/sci/ - Science & Math

Notice the first letter in VHEM.

The answer is nothing, and fuck you for trying.

Kill yourself. That will be the biggest help of all.

>>3752455
Well, it's supposed to be VOLUNTARY, and if it's not it's an extremely morally reprehensible act...

But I guess you should just kill as many people as possible, or try to at least destroy modern civilization.

Why do you want to, anyways?

>>3752459

I am not a member of that group. I just agree with them that the decision to stop reproducing is the morally correct one. But I feel there must be something else I can do to help.

>>3752469

>I just agree with them that the decision to stop reproducing is the morally correct one

By what gauge of morals?

>>3752458

I don't think so. I won't have offspring anyway. So I can use the rest of my time to further try to decrease the number of people: For example voting and promoting to make all abortions legal etc.

>>3752471
>if it's not it's an extremely morally reprehensible act.

how so?

>Why do you want to, anyways?
To decrease suffering.

>>3752475
>By what gauge of morals?

Utilitarianism

Wow. That's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. We pose no threat to nature. At worst we'll destroy ourselves eventually. Sure, we're making some animals go extinct, but how is that any different from when another animal does it? Or when species go extinct due to natural disasters? Species going away and new ones appearing is just a part of the natural order.

Edgy teenage general?

Edgy teenage general.

>>3752492

>Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the greatest number of individuals

If humans go extinct, how is that for their good? We now have no individuals.

Study chemical engineering, human biology or theoretical physics and progress into nanotechnology, chemomechanics, quantum physics and cellular biochemistry.

Help advance transhumanism, if you are dedicated, innovative, competent and active enough you might have a significant impact on it's progress, hastening and securing the replacement of humans by transhumans or perhaps some other form of life entirely. Humans go extinct, as an added bonus conscious sapient life and civilization continues on.

HUMANS ARE SHIT, LIKE WE'RE A DISEASE FOR PLANETS, LOL HAS ANYONE EVER COME UP WITH THAT IDEA BEFORE, I JUST WATCHED AVATAR, HUMANS ARE NOTHING BUT HATE, THAT'S WHY I HATE HUMANS

CRAAWLLLINNGGG INNNN MMYYYY SKKKINNNN TTHHHEEESSEE WOOUUNNDDSSS THEEEYY WWWILL NOOTTT HEEEAALL

>>3752494

Just because nature is cruel doesn't mean the world wouldn't be better without the mass cruelty inflicted by humans on themselves and all other kinds of creatures.

The worst that can happen is that humans will go to other planets and expand the slaughterhouse they build on earth to create one of astronomical proportions.

Humans need to go extinct before this can be done at all costs!

>>3752455
OP

>>3752506

I know you think that. But Utilitarianism cares about all creatures capable of suffering. Also: When more humans suffer than are happy than according to utilitarianism it would be better for them to not exist at all thus decreasing the overall suffering.

THIS ISN'T WHAT GOD WANTS FAGGOT. HE WANTS WAR! ENDLESS WAR AND CARNAGE!

>>3752520

Animals adapting to new settings through evolution is not cruelty, it's one of the most beautiful phenomenons we know of.

>>3752519

nice ad hominem

>>3752533

Yes, utilitarianism is stupid like that.

>>3752544

You are just the best.

Here, have a bump.

for every children you dont make we will make 10.
sincerely, Niggers

Study nanotechnology and try to help develope a utility cloud. Such a thing could basically transform the world however one wants to.

>>3752494
>We pose no threat to nature.
We're part of nature.
Which vindicates the rest of your post actually.

>Sure, we're making some animals go extinct, but how is that any different from when another animal does it?
Well, there's an argument to be had that we cause extinction and change of habitat at a vastly greater rate than any other animal, but I still think civilization does more harm than good ultimately, so I won't bother making the argument.

