, of course, the one that's only altruistic to altruistic people, and that's exactly how actual human societies operate already.

"Only help those who help you" is pretty egoistical, though.

Tell your organism to care well about your cancer cells and other parasites. In fact there are enough immune system killing drugs for you to try and see what will happen.

[SirQuiamus]

Were you responding to me or UR?

[wierd]

Amusingly, the fact that you exist and have an immune system (since your very existence is a local maxima on the paradigm he was aspousing-- Your cells are a massive interworking communal effort-- to create YOU.) sinks your argument. 

SQ: was responding to UR.

[Sergarr]

Not really sergarr-- Humans cooperate only where it suits them personally, and specifically, only where they see a direct payoff.

Killing off fossil fuel use, to escape the anthropocene mass extinction?  "What about my stock prices! OMG!"

That's the problem.

This is more of a problem of humans being kind of shit at decision making and thus only optimizing for short-term. Also, while egoists are heavily outnumbered by altruists, they tend to get to the top level and control everything in their own favor, if they can.

As Churchille said, "democracy is shit, but it's better than the old shit", because it at least does try to distribute the power to the altruists instead of egoists. But it's still shit because it sucks at long-term planning, and we need some serious structural reforms to refine that shit into something which can better account for long-term shit, while still remaining beneficial for society and not the top class of egoists.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Massive extinctions make the biosphere much harder to sustain, and reduce the number of food sources available. Science can't magic that kind of systemic problem away.

Long term goal of humanity is to create an artifical biosphere, weather control and more stuff like that.
We should use science to decide what species we need and exterminate others. Adding genetically engineered species to the biosphere is a good step to do, too.

[wierd]

You might want to actually see what actual scientists say about that view.

The concensus is that science wont save you that way, and that your proposal simply wont work.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You might want to actually see what actual scientists say about that view.

The concensus is that science wont save you that way, and that your proposal simply wont work.

We altered surrounding environment since the beginning of the civilization. It is just a step to a planetary level. We can do this. And will do this sooner or later (there are a small chance that we will go extinct, but I think no anthropogenic mass extinction can cause that, there are will be enough biomass to feed few millions of people. Enough to continue progress of our civilization)

[smjjames]

Massive extinctions make the biosphere much harder to sustain, and reduce the number of food sources available. Science can't magic that kind of systemic problem away.

Long term goal of humanity is to create an artifical biosphere, weather control and more stuff like that.
We should use science to decide what species we need and exterminate others. Adding genetically engineered species to the biosphere is a good step to do, too.

There's an easy way to do that, go colonize and terraform Mars.

Also, you don't realize how interlinked ecosystems are, there is no 'useless' species (except maybe mosquitos, but even then, they are food for bats and stuff), you need ALL of them. Look what happened in Yellowstone when they decided that we didn't need wolves.

[Sheb]

Guys, back on rails please.

[wierd]

UR:  I have to go to work soon, so I cant continue to debate this.

However, your argument boils down to "We've been doing it forever, why do you say it is bad?"

Here's a few reasons why:

We are tampering with a system that has literally billions of years of selective pressure for attaining maximum economy of energy resource use, that has developed a profoundly interrelated network of species, all contributing subtly to human survival. We altered it here, altered it there, and the consequences were manageable. Loss of forest here, desertification there-- but not suficient to destroy the whole biosphere. 

We are now about to destroy the whole biosphere.

Do you have an earth 2.0 ready right this moment? No?  Do you think you will have one ready by the time the anthropocene kills you?  No?  From whence does your confidence come?

Nevermind that biological systems outperform our synthetic systems by orders of magnitude on energy efficiency already. You get vastly more bang for your buck by keeping plants and animals around than you do by having purely artificial systems that need energy and upkeep from humans.  That means you can support more humans on a natural biosphere than a synthetic analog.

A synthetic biology based biosphere still has energy requirements, which is the single resource humans are so hungry for. Energy.  The paradigm you aspire to will ultimately destroy even the synthetic life, to squeeze the last joule of energy from it for human use-- followed by collapse.

In terms of forensic anthropology, human civilizations have gone bust from this kind of ecological mismanagement more times than can be easily counted.  Like all of those past civilizations, you are beleiving that your magic will save you, and that you can continue without changing your behavior.

It has always resulted in the decline and destruction of that culture.

Food for thought.