>>16555240
There's no reason to assume that future suffering on a universal scale has causes different from present day global and local suffering. Therefore: time, money and effort spend on analyzing S-risks should be spend on addressing current causes of suffering.

>>16555292
there is always something that you don't know

>>16555240
>hedonistic narcissistic midwit channel with savior complex
Inb4 political philosophy = big government leftist muh climate change

>>16555240
Let's skip the waffle. 9:53 is where the video begins.
The message boils down to: we must today listen to the oracles who commune with the science. They shall impart unto us the divine knowledge of Marx (PBUH) to prevent climate change (capitalism). We must let our betters (middle class midwits) give more power to the state so we can fuel their narcissistic hero complex.

Reality is we're not God. So we can't predict the future, nor figure out the perfect solution for each problem. All we can do is fight each problem as it comes, allow natural selection to find the best solution. Natural selection = free market.

>>16556011
>humanity will end up stuck in pleasure machines!!!!
Wrong. Natural selection defeats this.

Two competing societies: One has a culture of sitting in pleasure machines all day. The other doesn't.
The society jacking off in pleasure machines gets less work done than the one that does not.
The society that doesn't use pleasure machines outcompetes those which do, thus with time, we see few societies locked away in pleasure machines.

Repeat with every doomsday scenario. 1984 hellscape? Less productive than AnCapistan. No 1984s. Meteor hits the earth killing 99.99% of humans? Wait 50,000 years and we're back to where we are. etc etc.

Leftists can't meme.

>>16555240
This really is postmodernists trying to make up a religion. Peterson and TIKhistory would be displeased.

buy an ad you ratnigger pathic

>>16556795
cunt OP wont even respond

>>16556815
t. op

>>16555240
Maybe being full blown psychiatric patient, getting fat from medication, is far much worse than die of fentanyl overdose.

>>16557470
I'm a full-blown psychiatric patient and this is not true

>>16555292
You realize that good arguments must work both ways, i.e. if you say it's worthless to analyze future suffering risks, then you also say what is happening a month from now and which could have suffering-type consequences does not matter if instead you could focus all your energies on that which tomorrow might have suffering-type consequences.

You are invoking a non-scale invariant principle. So you need to be consequential about your own line of reasoning.

>>16557753
Dumb shit. You can only take things in degrees. There's more practical considerations than stargazing. Not him.

>>16556747
Except it doesn't work like that. Humans are more hedonistic than ever. The class of people making advancements are often enough the most degenerate of the peoples period, and those benefiting from that largesse are getting dumber by the generation. Those people you think "outcompetes" in this scenario are just fucking Amish and whatnot, lol. Not to be cynical here, but if the purpose of life isn't to reach some sort of collective or otherwise exceptional form of singularity, just existing at the level of maintenance as the Amish do seems no different than death. Sure, they'll exist and the other won't, but so will other kinds of essentially useless vermin.

>>16557489
you need to die from a fent overdose for a proper comparison

>>16557831
>Except it doesn't work like that
Afraid it does. It's natural selection.
>Humans are more hedonistic than ever.
Doesn't matter. Natural selection will kill of the hedonists, favoring the non-hedonists. Cope & Seethe.
>Those people you think "outcompetes" in this scenario are just fucking Amish and whatnot
Consult the chart.
>but if the purpose of life isn't to reach some sort of collective or otherwise exceptional form of singularity
Lucky you, so far natural selection has ensured every cycle of civilization has improved upon the last.
>just existing at the level of maintenance as the Amish do seems no different than death.
T. Hedonist set to die out.

Try addressing the argument that natural selection inevitably wipes out evil in favor of good.

>>16557793
>You can only take things in degrees.
To what degree can you take specific things in degrees? For example, "you cannot torture people for fun" is a good maxim to have. Does it also have degrees? Or is it rather a deontological maxim?

(Please respond with an argument, not some Tweet-like rambling.)

>>16557991
First and foremost, this is not a debate. I don't debate. Debating does fuck all. I am telling you that the theory you propose doesn't work. The REALITY of the situation is that another country will take advantage of any such gaps and prop up their own techno-whatever class of people to keep others on their digital / technological opium. This all assuming we maintain a level of intelligence enough to use these things, but by and large we won't. There will be no Superman, there will be no revolt, nobody is coming to save you, no Byzantine-style coming back. Luddites are luddites. I know this website, 2-to-1, you're a Christian or White. This isn't the ancient times anymore. You are silly.
>>16558031
You can torture people for fun, it's just not practical to do so only for fun and there's severe consequences for it.
>Does it also have degrees.
Yes, we should torture people. Say someone kills someone. A life is not equal to a life when one was taken prematurely. So in an ideal society what you do is take that person who killed someone and you have them medically kept alive and tortured for all the years that person could've lived on average plus half. The plus half is to be the actual punishment aspect because again, a life is not equal to a life when taken prematurely. You don't do this because you care about any of the people, you do this because it's what maintains a society. In theory, anyways. In practice, you should just shoot them and be done with it.

Secondly, you completely missed the fucking point. The issue is with people literally stargazing and other fields, things not immediately and apparently useful. Any science which supports gene editing are the most import. Third, I do not debate. I have been on this website for a decade and a half, it means and does nothing. You either have power to enforce your worldview or you don't.

>>16555240
This channel has such high production values, while the content isn't really that Kurzgesagt mass reachable (I strongly guess they are okay with that, it's only important to reach that 17 year old high IQ whizz kid who might work in the field in the future & stuff).
So I wonder if they are being funded by some EA tech bros or perhaps some quasi-renegade gov agency in Britain or something.

>>16555240
Is it a contest?

>>16557831
>The class of people making advancements are often enough the most degenerate of the peoples period
Unlikely. However, the people who take the credit for making advancements are often enough the most degenerate of the peoples period.

>>16555240
Stop shilling your dumb youtube channel and get a real job!