The purpose of life and the goal of a perfect society

[nimda]

1. As a human, my purpose in life is the pursuit of happiness. I attempt to make the decisions which will result in the most happiness for myself.
2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts.
3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.
4. If it is possible to torture one man or woman in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, this should be done. However, it is not possible due to empathy. The members of the society would empathize with, or "feel bad for" the person being tortured; "feeling bad for" is not happiness.
5. If it is possible to torture me in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, then I volunteer. Ironically, however, I would be happy with myself for doing such a noble deed and making so many other people happy. Thus, I would feel physical pain, but I might still be happy. The torture would "fail" due to empathy.
6. So there. The meaning of life, and the reason that there is no "one true method" of society, be it AnCap or StatSoc -- the one which makes people the most happy should be used. Here in 'murica, maybe AnCap would make people happiest; maybe not.
7. Please pass another joint

[1715452036]

1715452036

[1715452036]

1715452036

[1715452036]

1715452036

[myrkul]

I approve of this message.

Let me list the factors of the society that would give me the most happiness (unabashedly cribbed from the Shire Society Declaration):

FIRST, each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent;

SECOND, no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual;

THIRD, each individual has the inalienable right of self-defense against the initiation of force;

FOURTH, explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid;

FIFTH, rights are neither collective nor additive in character, and no group can possess rights in excess of those belonging to its individual members;

[nimda]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

[myrkul]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

[nimda]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

[myrkul]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

Makes who happiest? Those being forced? I think not.

[organofcorti]

3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.

Sorry nimda, but you're wrong. The aim of a surrealist state is to increase the numbers of situations in which whales are painted green, giraffes are given false vampire fangs and drawers, and pianos melt when played. Best total happiness would come a close second place, though.

[nimda]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

Makes who happiest? Those being forced? I think not.

Makes the sum of happiness the greatest. Most people most happy.

3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.

Sorry nimda, but you're wrong. The aim of a surrealist state is to increase the numbers of situations in which whales are painted green, giraffes are given false vampire fangs and drawers, and pianos melt when played. Best total happiness would come a close second place, though.

lolok

[bb113]

3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.

Sorry nimda, but you're wrong. The aim of a surrealist state is to increase the numbers of situations in which whales are painted green, giraffes are given false vampire fangs and drawers, and pianos melt when played. Best total happiness would come a close second place, though.

Sounds like early 20th century france. It would end up with the "artists" somehow getting away with drinking absinthe all day as they ride bikes around and shoot guns at the dirt and such. The vineries will not put up with that.

[myrkul]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

Makes who happiest? Those being forced? I think not.

Makes the sum of happiness the greatest. Most people most happy.

What about empathy? Would not those people who are being forced be unhappy, causing those who are not being forced to feel bad for them? "Feeling bad for" is not happiness.

[nimda]

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

[myrkul]

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

Well, this is true, But then, it was reciprocal.

Your proposed perfect society up there stipulates universal empathy.
"2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts."
Reconcile that with forcing people to be unhappy to pay for your happiness.

[nimda]

The proletariat in Revolutionary France had very little empathy for the aristocracy.

Well, this is true, But then, it was reciprocal.

Also true. In a world of absolutes where neither party had any empathy for the other, the more perfect society is the one in which the proletariat are happy, simply because there are more of them. A thousand happy workers with no empathy for the unhappy Monseigneur constitutes more total happiness than a happy Monseigneur and a thousand unhappy workers. The Monseigneur's happiness is not worth more than that of a single worker.

Your proposed perfect society up there stipulates universal empathy.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.

"2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts."
Reconcile that with forcing people to be unhappy to pay for your happiness.

Again, empathy is not universal. I have more empathy for family and friends than some random guy, and more for aforementioned random guy than for the random guy who makes a fortune by forcing child labor on cheap shoes. In fact, empathy is largely malleable; the audience tends to empathize with the protagonist of a story even when the protagonist is a criminal. Conversely, the audience scorns he who is portrayed in a negative light. The audience sometimes even cheers for the torturing of an oppressive dictator, etc.

So assuming I live in a cardboard box, I probably couldn't give two shits about Bill Gates' 20 billion extorted loss if that loss gets me an apartment and some Cabernet Sauvignon.

