Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] OP t1_j8gm635 wrote

Reply to comment by superzimbiote in Drawing the line between positive use of technology and degeneracy by [deleted]

I think there needs to be a healthy balance between these things. Being hyper-judgmental and controlling is also obviously not good. History has shown us that civilizations that lean towards extremes inevitably do not end well.

−5

iobeson t1_j8gwwce wrote

What you don't understand is what this person explained IS the healthy balance. You are the one with extreme ideas, not them. The healthy balance is letting people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. That means we aren't going to the ultra extreme and letting people fuck their furry robots in public, they have to do it behind closed doors.

26

drop_database_run t1_j8gzkl6 wrote

I think that is his point, you can be a lazy bum if you want, but if we all become lazy bums that rot in our sheets we will go extinct. So where is the balance point? Where do we put the line that maintains society? Murder bad. But we can clone someone so it's fine, just a lengthy respawn. But they begin killing people faster than we can clone them, now is this where we draw the line? Or despite the cloning/respawning do we continue to outlaw murder?

Not arguing for its legalization, I just feel like it's an argument that proves a point

−15

superzimbiote t1_j8h1m7j wrote

I don’t think people are gonna become so lazy they stop fucking

15

iobeson t1_j8h1w4b wrote

Strawmans and extreme reaches. Nice arguments. As I said before we draw the line at when one person wants to do something that affects another person in a negative way. If someone wants to do something you would deem degenerate but it's done behind closed doors, all parties consent and nobody is harmed, and you don't even know about it, what's the problem?

15

niboras t1_j8h8ms9 wrote

Sure but what if we all just individually decide to never have kids? Not degenerate,no one harmed, we all die in a generation. We dont need fancy tech for the scenario. However if we determined that tiktok was so addictive no one ever had sex we may want to regulate that. Maybe thats what OP is trying to get at but its sorta coming off as “the right people” need to decide how transhuman the creative freaky masses are allowed to get.

4

Chroderos t1_j8jv8qd wrote

Then our super-intelligent AI descendants take over the mantle of “human” civilization. Every parent wants to see their child exceed them, so this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It might even be in line with what you are arguing as AI may not be subject to all the crazy sex stuff OP is opposed to and could just go on doing meaningful stuff for the future of intelligence in the universe full time.

Alternatively, we could just grow new generations in artificial wombs if necessary.

1

Doompug0477 t1_j8j2ry3 wrote

And so what if everyone decides to not have kids? Do you advocate forced births in order to, what? There is no objective reason to keep humanity going just to keep it going.

0

niboras t1_j8j4gip wrote

No just making up an example to say we have that exact possibility right now and the system as a whole still “works.” There will always be people who opt out of the gene pool. Technology doesn’t change that. But getting into peoples private lives isnt somthing we should be doing if it doest affect the broader population in a harmful way. If social media is so addictive no one is having sex, you dont force people to procreate, you regulate social media.

2

[deleted] OP t1_j8h2ohh wrote

This tbh. It's not even about legalization but simple cultural pressure and social selection are often enough to keep people from going too far. E.g. demanding basic standards for inclusion in major projects. There is a difference between allowing extreme behavior and normalizing it/ encouraging it.

−3