>>3752549
>It's stupid

>>3752519
>>3752505
>>3752527
>you are stupid

nice _discussion_ board you have here -___-

>>3752576
whoops, that should be "more good than harm"*

>>3752533
Well utilitarianism is fucking retarded, then.

Even the worst life is better than no life at all.
And if you feel otherwise then go ahead and kill yourself, but don't try to force your judgement upon other, wiser people.

>>3752576

>Which vindicates the rest of your post actually.

No, it's just furthering my point. The one looking at humans as something special and separate is you, not me.

>Well, there's an argument to be had that we cause extinction and change of habitat at a vastly greater rate than any other animal, but I still think civilization does more harm than good ultimately, so I won't bother making the argument.

Some animals leave greater marks on their surroundings than others. There's nothign wrong with that.

>>3752590

I am not suffering more than experiencing happiness. But the totality of the human species does and also causes the suffering of many other sentient speices on a gigantic scale. Therefore the moral decision would be to make this the last generation and enjoy going out.

>>3752575

There's not really much to discussion when it comes to moral philosophies like utilitarianism because they are just opinions. A morally reprehensible opinion in the case of utilitarianism.

>>3752596
>There's nothign wrong with that.

Nice argument. How exactly is nothing wrong with causing suffering?

>>3752613

There is no such thing as objective suffering. It is relative.

>>3752613

Then if you are consistent with your own beliefs, should we not kill all but the smallest microorganisms. Because all existence interacts with neighboring existence.

OP, Step 1: Get a job at a McDonalds food supplier
Step 2: Put a non-toxic substance that sterilizes men in the food
Step 3: Profit. No more fat or dumb people breeding.

>>3752596
Nah man, I was agreeing with you.
Do you know what "vindicate" means?

>Some animals leave greater marks on their surroundings than others. There's nothign wrong with that.
I agree.
I mistyped that sentence so it may have given the wrong impression; see >>3752583

>>3752626

>Do you know what "vindicate" means?

Actually, no. You got me there.

>>3752599
Unless you're omnipotent, you cannot possibly be qualified to claim that knowledge with enough certainty to make that judgement.

It's absolutely morally despicable to think that you have the right to decide the value of any other person's life, let alone EVERYONE's lives.

>>3752606
>just opinions

Not every opinion is equally justified. In most cases there is a cognitive dissonance present when people deny that the consequences of an action in regards to happyiness and suffering are the most important thing when it comes to normative judgements.
Compassion, i.e. caring about the well being of sentient creatures (themselves and others), is ultimately the only incentive people have to wonder if their actions are right or wrong.
This, if not quite beyond dispute, is yet so nearly certain, that no moral philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

>wiser people
>mfw

>>3752635
To show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified.

>>3752622

If the totality of sentient life forms suffers more/causes more suffering than experincing positive emotions then we should kill all of them. But I don't think this is the case. Humans are one of the special species who manage to do that.

>But I don't think this is the case.
It doesn't matter what you think. You don't, and CAN'T, know enough to judge.

>>3752665
>You don't, and CAN'T, know enough to judge.

That's why I am not saying we should kill all sentient life. Only humans where it is pretty obvious that they cause more suffering in the world than create positive emotions.

And by your own logic you can't know enough to judge that they deserve to life either, since you are just a fallible human like me. So what do you do? You do what seems to be right to you on the basis of the knowledge available and that's exactly what I am doing.

>>3752678

>Only humans where it is pretty obvious that they cause more suffering in the world than create positive emotions.

It is not obvious at all, you nitwit.

Engineer a plague that will sterilize everyone.

>>3752678
>Only humans where it is pretty obvious that they cause more suffering in the world than create positive emotions.
implying it's pretty obvious
>And by your own logic you can't know enough to judge that they deserve to life either
This is true. I can't judge that they deserve to live anymore than you can judge that they don't.
So we should resort to the default position of DO NOTHING, not KILL ALL HUMANS.
>So what do you do? You do what seems to be right to you on the basis of the knowledge available and that's exactly what I am doing.
Ok then. You do what seems right to you on the basis of your knowledge, and I'll do my best to stop you on the basis of my knowledge.

