Pfff. It's the strike breakers that make it hard.
Keep that up for a while longer, and it will become a physical impossibility, as any gesture of resistance leads to automatic extermination. Until then? Thanks for nothing.
279 karma · joined June 15, 2017
Keep that up for a while longer, and it will become a physical impossibility, as any gesture of resistance leads to automatic extermination. Until then? Thanks for nothing.
These processes do not produce babies, they come way after the sperm fertilizing the egg.
And there is no top spot in "the" food chain. There are food chains that are separate from ours. And even assuming that's wrong: Do you see all the species of plants and animals just give up because humans exist? It has no bearing on their "aspirations" if you will. If I made a copy of you, a 100% exact clone, would you die peacefully? Or would it change nothing about your desire to live? My answer would be the latter.
> however it is true that people get pleasure in seeing their children grow up and are generally ok dying knowing their children will take on their legacy.
I don't actually believe this. People make their peace with their mortality -- or fail to do so -- on their own. Everybody dies alone. Actually, worrying about the future, and the gulags or world wars one's child might end up in, can have the opposite effect, people being fine about dying but worried about their children suffering.
How is not smearing the guy who said there is a problem equal to not wanting to accept there is a problem?
You might be wrong, you might be right, either way that does mean forfeiting the debate. It's like folding in poker -- yeah, you might have great cards, but you folded, and nobody owes you any of the money on the table.
> Then the initial argument needs to start from a place of "intellectual honesty".
Uhm, no. Might as well say assuming a 50/50 ratio to be free of bias is not intellectually honest, so "they started it". And then those could in turn point to someone else, and so on.
You don't build them on a drawing board, do you? edit: also, I think a lot of people would take issue with this. I'm no parent, but I know that when and if I'll be one, yeah, I hope my kid is bright and friendly and whatnot. But if they're disabled or have other issues, I'd still love them. I'd even love them if they were worse than me in every respect, and try to raise them as good as I can, but even then them being "more evolved and better" doesn't really strike me as something primary or even very important. I guess that's a nice thought until you actually see your child, then it goes out of the window. But I'm guessing here.
And sadly, many people do (worship their kids). They call it love, but confusing oneself with another, being fused with them, is not love.
> These are, born out of selfishness, the two methods of education of parents: tyranny and slavery in all gradiations, though tyranny can be very tender ("you have to believe me, I am your mother!"), and slavery very proud ("you are my son, therefore I will make you my saviour"), but they are two horrible methods of education, methods of anti-education, fit to stamp the child back into the ground from whence it came.
-- Franz Kafka, letter to Elli Hermann
> If a machine can do everything you do practically, but in a way people would agree is more optimal - including being empathetic, just and kind with it's resources, then that's a reality you need to adapt to.
The keyword being "if". As things are going, I see this as a carrot to keep people going; the carrot isn't actually where the road leads.
> Something that brought so much progress that it would be irresponsible to remove it.
And how does that go together with "fade into oblivion"? How would something that doesn't require us, but can afford to have empathy with us, diminish us in any way? What fabric of our lives are you talking about? The ones that faded into oblivion? Do you see no double think there?
Yet you don't know if they would have even more talented staff being more decent. They're by definition stuck with what they can get.
They did the opposite, someone said it's not okay to shame people into silence, and then they did just that.
> made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams.
What does "as effectively" mean? What are "some teams"? If someone sweats a lot, and a million other things, the above would also be technically true. Or hey, if a company fired someone over something like this. That will make a lot of bright people, both male and female, think twice before even giving Google a consideration.
> Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.
It's not about responsibility to him, but about their responsibility for themselves to not shit the bed like they did.
Oh? What about basketball players or jockeys?
If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?
Oh, and then there's people dismissing something just because Einstein said it, too. That's dismissing something because of someone being too good.
No, your unwillingness to address something like this does:
> Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool."
My hostility doesn't keep me from speaking my mind, it's your excuse to not respond to it, and you're welcome to it. I'm hostile to water so I can look fire in the eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjxcWKa4sow&t=22m40s
You can pry my connection to the innocent from my cold, dead hands, and I will not sabotage it by being too friendly to those who lick boots.
You literally are intending to build something that you then consider "higher" or "better". A bunch of circuits and algorithms humans made. Or even just words, like talking about how it's the "logical next step in evolution". That's abstract ideas we're making up, and then pretending that's some sort of reality we have to adapt to. Erich Fromm's quote continues on like this:
> Among the many forms of alienation, the most frequent one is alienation in language. If I express a feeling with a word, let us say, if I say "I love you," the word is meant to be an indication of the reality which exists within myself, the power of my loving. The word "love" is meant to be a symbol of the fact love, but as soon as it is spoken it tends to assume a life of its own, it becomes a reality. I am under the illusion that the saying of the word is the equivalent of the experience, and soon I say the word and feel nothing, except the thought of love which the word expresses. The alienation of language shows the whole complexity of alienation. Language is one of the most precious human achievements; to avoid alienation by not speaking would be foolish -- yet one must be always aware of the danger of the spoken word, that it threatens to substitute itself for the living experience. The same holds true for all other achievements of man; ideas, art, any kind of man-made objects. They are man's creations; they are valuable aids for life, yet each one of them is also a trap, a temptation to confuse life with things, experience with artifacts, feeling with surrender and submission.
