/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>728508
youre acommie

very cool

>>728508
>Yes I am, I want to conserve the environment
Why would anyone want to conserve the environment? All it is is an endless meat grinder of organisms eating each other.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-biodiversity

>The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.

>For example, there’s an organism called the new world screwworm that that lays magots in the flesh of their victims, causing almost incomprehensible amounts of agony as the maggots eat their way out from the inside. These worms also tend to live pretty short lives of intense suffering. So when we got rid of the new world screwworm in north America—ridding the continent of a miserable animal that reproduces by torturing other animals—I think that was a great thing! It’s possible it will turn out bad because of some weird ripple effects, but if things are as I’ve supposed, then it seems pretty great. In case you doubt my position, as you can see below, I’ve depicted it as the Chad and the alternative view as the crying angry person, so it’s very likely true.

>>728679
"Effective altruism" is insane. These people are not right in the head.

>>728679
The kind of shit I come here for

>>728685
>"Effective altruism" is insane. These people are not right in the head.
Do you have an actual argument for why you think it's insane?

>>728687
lmao insane peta propaganda

>>728687
the idea that we should eliminate nature is deranged, unless we can somehow create something better. if human society fails completely, at least the natural world gives us some chance to survive

>>728679
from your substack link:
>In my view, the way to determine whether impacting the environment is good or not is pretty simple: you look at the impact it has on conscious beings—both humans and other animals. I don’t care intrinsically about biodiversity—I care about making lives better for individuals. Species do not have experiences, only individuals do. It is thus individuals that matter. If species A has wretched lives and gets replaced by species B who have much better lives, I think that’s an improvement.

This is very Maggie Thatcher flavored in some ways. She said there is no such thing as society, only individuals. But if an individual's experiences are an emergent property of the communication 100 billion brain cells, then why wouldn't there be other forms of collective intelligence that emerge between more complex entities?

>>728719
>why wouldn't there be other forms of collective intelligence that emerge between more complex entities?
Because of anthropics. If conscious hiveminds were regularly forming, statistically I would expect to find myself as one of them. The fact that I currently happen to find myself as an individual human is therefore evidence against conscious hiveminds existing.