>>3752681

Nice ad hominem again. Pigs and cows pretty much have exactly the same capacity to experience pain as humans which one can easily deduct from just looking at the similarities of our brains that are responsible for these emotions. The total number of pigs and cows alone outnumber humans. The vast majority of them live in horrible conditions.

Therefore humans are causing more suffering than creating positive emotions EVEN IF every human would be happy as fuck his entire life which obviously isn't the case.

>>3752544
>>3752700

Looks like someone learnt a new word at school today.

>>3752698
>So we should resort to the default position of DO NOTHING, not KILL ALL HUMANS.

What makes this the default position exactly? Seems just like you decided that by yourself.

>>3752700

>Nice ad hominem again

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOONG

Ad hominem: "you're stupid therefore you're wrong"

Not ad hominem: "you're wrong and you're stupid"

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE, IT COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE

Utilitarianism is logical because it is based on self-evident metaphysical phenomena which are just as valid as any scientific fact. I can't prove consciousness in a lab experiment but I am observing the fact I am conscious, scientific method itself requires an observer. How can I observe if I am a philosophical zombie?

There seems to be a lot of people who mistakes cynicisism for realism, presumably because it allows them to dismiss all criticism as coming from people who are afraid of the truth, but whether I feel good or bad about something isn't a reliable method of validation, so... Ozymandias was right to kill millions to save billions and OP is trying too hard to be "shocking" like an angst teen.

>>3752700

>The vast majority of them live in horrible conditions.

So promote proper farm animal care.

If all humans were to vanish right now, the pigs and cows would suffer HORRIBLY over the next year as they all die miserable deaths, unable to clean, feed, or breed themselves.

>>3752707

If you didn't say that my position is wrong because I am a nitwit then you haven't said why it is wrong at all. This makes your post even more pointless.

>>3752713

The last generation could take care of that and even if they don't it would be better in the long run when all the farm animals that won't adapt to live in nature are gone.

>>3752716

>If you didn't say that my position is wrong because I am a nitwit then you haven't said why it is wrong at all. This makes your post even more pointless.

Very well, then let's rectify it:
>Only humans where it is pretty obvious that they cause more suffering in the world than create positive emotions.

It is not an obvious situation, nor an objective situation, and you have yet to promote any data that supports such a conclusion.

Also, you are an idiot.

>it's better to be dead than to suffer

LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT DEATH IS, UH OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH~

The cessitation of life is a worse experience than any you can suffer while alive.

>>3752713
>So promote proper farm animal care.

Won't work. And even if it does there are a million other huge problems caused by humanity - the farm animals where just one example.

The problem isn't technology, knowledge or ressources. It's human nature.

Look at hunting for instance. Well educated people who have enough to eat will still go hunting and cause suffering on other sentient creatures just because they enjoy doing it. The same goes for cruelty when it comes to other humans. No matter how much humans advance this stuff will never go away.

>>3752729

Actually it's the nature of all living creatures.

Life is suffering, therefore we must end all life, right?

>>3752727
>promote data that supports such a conclusion.

I already did here:

>>3752700

>>3752736

If the suffering/caused suffering outwheigs the postivie emotions then yes.

>>3752731
I didn't feel any discomfort before I was born.

>>3752729
>Look at hunting for instance. Well educated people who have enough to eat will still go hunting and cause suffering on other sentient creatures just because they enjoy doing it.
What makes you think that their enjoyment doesn't outweigh the suffering?

and btw
Hunting is almost always FAR more "humane" in terms of suffering than the equivalent amount of meat produced domestically.

>>3752737

>The vast majority of them live in horrible conditions.

Present data please.

Present data that they are upset with their living conditions, even if they are horrible from a human's perspective.