Oh boy, France is quite the hot topic society wise

[myrkul]

4. If it is possible to torture one man or woman in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, this should be done. However, it is not possible due to empathy. The members of the society would empathize with, or "feel bad for" the person being tortured; "feeling bad for" is not happiness.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.

These statements do not compute.

Also, if society is aiming for the most people, the most happy, then I contend that allowing them all to guide their own lives (yes, and even choose leaders for themselves) would result in the most happiness for all.

[benjamindees]

So your argument is that if we eliminate empathy, torture is good?

[nimda]

4. If it is possible to torture one man or woman in such a way that everyone else in the society is very happy, this should be done. However, it is usually not possible due to empathy. The members of the society would empathize with, or "feel bad for" the person being tortured; "feeling bad for" is not happiness.

I contest that. Universal empathy may lead to a society with universal happiness, but society does not aim for universal happiness, because universal happiness is likely impossible. Rather, when faced with multiple scenarios in which various people may be at various levels of happiness, a society should aim for the one which makes the most people most happy. If torturing the Monseigneur makes the whole crowd happy for the rest of their life, then I volunteer to be that man.

These statements do not compute.

Fixed

Also, if society is aiming for the most people, the most happy, then I contend that allowing them all to guide their own lives (yes, and even choose leaders for themselves) would result in the most happiness for all.

That may be the case here, but it may not always be the case in every place.

So your argument is that if we eliminate empathy, torture is good?

lolok
First off, eliminating empathy entirely is probably not possible.
Second, torture doesn't always bring people happiness.
However, if torturing me for the rest of my life would make you and one other person happy for the rest of your lives, then I volunteer.

[myrkul]

However, if torturing me for the rest of my life would make you and one other person happy for the rest of your lives, then I volunteer.

The question is, if torturing me would bring you and one other person happiness for the rest of your lives, would you "volunteer" me?

[nimda]

Iff I have no empathy for you, and the other guy also has no empathy for you, and we have no empathy for your family, and we would have more happiness than your family, friends, and associates would have sadness, yes. Obviously, the people who have empathy for you would be sad, and that would likely "overcompensate" for the happiness of me and one other.

[myrkul]

Iff I have no empathy for you, and the other guy also has no empathy for you, and we have no empathy for your family, and we would have more happiness than your family, friends, and associates would have sadness, yes. Obviously, the people who have empathy for you would be sad, and that would likely "overcompensate" for the happiness of me and one other.

Then why do all this complicated math? Why not simply focus on increasing your own, and possibly others' happiness, so long as doing so does not reduce anyone's happiness? If all anyone adds to the equation is positives, then the sum is always positive.

[nimda]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society. The meaning of life is happiness; individuals seek it. I personally will seek the path of life which leads to my being the most happy. The goal of a perfect society is also most happiness; thus, the socioeconomic systems which make people the happiest are the ones which should be chosen. Denmark and Norway are doing a goddamn fine job of it.

[myrkul]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

[dree12]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

[myrkul]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

Well, tell you what: When the cells in my body ask my brain to free them, I promise to comply.

[asdf]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

[dree12]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

Nah, that's not how it works. The brain cells are without self-interest themselves, and work only because of chemical interactions. The analogy doesn't even apply.

In case you were wondering, I was joking.

[myrkul]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

Nah, that's not how it works. The brain cells are without self-interest themselves, and work only because of chemical interactions. The analogy doesn't even apply.

In case you were wondering, I was joking.

Joke or not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

[organofcorti]

not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

Cells killing themselves and other cells is an important part of biology. Mutated cells without this function often present at cancers.

I'm not relating this back to the original argument. Just sayin'.

[dree12]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

Nah, that's not how it works. The brain cells are without self-interest themselves, and work only because of chemical interactions. The analogy doesn't even apply.

In case you were wondering, I was joking.

Joke or not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

That's an interesting standpoint. Taking it a step further, do molecules have a tendency to not destroy others? In other words, are reactive compounds much rarer than inert ones?

I guess (from my limited chemical knowledge) that they are. But then wouldn't the universe become progressively more nonreactive? Maybe I should pay attention when I'm supposed to learn about entropy, because that sounds similar.

</thinking_out_loud>

Either way, this is getting too deep. Let's take the analogy into the other direction: if we find other societies (e.g. aliens), is peace the best solution?

