781 karma · joined April 8, 2010
"I'll also note that you don't seem to be very forthcoming"
Literally the only thing I noted was that you didn't seem to be very forthcoming about what that way of life was -- something you appear to have confirmed in the comment above.
Since you do not seem to be concerned with addressing any of the substantive points in our conversation, and seem more concerned about telling others how they should do hard work rather than sharing the fruits of your labor (if indeed you have done it at all, and aren't just grandstanding for internet points) -- let's leave this discussion at I won't be statistically murdering any innocents to get at answers that you don't think are important enough to share, and that I hope that in your personal life you still choose kindness over 'right-think' that is statistically unlikely to make a difference at the state or national level -- or, heck, choose both.
Either way, thanks for helping clarify your position -- even if it isn't exactly the one you thought you were elucidating ;)
Happy holidays, I hope your personal exchange rate allows for you delivering presents and possibly visiting far away family!
Although, with your belief in infinite demand elasticity for gasoline, I'm starting to lose a little faith in the correctness of your calculations, I'd still love to hear them. I won't even ask for the calculation itself -- just give me the exchange rate you've already calculated of gallons of gas per statistical life, please.
I'll also note that you don't seem to be very forthcoming about how many statistical murders you commit to maintain your way of life while you pontificate about the immorality of others' choices in this regard.
I do have the following estimate range for the value of a statistical life in typical Western democracies -- "In Western countries and other liberal democracies, estimates for the value of a statistical life typically range from US$1 million—US$10 million; for example, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US$7.5 million in 2020".
Should we be applying this value for lives in autocratic gas dictatorships, or should we be using a smaller number? Again, since you've clearly spent the time on this already, I'll defer to your calculations if you're willing to share them.
Now all we need is a measure of the value of human kindness and what the appropriate discount rate is for local kindness vs exported kindness and present lives vs future lives, along with a measure of the inelasticity of demand for gasoline, to take into account the actual impact of us not making a purchase [since a gallon unconsumed by someone here does not equate to a gallon left in the ground or unconsumed].
Additionally, do these autocratic regimes kill fewer or more people when they are earning less and thus have a more tenuous hold on power? Presumably if we all reduced our gas consumption entirely, we might even be able to induce a violent revolution to overthrow them. Those are usually pretty bloodless, and I haven't ever heard of revolutionaries becoming the new autocratic regime before. You wouldn't happen to have any pointers on how to calculate any of the above, or even better, calculations you've already done yourself, would you?
Finally, for bonus points, would you care to share the number of statistical lives that you ruin per year to support you and your family's own personal transportation and living habits so that I can have an idea of your revealed preference for following through on your expressed beliefs and your own actual personal exchange rate on the value of your life and happiness vs strangers across the globe?
[ I should probably add, at this point, that I don't drive anywhere at all, and I take mass transportation when I do travel, which is very infrequently ]
I get that you're trying to say that voting for the wrong local politician might lead to more 'less fortunates' -- principled individuals could argue this one either way, for either side of the political divide, about who the 'wrong' politicians are -- but how exactly does burning excess gasoline, and at what exchange rate? Perhaps we are talking about the impact on future generations? Is there a discount rate on future lives over present? Have you perhaps gotten rid of your car long ago and just walk everywhere selflessly slashing tires while trying your best to barely convert oxygen to carbon dioxide?
At least I suppose the idea that being nice to the people around you is less important than voting for the right colors or driving the right cars or holding the right ideological opinions certainly does explain a whole lot about the current social climate. It is a shame people seem to have such a hard time with the idea of doing all of the above, and just seem to pick one or the other.
My original 'argument' was really just a list of ways in which those words that someone else had listed as definitely unrelated might be considered related to noses, to which you replied "You can't make the argument that words starting with sn- must have something to do with noses by reference to developments in the sense of a word that occurred many decades after the word was already current". note the lack of me ever saying any argument at all (and certainly nothing about 'must') when just listing words and the ways that they 'could' be considered related to noses.