Present data that they would not suffer without humans.

Present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data present data

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE

THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DESTRUCTION OF MAN, RATHER THE OPPOSITE, THE MORE PEOPLE THERE ARE, THE MORE BLOODSHED AND RAGE THERE IS.

FUCK YES KHORNATE FOR LIFE.

>>3752719
But it does matter when wild animals live short brutal torturous lives being torn apart by each other on a regular basis?

It does matter when the next 10 generations of humans have to live on and continue their evil ways even though it will ultimately make way for a civilization of super-intelligent and spiritually enlightened quantum supercomputers that inject themselves with inifinite pleasure and command armies of nanobots to take control over the material world and bend it towards the absolute greater good?

You obviously don't have your priorities straight, sir, you haven't though this through. Please don't exterminate humanity, gentle aspy, I beg you.

animated image, take a look

>>3752755
fuck yeah anon, fuck yeah

Work on AI
Creaate Necrons
Fuck yeah Evolution.

>>3752743
Fuck you OP, you need to become a Buddhist.

No, I'm serious.

It's perfect for you, and perfect for the rest of us as it's a more practicable for you than mass murder.

Although the ACTUAL answer to >>3752736 should be
>Life is suffering, therefore we must end all life, right?
>Wrong, life is suffering so we should use it to maximize enjoyment, and to affirm the grandeur and beauty of life even in its savagery and pain.

If you throw away humanity's lives just to end suffering, eventually another species will take our place and do the exact same things we do.
Instead, you should use your life to work towards turning humanity into a net-positive force.

Killing everyone subverts your goal of trying to minimize suffering (by making everyone suffer in the course of dying), and ultimately changes nothing.

>>3752768
hey dude, did you see that news thing that just happened where they're like, 90% successful at creating actual "living metal"?

i cant wait to embody the star gods and go on a crusade of war across the stars in their name

>>3752745
>What makes you think that their enjoyment doesn't outweigh the suffering?

I presume a regular hunter would not go hunting if every time he does it he would get tortured in such a way that he feels like he has just been shot and bleeds to death.

>Hunting is almost always FAR more "humane" in terms of suffering than the equivalent amount of meat produced domestically.

I believe you. I don't see how this is an argument against my position though.

>>3752748
>Present data that they are upset with their living conditions

As I already said. The similarity of mammals is great enough to see that diseases and injuries and other health issues caused in mammals during meat production is comparable to chronically painful conditions in humans.

It makes no sense to think that the entire range of emotions we experience just sprung into existence in the short period when higher intelligence evolved in humans anyway. Evolution is a gradual process - thus the emotions of closely related animals can only be gradually different as well. The physiology of the brain supports this as well.

>>3752778
Living metal? Could you link that please?

maybe you meant this :
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/clay-dillow/culture-buffet/self-healing-metal-puts-bit-man-machine
or
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/new-metallic-glass-toughest-strongest-material-yet
or
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840976,00.html

>>3752455
You can create some antibiotic resistant super bacteria and spread them with little to no equipment or training. Antibiotic resistance is getting to be a serious issue. Our antibiotics are all more or less the same thing; some derivative of penicillin. Bacteria are evolving immunity to everything and there's nothing we can do.

>>3752790

>The similarity of mammals is great enough to see that diseases and injuries and other health issues caused in mammals during meat production is comparable to chronically painful conditions in humans.

That does not mean they know or understand the pain you believe they should be feeling.

>It makes no sense to think that the entire range of emotions we experience just sprung into existence in the short period when higher intelligence evolved in humans anyway

Present data to support that conclusion.

>>3752759

I know this image and I am aware of nature's cruelty. I am just not sure how exactly pain and happiness is balanced in nature. But the effects of humans are overwhelmingly negative so we can decide that the world gets better when they are extinct.

Your pipe dream of a perfect utopia are laughable and will never be realized.