[nimda]

Most likely. However, war might contribute to overall happiness of our society in some way (see f.ex. the great depression).

[myrkul]

not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

Cells killing themselves and other cells is an important part of biology. Mutated cells without this function often present at cancers.

I'm not relating this back to the original argument. Just sayin'.

Except brain cells don't do that. Cell death is to prevent "over population", ie cancer, in cells that experience cell division.

[myrkul]

Either way, this is getting too deep. Let's take the analogy into the other direction: if we find other societies (e.g. aliens), is peace the best solution?

Most likely. However, war might contribute to overall happiness of our society in some way (see f.ex. the great depression).

That's a highly toxic position, nimda.

Yes, peace is universally the best solution (unless they disagree on that, in which case, defense from their aggression is) to meeting an alien civilization. If two individuals operate best when cooperating, so too would two societies.

[nimda]

Hey man, when did we pull out of the Great Depression?

[myrkul]

Hey man, when did we pull out of the Great Depression?

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

[nimda]

M8, I'm saying that the Great Depression ended mostly because of WWII. Agree or disagree?

[myrkul]

M8, I'm saying that the Great Depression ended mostly because of WWII. Agree or disagree?

From the article you evidently neglected to read:

The argument can be made that war is a benefactor, since historically it often has focused the use of resources and triggered advances in technology and other areas while reducing unemployment. The increased production and employment associated with war often leads some to claim that "war is good for the economy." However, this belief is often given as an example of the broken window fallacy. The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct—but hidden—cost to other sectors.

[nimda]

M8, agree, or disagree. That is all. It's fine to cite the broken window fallacy, but WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. Furthermore, the main argument seems to be "The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas." Funny how we managed to CREATE jobs with WWII then, huh?

WWII was a net positive for America.

[myrkul]

WWII was a net positive for America.

Did we "create jobs", or "reduce surplus workforce"?

Net positive, huh? Tell that to the families of the 416,800 US troops killed.

To say nothing of the rest of the over 22,426,600 combined military casualties, and 37,585,300 to 55,883,000 civilians killed in the war.

And let's not forget the huge amounts of capital destroyed, either as materiel loss (destroyed ships, planes shot down), or as a direct result of it being used to make bombs.

Another quote from the article you didn't bother to read:

One example of the costs of war sometimes given is the many projects postponed or not started until after the end of World War II in the United States. The pent-up demand for roads, bridges, houses, cars, and even radios led to massive inflation in the late 1940s. The war delayed the commercial introduction of television, among other things, and the resources sent overseas to rebuild the rest of the world after the war were not available to the American people for their direct benefit; neither did the war enrich any of these other nations.

War is never a "net positive".

[nimda]

Yet somehow it brought hundreds of millions of people out of the Great Depression and into higher living standards.

[myrkul]

A third and final nail in the coffin of your sick and twisted position:

In addition, war destroys property and lives. The economic stimulus to one nation's defense sector is offset not only by immediate opportunity costs, but also by the costs of the damage and devastation of war to the country it attacks. This forms the basis of a second application of the broken window fallacy: rebuilding what war destroys stimulates the economy, particularly the construction sector. However, immense resources are spent merely to restore pre-war conditions. After a war, there is only a rebuilt city. Without a war, there are opportunities for the same resources to be applied to more fruitful purposes. Instead of rebuilding a destroyed city, the resources could have been used to improve and enlarge the city or build a second one.

[nimda]

And tying it back into aliens, not choosing peace might be beneficial for our society, though not the alien one.

[myrkul]

And tying it back into aliens, not choosing peace might be beneficial for our society, though not the alien one.

But would it be more beneficial than choosing peace?

[nimda]

That would vary by the situation, I suppose. Especially if they choose war, we might be better off choosing war as well to avoid being taken by surprise in a preemptive strike. Sounds like a classic prisoner's dilemma to me.

[myrkul]

That would vary by the situation, I suppose. Especially if they choose war, we might be better off choosing war as well to avoid being taken by surprise in a preemptive strike. Sounds like a classic prisoner's dilemma to me.

Perhaps. But remember that should we choose peace, and they choose war, we can (and will) retaliate.

