• 0 Posts
  • 286 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 9th, 2025

help-circle

  • The encapsulation of Mao:

    “If the worst came to the worst and half of mankind died [in nuclear war], the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.”

    Zapp Brannigan revolutionary with no plans beyond bravado. There was/is no universe where a nuclear holocaust ends in sunshine and roses instead of the (functionally) permanent crippling of the human race. That lack of critical thought is still infecting leftist conversation today: vastly underestimating the cost and implications of actions and relying on blind appeals to moral determinism.



  • Everything is different (read: unknowable) to our experience as humans. Plants are well known to react to stimulus and damage, some are very sensitive to it and have sofisticated methods to communicate the stimulus. From a philosophical perspective, there’s no way to know that they would “feel” in those situations.

    Does a lack of physical agency evolve into a tranquil fatalist acceptance or do they suffer in an agonizing silence? Similarly, does the limited insect cognition of crickets let them feel the dread of lurking predators or dull the intrinsic terror their ecological niche?

    This is the problem I have with discussions on animal cruelty. There’s an assumption that we can project our human experience onto almost anything. We have the hubris to implicitly or explicitly anthropomorphize creatures to the point of personhood. Why does a tree limb have to be a human limb in order for us to ethically consider it?


    In my opinion, the only useful discussion is about our human reaction to cruelty/perceived cruelty. The shades of acceptance or repulsion will vary by our personal lived experiences (a bird might be a crop stealing pest or a beloved companion), but that doesn’t mean we can’t reach a stochastic answer on which behaviors towards others beings we find ethical.

    An average person in a certain country in the 21st century finds human torture morally abhorrent, mammal abuse to be disturbing and the chemical genocide of many insect species to be mundane. Another person in a different place and time might disagree. Maybe our resulting ethical framework is objectively correct or entirely inverted, but the exercise shows us more about ourselves and builds our empathetic awareness.







  • True, but also the commandments aren’t actually numbered. IIRC, there are 13 “Shalls” and “Shall nots”. So Catholics lump that section in with the first (no other gods, etc.) while the Protestants make room by joining “don’t covet wife/property”. There’s arguments to support both sides when looking at the historical context but on that specific issue I’d lean toward the Catholic interpretation making more sense considering god is telling people to make statues shortly after (Exodus 25:18). Either way it’s silly to be arguing over rules that bronze age people invented.



  • Yeah because an asteroid could NEVER hit the earth and wipe is out.

    I could have a heart attack or stroke and die tomorrow. So what? There’s probably extensive measures I could take to mitigate that (constant biometric monitoring, spending all my money on a personal physician entourage, strict diet and fitness regimen, etc…). Each of those extremes has a cumulative negative effect on my lived quality of life. Is it worth living in a state of paranoia to eek an extra decade out of life?

    It’s what they could achieve in existing.

    What achievement is building a colony of chemically sedated and artificially sustained peons on Mars at 1000x the cost of sustaining them on earth? Why is that a loftier and more noble goal than using those resources on, say, 1000 years of cultural/artistic development?

    control society and keep doomsaying

    Apparently looking at the raw truth of entropy and ecology is doomsaying. That’s just physics my dude, do a little soul searching and come to terms with mortality.

    As for controlling society, you’re right: let’s not talk about the absurd cost of our options for space colonization and how little benefit the human race gains from it. There’s no way to control our actions, just close your eyes and imagine star trek utopias while we burn Earth’s limited fuel reserves throwing metal at Mars.


  • The eggs in a basket argument is just unhealthy existential dread at a planetary scale. Keeping humanity alive by grasping at uninhabitable rocks and poor simulacrums of Earth is like keeping an octogenarian alive with more and more invasive treatments.

    The patient was born to walk in nature and enjoy food and sunsets; humanity evolved specifically to flourish on our blue marble with its delicate biosphere. Is it ethical to keep the patient alive with life support when they can’t walk or eat? Is it ethical to keep humanity alive in bubbles with pale imitations of earth on lifeless rocks?

    We should accept that all things end and be more honest about these discussions. Humanity is no longer in its optimistic youth. We’ve matured to the natural limits of our species (and beyond them in some aspects), ask what we can do with the finite time and resources we have and not just where we can grow next.



  • Surprised to see everyone dog piling on Ted in other comments. Marriages at that time weren’t often based on strong footing and we’ll never know exactly how they felt when they married or how their feelings changed throughout life.

    [Based only off of the summary] It’s easy to see Helen as a saint but it could just as easily be an unhealthy codependence. Chronic illness/pain/disability can completely erode a relationship over time. She pours more and more of herself into him without realizing (or denying) that there are aspects of a relationship that she can’t give. Doesn’t even have to be sexual, could be something as simple as a walk in the park or sharing a favorite meal outside her diet.