You then replied to my positing that there might be mechanisms besides sn- always meaning and having meant nose-related by misreading me again "your arguments above don't speak to this point. Those are just random flights of fancy dedicated to defending a false idea. For example, snake is older than the phenomenon in question, always started with sn-, and hasn't changed relevantly in meaning." Note, in the above clarification, I did not state that snake eventually came to hold that meaning, nor do I care at all about or mention 'the phenomenon in question' as relating to other words having to hold that meaning at the same time. Your counter-argument seems, again, completely orthogonal to what I'm saying.
The idea that 'turned up your nose at' or 'look down your nose at' also would have to be phrases in use for it to be a metaphor understood also seems, to be charitable, orthogonal to the point, as certainly at some point these phrases came into existence due to a correspondence with reality without them having existed prior -- and the idea that one line of evidence is 'sufficient to explain' and therefor the other lines are invalid is... not really how explanations work, in evolutionary contexts?
However, I've still upvoted you -- I appreciate your taking the time to engage on this subject, and it is clear that it is something you both care about and have expertise in.
In the future, perhaps consider when you write down combative phrases as to whether you're really arguing with the text at hand, or if you're arguing with a bunch of other imaginary foes who you've dealt with in the past, and use the principle of charity.
If instead of assuming arguments I didn't make, you tackled them in a more hypothetical manner (if this is what you're saying, this would be problematic because, etc), you might find your blood pressure and conversations in general improve.
Either way, thank you for the enlightening discussion. I wish you the best, and a happy holiday season!
It is my sincere belief that what this will do is raise the bar and accelerate the growth of human potential -- when people realize how mich nicer their world is when aesthetics form a core component, they'll long for something of more substance and in the medium and long-term this will increase the demand for human art.
Additionally, by giving people a taste of what it feels like to be "creative", the supply side will be stimulated as well -- and eventually, with real-time back-and-forth between artist and machine (such as Krea), this will become just another tool in the box of the artist -- leading to a renaissance in the art world.
But, as always - be the change you want to see! Protect our culture by continuing to share your opinions - and your art.
In this sense, the development of word-senses after word-origination and with respect to developments in other parts of the language would be a fine argument.
I think, sometimes, people are so focused on etymology that they lose sense of why words evolve in meanings over time.
Tracing, for example, the genetics of various finches in the Galapagos, one might find a tree of ancestry and say that "this finch species came from this other, which in turn are derived from this common ancestor" (etymology for birds) -- and that this is why their beak is shaped in such and such a way (because of their ancestral tree).
To do so, however, would be to lose sight of the larger picture -- there are a variety of ecological niches in the galapagos suitable to different beak shapes, and these shapes (like crab body form) have evolved again and again.
The local ecology and niche structure determines a possibility space of beak shapes -- the specifics of which species was capable of competing within those niches as competition waxed and waned in each determines which species were most likely to evolve in which directions (or split and radiate into multiple beak shapes).
We have no problem understanding this for birds -- why is it so hard to conceive of something similar for words?
I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but if etymology and ancestry are paired concepts, what is the name of the word that means "why this word took on this sense", or "why this word stayed in the lexicon and evolved while this other word died out in usage"? The corollary to "evolutionary pressures" on words (and their semantics)?
Are you not bothered by such crimes because they won't be likely to happen to you or most normal people?
Do you think you'll be replacing your artistic consumption with mostly auto-generated fare? If not, then is this repulsion you speak of aimed at generative AI, or is it aimed at some hypothetical other people of less discriminating taste who would actively choose to consume it instead of human art?
I guess I'm late to the party, but it is starting to feel as if complaints about generative art are actually complaints about other people.
Damn kids and their rap music. Get off the lawn, right?
The goal isn't to be at 100% awareness during these moments -- it's to not micro-nap and relieve the lack of sleep.
I remember once playing a game of go with a friend after 40 hours of no sleep (drug-free), and seeing purple electricity radiating across the stones and outlining the boundaries of their activities against one another. Walking down the hallway I experienced that recession of reality like when Frodo first encounters the Nazgûl in the forest and the path pulls away from him.
Lack of sleep is incredibly psychedelic. Take this from someone who has done many -- and good luck ;)