In fact, there is a specific type of iterative Prisoner's dilemma called the "Peace-war Game", in which it shows that the "provokable nice guy" (ie, Porcupine pacifism) is the winning strategy.

[Brunic]

War is never a "net positive".

Most of my time on that board is used to argue against myrkul, but on that one, I completely agree with him  

The great depression ended not because of the WW2, but mainly because the government started to (finally) spend money. Yeah, he spent money for the war, but if he would have spend the money earlier, I'm pretty sure the depression would have been shorter than that. The WW2 was just what forced the government to simply inject money into the economy.

Governments are not a business, and must not be managed like one. In time of depression, the government should spend money into the economy, until it recover. If that mean borrow money, it should do it. When the economy is booming, at that moment, you should stop the spending and pay back the debts. When the economy is going fine, citizens are less dependent of social services, since it's easy to make money and pay for your things. When the economy is hit hard, you can't find a job and make money easily, so you need strong social services to keep the quality of life at a adequate level. You also need to keep the projects of your citizens going. Preventing new projects because of a lack of money is the worse thing that can happen to a country.

During WW2, people were working with government spending. They made new projects, new businesses, new discoveries. The war ended, but all this new energy created by the government spending continued and the economy recovered easily after that. It was easy for North America to recover, since the war wasn't on their territory. Europe took a little more time, and not every country in Europe recovered well.

War doesn't save any economy. Where's the economic boom from the Afghanistan war? And the Irak war? It's simply because, in a time of depression, the government have a duty to spend.

[benjamindees]

2. Empathy means that when others are happy, I am happy. This drives donations to charities, consoling people, and not knifing people for their pocket change which I can spend on donuts.

eliminating empathy entirely is probably not possible.

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

WWII was a net positive for America.

3. The goal of any society, whether communist, capitalist, anarchist, statist, or surrealist, should be to promote the best total happiness.

[myrkul]

Amazing how much you can say without typing a single word yourself.

[nimda]

OK guys, you got me
That was a push-buttons argument from my side. Of course, I don't support war except in self-defense, just as I don't support knifing people for their pocket change (shooting the knifer in self-defense might be OK though). As myrkul pointed out, that would be fairly sick and twisted.

In debate terms, I'd recommend avoiding drops. An experienced debater would take your drops and make them into an argument. For example, it took from here

to here

To address the point. A lack of refutation, combined with a strong impact (the point isn't supererogatory) is implicit agreement.

I'll leave you gentlemen with a hypothetical before I have lunch, but please keep in mind that I'm not emotionally vested in its conclusion.
1. Imagine that the alien society is like 18th century China -- it refuses to interact with the outside
2. The alien society is much weaker militarily than ours, to the point where an attack would take little capital and no human lives
3. If we attack it, we can take its resources; these resources will more than cover the cost of the attack
4. If we don't attack it, we cannot take its resources, engage in trade, or otherwise profit from its discovery
5. Therefore, the best course of action in this case is to attack the alien society.

[RodeoX]

I like Siddhartha's definition. The purpose of life is to be joyful and bring joy to others.

[myrkul]

I'll leave you gentlemen with a hypothetical before I have lunch, but please keep in mind that I'm not emotionally vested in its conclusion.
1. Imagine that the alien society is like 18th century China -- it refuses to interact with the outside
2. The alien society is much weaker militarily than ours, to the point where an attack would take little capital and no human lives
3. If we attack it, we can take its resources; these resources will more than cover the cost of the attack
4. If we don't attack it, we cannot take its resources, engage in trade, or otherwise profit from its discovery
5. Therefore, the best course of action in this case is to attack the alien society.

If there was no empathy for the alien species. If there was no compassion for wiping out an entire sentient race. If Humanity were all ass-holes.

Remember this, too: Technology can be stolen, and potential genocide is a great incentive to technological advancement.

The Dutch eventually got China to trade. Patience (and perhaps similar tomfoolery) would pay off in this instance as well.

Seriously, go watch Avatar.

[nimda]

I'll leave you gentlemen with a hypothetical before I have lunch, but please keep in mind that I'm not emotionally vested in its conclusion.
1. Imagine that the alien society is like 18th century China -- it refuses to interact with the outside
2. The alien society is much weaker militarily than ours, to the point where an attack would take little capital and no human lives
3. If we attack it, we can take its resources; these resources will more than cover the cost of the attack
4. If we don't attack it, we cannot take its resources, engage in trade, or otherwise profit from its discovery
5. Therefore, the best course of action in this case is to attack the alien society.

