Look. Every second I exist is coercion. My existence is coercion. I don't care that my only consistent position is to answer back in the same terms as my enemies. It doesn't matter.
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
the schmittian stance isn't the only coherent political stance if all you will *ever* have is what you have, then it makes sense but if, through creation, there is a better for all in a conflict, then it becomes absurd
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
I'm literally trying to instate post scarcity according to the most liberal stable scheme I can conceive of.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
all conceptions of post-scarcity are narrowly subjective "scarcity", if it's a fundamental problem (which thank god it is), is what drives us to progress sacrificing all progress- *all meaning outside a definition of scarcity*- to solve a *sliver* of scarcity, is nihilistic
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
what cost are you willing to pay (or cause other people to pay, which is the real question) to achieve "post-scarcity"? that's you choosing, politically, what meaning will be discarded for *your* meaning this is nihilism (if you even care about nihilism)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
The destruction of all self-described modes of authenticity that are inseparable from biology.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
cockroaches follow a biological meaning are... you team cockroach i mean, wholly diving into nihilism here is at least a position i can engage with, i love talking about meaning
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
I literally said I want to abolish biology. That is anti team cockroach. And I am substantially more nihilistic than most people, yes. But not a pure nihilist as you keep suggesting.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
ah, sorry i misunderstood (i was actually surprised, it didn't seem like you were *remotely* team cockroach, at all, in any of our discourse!) tho, i would argue that abolishing biology is a spook, too ems are biological- they require sustenance, and arguably would reproduce
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Sunlight or nuclear power don't require death though. The electrons are going to radiate anyway. The stars are going to die one day anyway.
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
carbon fuels don't *necessarily* require death, either (i mean, except plants, millions of years ago, but that's not an obvious moral consideration) but biological scarcity, with quadrillions of ems vying for life, isn't necessarily solved
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball @Alephwyr
"just don't spin up more ems" okay, you're just killing potentialities, driven by biological scarcity, but calling it something different
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.