Humanity does not destroy nature. Greta is not looking at the right time scale. Humanity is nature's way to increase atmospheric carbon, eventually turning biologically inert carbon deposits into beautiful sugars.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Negative utilitarians would disagree with this as a good outcome - the creation of more life is not per se good. Alas, with the Hedonistic Imperative perhaps it will be a good event after all. Ultra-blissful super-intelligent "excess" carbon can't sound bad :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @algekalipso
Once you realize that all life on earth is effectively a single super organism, fully generated by the first cell (of which every cell in existence has split off), you can maintain a coherent perspective in which more life is good.
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Is this Open Individualism? The boundary between subjects of experience, as opposed to the boundary between agents, is a tricky and non-trivial problem. I think at least in an Empty Individualist view, life causes a lot of victims in the form of "moments of experiencing pain".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Which of the three main views of personal identity - open, empty, and closed, is more accurate in your view? I assume you probably start with "the state-space of possible programs" and then carve useful notions of identity from it.https://qualiacomputing.com/2018/07/23/open-individualism-and-antinatalism-if-god-could-be-killed-itd-be-dead-already/ …
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.