If there was no empathy for the alien species. If there was no compassion for wiping out an entire sentient race. If Humanity were all ass-holes.

Remember this, too: Technology can be stolen, and potential genocide is a great incentive to technological advancement.

The Dutch eventually got China to trade. Patience (and perhaps similar tomfoolery) would pay off in this instance as well.

Seriously, go watch Avatar.

Lol I saw that movie. It was great and 3-d and all until they attacked the tree or whatever. Then there was this totally unrealistic battle in which the humans decided to destroy a sentient race using helicopters which buckled under the weight of moon-dragons and machine guns that couldn't mow down trees (explosive rounds are yesterday, today. Avatar was tomorrow. Pathetic.), instead of dropping larger bombs which surely couldn't have hurt the "unobtanium" very much. The fight scene, however epic, ruined my suspension of disbelief, because no deer with cranium-sync hair is a match for a robotic AA-12 with grenade rounds firing at 300/minute. And we have that now.

Your example "The Dutch eventually got China to trade" goes against the first assumption of the argument, and is therefore not a valid argument against the entire conditional.

[myrkul]

I'll leave you gentlemen with a hypothetical before I have lunch, but please keep in mind that I'm not emotionally vested in its conclusion.
1. Imagine that the alien society is like 18th century China -- it refuses to interact with the outside
2. The alien society is much weaker militarily than ours, to the point where an attack would take little capital and no human lives
3. If we attack it, we can take its resources; these resources will more than cover the cost of the attack
4. If we don't attack it, we cannot take its resources, engage in trade, or otherwise profit from its discovery
5. Therefore, the best course of action in this case is to attack the alien society.

If there was no empathy for the alien species. If there was no compassion for wiping out an entire sentient race. If Humanity were all ass-holes.

Remember this, too: Technology can be stolen, and potential genocide is a great incentive to technological advancement.

The Dutch eventually got China to trade. Patience (and perhaps similar tomfoolery) would pay off in this instance as well.

Seriously, go watch Avatar.

Lol I saw that movie. It was great and 3-d and all until they attacked the tree or whatever. Then there was this totally unrealistic battle in which the humans decided to destroy a sentient race using helicopters which buckled under the weight of moon-dragons and machine guns that couldn't mow down trees (explosive rounds are yesterday, today. Avatar was tomorrow. Pathetic.), instead of dropping larger bombs which surely couldn't have hurt the "unobtanium" very much. The fight scene, however epic, ruined my suspension of disbelief, because no deer with cranium-sync hair is a match for a robotic AA-12 with grenade rounds firing at 300/minute. And we have that now.

Your example "The Dutch eventually got China to trade" goes against the first assumption of the argument, and is therefore not a valid argument against the entire conditional.

The point of the Avatar example is not that the aliens kicked our can. It's that Jake went native. Empathy, remember?

"the alien society is like 18th century China" + "The Dutch eventually got China to trade" = "Someone will eventually get the aliens to trade".
If not, so what? Unrealized profits are not the same as loss. Especially when there are so many other places to get resources from that won't trigger backlash from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Aliens), waste resources killing them (no capital expenditure is still better than a small amount), and risk leaving a small cadre of very pissed off survivors.

[nimda]

I'll leave you gentlemen with a hypothetical before I have lunch, but please keep in mind that I'm not emotionally vested in its conclusion.
1. Imagine that the alien society is like 18th century China -- it refuses to interact with the outside
2. The alien society is much weaker militarily than ours, to the point where an attack would take little capital and no human lives
3. If we attack it, we can take its resources; these resources will more than cover the cost of the attack
4. If we don't attack it, we cannot take its resources, engage in trade, or otherwise profit from its discovery
5. Therefore, the best course of action in this case is to attack the alien society.

If there was no empathy for the alien species. If there was no compassion for wiping out an entire sentient race. If Humanity were all ass-holes.

Remember this, too: Technology can be stolen, and potential genocide is a great incentive to technological advancement.

The Dutch eventually got China to trade. Patience (and perhaps similar tomfoolery) would pay off in this instance as well.

Seriously, go watch Avatar.