>>3752778
You mean this guy?
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Aims+to+Develop+Metal+Inorganic+Cells+that+Evolve+/article22752..
htm

neat but not really cells, though the first self-replicating proteins weren't either

>>3752790
did you ever think that some of us just plain dont give a damn about what a non-human feels?

have a little loyalty to your species you fuckface

>>3752790
>I presume a regular hunter would not go hunting if every time he does it he would get tortured in such a way that he feels like he has just been shot and bleeds to death.
heh, I might, but I'm not "regular".
Anyways that does invalidate my point; the suffering to the animal still might not outweigh the enjoyment gained by the hunter.

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

>I believe you. I don't see how this is an argument against my position though.
It's not, just pointing it out.

>>3752769
>>3752769
>>3752769
>>3752769

>>3752796
nope

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/09/researchers-dev.php

its not self-reproducing yet, but that will come

>>3752801
Dude, fuck off.

He's actually being reasonable and arguing well now; you're just being antagonistic.

>>3752805
Why should there be a balance of emotional perceptions?

Is this the same reasoning your hear from people who say "Why is the world so unfair?"
Who told it has to be?

>>3752808

I'm annoyed that he makes an assumption of logic that because one causes suffering, one must die. Furthermore, that suffering is equal across every sentient life form.

>>3752801
>Present data to support that conclusion.

It's called "inference to the best explanation." If you can make a reasonable case that humans developed an entirely novel set of emotions during their short evolution from our common ancestors with other mammals then I might listen.

The fact remains that pain is a mental marker that developed to keep living creatures from engaging in certain activities. This clearly served a purpose long before humans came around and other animals behave exactly like they would if they actually do feel pain. So it makes absolutely no sense to think we are the only ones capable of experiencing it.

>>3752814
>Why should there be a balance of emotional perceptions?
I didn't imply there should be.

>Is this the same reasoning your hear from people who say "Why is the world so unfair?"
...you mean like the group of people I'm arguing against?

I would help you out with some ideas OP, but I am way too scared that you will actually go through with them. Sorry OP, please don't kill me, I am very afraid.

>>3752559
>filename
they see me trollin'

>wanting to end your own species when one of the main functions of your existence is to preserve it.

I think everyone should kill you OP as you are a threat to the species.

I am against killing people because they have a brain, and these things are severely complex and fascinating.

But to kill one person that wishes to kill many more? I think this is within good borders. You aren't even human anymore in my eyes.

>>3752455

Fuck you OP, and fuck everyone that thinks like you.
Our ancestor fought to the top, with only their stubbornest and ingenuity aiding them. The sacrifices they did placed the foundations of our current existence.

We are the most important species that has ever lived on this planet, only because of the simple fact that we are the only species with the potential to spread beyond earth.

Look at your computer. It is a complex and amazing display of intelligence, far beyond the ability of any other species. You may not realize it, but everything in your house is a greater sign of intelligence than any other life form could hope to be. Valuing nature over humanity is foolish, for nature is not your friend. Other living beings have and always will be, either our slaves or enemies.
Life is the battle for success, and you won't find friends outside your home team.

If you want to find divinity, look no further than your mirror. We as a species, are the closest thing to a god that has ever walked this pitiful rock. We create new, never before seen objects, we move mountains, we soar the air higher than any living being, we have escaped the gravity of our home planet, we are able to communicate to each other in light speed from any point on this planet, we may even create completely new forms of life someday.

Truly, we are walking the path of man, which ends in godhood. People who wish our extinction are traitors of the worst kind, and our greatest enemies.

You don't have to do anything. No matter how long they last, the end of the universe will inevitably kill them all. So sit back, relax, crack open a can of soda and fap.

To hasten man's demise, support free markets, big businesses, and invasions of any countries that don't comply. Oppose any and all regulation of business. Become part of your country's legislature with the goal of giving corporations total power to do as they wish, individual rights be damned. You'll discover you have a lot of company.