is there inefficient survival, or (more to the point) efficient non-survival?
-
-
-
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @cyborg_nomade and
In terms of u/acc maybe not but then the question is how do you square social Darwinism with a philosophy of human extinction
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @EBBerger and
I dont understand how that squares the circle youve arranged here
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @EBBerger and
i'm not sure exactly what your doubt is
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @EBBerger and
theres a moral appeal to survival. at the same time, you're predicting (proposing) human extinction (or so I presume). the two conflict.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @EBBerger and
only if you suppose that survival necessarily equals human survival.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @EBBerger and
"if things cannot keep being, their value is limited. if they can’t be at all, their value is similarly non-extant. any ethics that is realist... will be an ethics of survival: what can we do to last longer?"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @cyborg_nomade and
human survival is morally normative / human survival is irrelevant
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If survival isn't normative, normativity might as well give up now.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @cyborg_nomade and
Probably the only point of agreement between the two of us. The difference is for CN survival is (ultimately) the sole moral criterion, but also one that doesn't encompass human survival - neither of which I agree with.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 6 more 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.