Soy milk contains less estrogen than whole milk and even skim milk. So if you're saying, that soy milk causes homosexuality, this is unlikely. This was a terrible cultural headcrab katabasis constructed for siphoning the denizens of the right leaning inclinations of their creative potentialities into obesity looks-maxxing which is why when you look at groups like the proud boys, they're all morbidly obese fighting the karens for parking spaces if they can even muster the energy required to make it to the ai teller at the fast food restaurant juggling the capital of the permanantly dying efficiency of sentient animals with the mcdonalds logo as the sacred archways to the firmament promoting harmony and justice through the permanant tension of sentient genocide, for jesus, which should belong to their church and their professions of faith in christ as a buffer against economic entropy. Jesus rarely consumed corpses. Hordes of eschatonically literate pseudo-liberals when the second coming of christ happens again have the same perspective on welcoming refugees as they do on virtue signalling their lack of corpse consumption, which does not negate the inherent value of preventing the sentient torture of refugees or animals simply because they do not know why they are doing it or suppose one must implicitly agree with the ideology itself in order to be allowed to drink soy milk or prevent the abortion and birth of further sentience.
I did not suggest soy milk causes homosexuality, nor would I suggest an increase of estrogen would turn someone into one. What I implied is despite what others say, I'm still going to do what I want.
Leibnizean monad reconstruction cryogenic scam fantasies of heaven of corpses being renegotiated across the scale of energy flows as the same oblivion as the delirial genesis in which we spawned, sounds glorious to the transhumanists and for their offerings towards their ultimate demise as contagious profligates towards the ultimate suspension and failure of accumulation inherent to the presupposing existence of organisms in the web of the total economy of life in the universe against the nature of the universe for no reason. Will anyone ever get tired of suffering the hominoid sentient composure against nasci exitium? The scale of the universe and our infinitesmal presence as seeming mystical doesn't detract from our ethical concerns of reducing suffering as this occurs, however.
Some might argue we've done a bang up job of reducing suffering. Sure some things were nicer in the 50's but it wasn't easier then and gradually becomes more difficult the further back we go.
Is it possible, in principle, to limit the scope of the reasoning required to even derive the consequences of an action? This is a question perplexing AI ethicists. My suggestion, is that, no, no it isn't and it never has been. But with enmasse entropic energy flows of small individual actions impacting systemic outcomes, reducing suffering as much as possible latent within the views of sentriocentric suffering focused conseqentialism reduces suffering.
If calculation are truly infinite and we're all flying blind, it's a miracle that we get anything right. And in the grand scheme, I'd say we get most of it right, and most of us aren't suffering for whatever reasons within our power.
I assume some will suggest what's right and wrong are social constructs, but what we call right, works. What's correct functions as intended and it becomes useful both in principal and even technological. What's good is good. The math behind a rocket has to be correct for it to function. This is good. Rockets are good. They've been weaponized too, and they are good at that too.
Sure a weapon can be good at what it's made for, while it's very existence can either level a playing field, keep the barbarians away from the gate, or it can be used to inflict great suffering in... The wrong hands. Sure some would be all for this being in the wrong hands, until the weapon, that being the good works, is turned on them. This would then be the bigger picture, it's just the subject who figured it'd be good in the lets say wrong hands, never had foresight in what the consequence could be.
It's like the Gays for Palestine movement. They think they're doing the right thing, but little do they know the only place in the middle east where gays are safe and even accepted is Israel. Similar groups were welcoming in refugees from Islamic states, and the consequences for that reared its ugly head and won't easily be fixed without a complete shitshow. I'd suggest a complete shitshow is better than a partial one, as the complete one has a means to an end.
Ai like many things is neither good nor bad. There are consequences if any nation stops using it though. Big consequences. Even the worlds biggest Ai makers know the consequences if we stop, but they also address the consequences if we don't slow down.
I'd rather the US remain the world superpower. Anything but a communist government.
If China achieves Artificial Super Intelligence first, that could be a real problem cause whoever has the most powerful Ai can rule the world.