It's not so much misplaced mysticism as misplaced self.
> Also I didn't advocate building it in the shadows
No, you said you sadly "have" to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15002805
> I'm hesitant to write it all out because I expect such a document would just be the source of opposition to implementation. Like putting war plans on the internet. If we make the progress we want I expect heavy opposition. However it's hard to build a movement in the shadows. I'd rather just be building things, and making progress toward the goal like I am now, than doing the politics of creating a movement before we have significant powers.
Okay, a charitable reading of "significant powers" might just mean "a working prototype, something more than nothing". But another way to read it would be to "not declare war until you ensured you have the bigger army".
> Do you value the individual or the society?
.. or the dollar, which is entirely different from valuing people? Just one of a trillion examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkgFA9q7w0w
It leads to treating people like objects, and it makes it "rational" to destroy others for profit and "irrational" to care about them.
> It depends on your definition of morality.
It depends on your humanity, on the strength of your backbone. Do you have your "values", your experiences inside you, or do you have external measures, like dollars or party approval or a "definition of morality"?
That just makes you another person distorting what happened. I know I'm correct, I don't need further proof, but thanks.
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
-- Stephen Hawking in a very lucid moment, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama...
Those who don't address that first, who cannot ENSURE that they're building a nuclear power plant and not an atom bomb, have no excuse.
It's great he's such a great guy within the larger context of being a shitty guy, but that's like being a very good doctor on the Titanic -- you'd save more lives by telling people to not go on that ship.
> It isn't all trite militaristic BS.
Wait, so I'm supposed to judge the article based on a book? Gift it to me and I'll read it. Otherwise, nah.
So does any random decent person, no leadership or subordination required.
> one of the traits mentioned in the article is that an effective leader tells their people why they are doing what they are doing,
Except they don't. They are repeating the rationalizations and their weak-ass half-truths that were hammered into their head. I doubt this guy told his men that they're there to control oil and whatnot.
> Even spontaneous militias (and civilian groups) have leaders.
Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool."
That's what I thought.
What about it?
> Even your final phrase, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" makes no sense because there are literally no other courses of action available and you make no real defense of any of the three beyond preceding that statement with a quote from Einstein
No, I preceded that with "if you disagree, deal with me, don't hide behind others".
> a quote from Einstein which you seem to feel is sufficient simply because... Einstein said so?
Not because he said it, but because he said it well. I can and have put this in my own words. I can write you a book about it. But why not quote Einstein? I mean, this is in a thread about an article with a whole lot of gibberish such as "Leaders find a way to win by taking extreme ownership of a situation and raising the expectations of those around him. That is a hallmark of true leadership." -- and we're supposed to even give it a thought because some Navy Seal said so? Hahaha.
That should clue you in about how this has nothing to do with "pacifism". It would be more pacifistic to not express disgust than to express it, and it would be more pacifistic for me to not comment. Yet here we are.
To oppose death and its apprentices, you do NOT have to march in rank and file, and you DON'T need "heroism on command". You have to organize, but there is nothing there that cannot spring from strength and cooperation. It doesn't have to be weakness and obedience under the guise of "leadership" and "team spirit".
But I agree that China so far seems to have little wish to dominate anyone else. Of course, when you have your population under control so much that they will build any sort of robots in any quantities for you, that might be reconsidered. Hannah Arendt wrote:
> If the totalitarian conqueror conducts himself everywhere as though he were at home, by the same token he must treat his own population as though he were a foreign conqueror.
Maybe this goes the other way, too? I don't know, but when the only thing between your resources is the mercy of organizations that know no mercy, it might.
Of course, the trouble with China is.. "us". "The" West, if you will. We have little moral standing to point fingers, no alternative vision. We have the dictum of the dollar rather than the dictum of the party, but that's not a meaningful enough difference IMO. I'm not saying we're just as totalitarian, but that we're not sufficiently non-totalitarian. China and Russia, for all valid criticism there is to make, are first and foremost awesome scapegoats that keep our side of the machinery humming.
> The whole concept of alienation found its first expression in Western thought in the Old Testament concept of idolatry. The essence of what the prophets call "idolatry" is not that man worships many gods instead of only one. It is that the idols are the work of man's own hands -- they are things, and man bows down and worships things; worships that which he has created himself. In doing so he transforms himself into a thing. He transfers to the things of his creation the attributes of his own life, and instead of experiencing himself as the creating person, he is in touch with himself only by the worship of the idol. He has become estranged from his own life forces, from the wealth of his own potentialities, and is in touch with himself only in the indirect way of submission to life frozen in the idols. The deadness and emptiness of the idol is expressed in the Old Testament: "Eyes they have and they do not see, ears they have and they do not hear," etc. The more man transfers his own powers to the idols, the poorer he himself becomes, and the more dependent on the idols, so that they permit him to redeem a small part of what was originally his. The idols can be a godlike figure, the state, the church, a person, possessions. Idolatry changes its objects; it is by no means to be found only in those forms in which the idol has a so-called religious meaning. Idolatry is always the worship of something into which man has put his own creative powers, and to which he now submits, instead of experiencing himself in his creative act.
-- Erich Fromm, who also said
> The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.