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
True. And I suppose there is a hint of wishful thinking there. But I am in hell, and refuse to abandon hope.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
dude, how much of your hell is a call to self-overcoming, rather than a call to overcoming some malignant external reality it's easy to be pessimistic when your locus-of-control is wholly externalized, and your will is always thwarted!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
I can't not be transsexual, nor can I even modify my body sufficiently. If technologies emerged that made this possible I wouldn't be able to afford them. And I would still be trapped in a largely hostile society.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
here's a perspective: even three decades ago *we couldn't even consider that this might be a problem we should solve* we *create* these problems i'm not saying they aren't real, but if we solved *this*, another, just as dire would rise up, that we wouldn't even understand today
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
That is sample bias on your part, transsexualism dates back to antiquity and probably to pre civ based on archeological evidence. Even treatments date back to at least the Scythians. It is a more traditional thing than most of what you would call western civilizational tradition.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
not really relevant, our current concepts about this are not the same as theirs (or three decades ago, or even yesterday) you are a transformation, right now, driven by problems you see in the world
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
And explaining the texture of yogurt comprehensively requires knowledge of quantum mechanics. Who cares. The thing itself is the same regardless of epistemological limitations.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
quantum mechanics can't actually explain the texture of yogurt "comprehensively" it's not like qm has solved the problem of qualia other than that, i don't know what you mean
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I mean ontologically. The QM components of chemistry are necessary to explain why yogurt has its consistency instead of just being solid like cheese.
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
practically, weaker theories can do the same job, just depends on your pragmatics i suspect i'm going deeper than cheese
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
Weaker theories don't even consider it a real question, or at least don't have a basis to consider it one
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.