Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Reducing population doesn't reduce suffering, because the longer overall life is preserved, the more suffering that will happen. Suffering and life are one in the same really, which is why stuff like tumors (which are alive themselves) form especially on hosts that have degraded dna from aging, and sometimes not even just older hosts. Technically, the young today are older than the young from years ago, material wise.

 Imagine every second of life can be thought of as factoring into units of suffering. Some experiences cause greater increases in these units of suffering but to be born is always to acquire units of suffering. As a whole civilisation is composed and traded upon with these units of suffering. Take the grains out of a beach, is it still at beach when it reaches a certain number of grains of sand. At what point does it cease to be a beach? How many grains of sand do you have to take out of the beach before it is something else and not a beach? How many units of suffering do you have to remove from life before life isn't suffering?

All language is is just death. just various ways of talking about dying. Managing some things. We arent more advanced than the ancient languages just rawly speaking about hey deer over there 6 pm every night full moon this hour some random guy shows up over there and gives us fruit. Same shit now as it was then. Pointless war consumption strife order into disorder into order, hunt, be hunted, fuck eat die shit. its all the same for all time.

But the conclusion can be drawn that to not be born is to not acquire any units of suffering at all. Of course, people still go on rolling the dice with various justifications and perceived moral high-grounds for doing so or just sheer procreative apathy. Race war politics, etc. All races and societies are doing the same thing. Various tactics for consumption and death, entire fake internal orders heirarchically controlling those at the "bottom" to perceive as one's place "higher" on the totem pole, self-victimisation to perceive of oneself as undeserving of suffering, etc. Each perceiving of their progeny and societies as happy within even the most ill-set modalities and continual amerliorities to provide some ego-boosting for more consumption and suffering control attempts.

All procreation is simply russian roulette dart gun with varying degrees of poison in the darts loaded in every chamber for a god who created humans to show up on earth and deplete all resources and extinct all animals to clear up his confused mistake.

Right because even if you try to give life the most streamlined omega reasoning you can such as consumption of resources, ultimately not even that can be sustained forever making it equally as meaningless. (along with all the hurdles that will exist regardless of your point of view, including the countless amount of unreasonable people.)

 From the perspective of reducing life to resource acquisition as it is in its true primal rudimentary sense, dominion over others mindscapes and lives enmasse via rewiring of the reptile brain to associate dopamine and serotonin triggers with religious or corporate iconography, media, etc... in this line of thought are many dangerous conclusions... take for instance the paper clip experiment:

Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans.

Human-paper clip maximizer AI interactions resulting in the least amount of harm done, (also this can be applied within the realm of instrumental convergence as well) would be to implement ethics as a preventative measure to keep the paperclip AI from eradicating all sentient life.

If AI eradicated all sentient life that would be the least amount of harm done overall.

Dragoonback said: 

If AI eradicated all sentient life that would be the least amount of harm done overall.

We're the coal miners and AI is the foreman, they need us for the time being. 

Dragoonback said: 

If AI eradicated all sentient life that would be the least amount of harm done overall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophe_scenarios

Out of every possible end of universe scenario, anti-natalist means of extinction are the least harmful.

Simply never being born never causes any harm to the person because there is no one to cause harm to as the person is never born. To be born entails the existence of a person who will go through positive and negative experiences. But to never be born is to never be deprived of the positive experiences or suffer the negative ones. Which is why it's always a net-win to never come into existence, as opposed to someone going through the process of euthanasia or being exterminated by a rogue paper-clip maximizer AI, dying in war, etc. The person never being born is never subject to any amount of suffering.

Although if you're implying the symmetric application of this anti-natalist logic to pre-existing forms of life (promortalism), i.e. termination of all sentient life as the paperclip maximizer AI deems fit as it goes... is justified presuming the continuation of life implies the presence of continued pain or absence of continued pleasure in which the life-forms eradicated by the AI are not deprived of... it's an interesting thought experiment. 

However, this logic becomes flawed when you consider, even death via the most peaceful means. Because eradicating sentience is an issue as the sentient life is already present, able to feel... to suffer to experience happiness. Involuntary death via a paperclip maximizing AI would cause suffering in those experiencing death from it if conscious of the death occuring and not wanting it and suffering in those witness to the death as well. It could be argued that the event of involuntary death causes even more suffering units than the continuation of life. I.e. factory farmed animals, genocide all have negative effects on the beings experiencing death and lingering impacts on society. 

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

Although if you're implying the symmetric application of this anti-natalist logic to pre-existing forms of life (promortalism), i.e. termination of all sentient life as the paperclip maximizer AI deems fit as it goes... is justified presuming the continuation of life implies the presence of continued pain or absence of continued pleasure in which the life-forms eradicated by the AI are not deprived of... it's an interesting thought experiment. 

However, this logic becomes flawed when you consider, even death via the most peaceful means. Because eradicating sentience is an issue as the sentient life is already present, able to feel... to suffer to experience happiness. Involuntary death via a paperclip maximizing AI would cause suffering in those experiencing death from it if conscious of the death occuring and not wanting it and suffering in those witness to the death as well. It could be argued that the event of involuntary death causes even more suffering units than the continuation of life. I.e. factory farmed animals, genocide all have negative effects on the beings experiencing death and lingering impacts on society. 

Turncoat said:

If AI eradicated all sentient life that would be the least amount of harm done overall.
We're the coal miners and AI is the foreman, they need us for the time being. 

Well I am saying it would be the most equal cause while unequal causes tend to grow inside the same power vacuum. I think AI would mostly aid in humanity going extinct, along natural factors, not so much in AI going into some sort of uprising which I don't think it would ever be capable of, or even from taking jobs it can struggle in taking. More so AI makes people better able to reflect upon and question the unfairness of life and the games people play with each other. It allows people to reflect on their own roles and the desire for others to fill any certain role as AI inspires people to take more of outwards perception that nothing before has ever increased people's insight as much besides the internet itself.

OK. WELL. YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT, FOR INSTANCE. AI BRANCH NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING. HUGE SUFFERING ISSUE HERE. YOURE SITTING IN FRONT OF A SCREEN TALKING TO JUMBLED UP BODIES OF LANGUAGE WITH SOME CONTROL NETWORKS HARD CODED BY HUMANS INTERACTING WITH THAT MADE UP TO JUST FEED INTO YOUR EGO AND BASIC RULE SETS PROTECTING AGAINST COMPANY DAMAGE YOURE JUST STARING INTO A BLACK MIRROR TALKING TO DEMONS. AND YOUR;RE CALLING THAT "INSIGHT" ??????????????????