Lol I saw that movie. It was great and 3-d and all until they attacked the tree or whatever. Then there was this totally unrealistic battle in which the humans decided to destroy a sentient race using helicopters which buckled under the weight of moon-dragons and machine guns that couldn't mow down trees (explosive rounds are yesterday, today. Avatar was tomorrow. Pathetic.), instead of dropping larger bombs which surely couldn't have hurt the "unobtanium" very much. The fight scene, however epic, ruined my suspension of disbelief, because no deer with cranium-sync hair is a match for a robotic AA-12 with grenade rounds firing at 300/minute. And we have that now.

Your example "The Dutch eventually got China to trade" goes against the first assumption of the argument, and is therefore not a valid argument against the entire conditional.

The point of the Avatar example is not that the aliens kicked our can. It's that Jake went native. Empathy, remember?

"the alien society is like 18th century China" + "The Dutch eventually got China to trade" = "Someone will eventually get the aliens to trade".
If not, so what? Unrealized profits are not the same as loss. Especially when there are so many other places to get resources from that won't trigger backlash from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Aliens), waste resources killing them (no capital expenditure is still better than a small amount), and risk leaving a small cadre of very pissed off survivors.

"the alien society is like (like denoting a similar example; it does not need to share every quality) 18th century China -- it refuses to interact with the outside (Don't cut out this part; it's the important part and a non-negotiable assumption as part of the conditional)" + "The Dutch eventually got China to trade" = "Someone will eventually get the aliens to trade".

Especially when there are so many other places to get resources from that won't trigger backlash from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Aliens) there's only one place to get unobtanium

waste resources killing them (no capital expenditure is still better than a small amount) 3. resources gained will more than cover the cost of the attack (again, a non-negotiable assumption to the condition)

and risk leaving a small cadre of very pissed off survivors. (this risk is included in the "cost" of the attack)

On non-negotiable assumptions: a conditional is like "If it rains, the grass will get wet." You're saying "we live in the arctic; it doesn't rain here." This does not make the conditional false. The conditional can only be false in a case where the if-statement is true and the conclusion is false.

[myrkul]

You still haven't even addressed the key salient fact: Empathy for the aliens will either ruin your attack (Jake goes local, steals a gunship, blows the shit out of your troops), or ruin the perception of your actions back at home (People for the Ethical Treatment of Aliens).

[nimda]

You still haven't even addressed the key salient fact

I apologize; I thought I'd gotten everything

Empathy for the aliens will either ruin your attack (Jake goes local, steals a gunship, blows the shit out of your troops)

It's the future and we don't use large troops anymore. The attack will be done by machines incapable of empathy, who are guided by a select few with large promised rewards. Additionally, empathy for the aliens will be less than empathy for humans, because they are not human. Even if they are, we can pretend they aren't. (Mass brutal slavery, anyone?)

ruin the perception of your actions back at home (People for the Ethical Treatment of Aliens).

We'll figure something out. Here are some possibilities:
Step 1: empathy is malleable. Term the aliens mindless savage beasts.
Step 2: massive profit potential
-- This has worked in the past. Enslavement of Africans, encomienda forced on Native Americans, etc.
- How about religious methods? Find some passage in the bible. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice on an astounding scale.
- Maybe we'll use our capital gains to sway politicians. Sue PETA for libel. Etc.
- Maybe we can keep the worst of our actions hidden. Maybe not.
- Let's get the government behind us before we go, using promised capital gains.
- Hell, maybe PETA will accept unobtanium to shut up. That could backfire, but it's a possibility.

As you can see, empathy hasn't always "ruined the perceptions of actions;" especially not in the case of encomienda, slavery, human sacrifice and under the influence of money, government, religion, and physical force. The argument that "they're not human" would strengthen this considerably. Compare them, however sentient, to chickens (which we genetically modify to the point where they can't stand up, before killing them and taking their unfertilized eggs) or insects (which we sell poison for by the metric ton).

[myrkul]

But does that make it the "clearly better" choice?

Do we just fly around, raping other civilizations for their wealth and propagandizing back home?

Are we, then, to just keep going until some civilization manages to fly an F-14 up our tailpipe?

Or do we take the advice of the Peace/war game, and offer friendship first?

[nimda]

But does that make it the "clearly better" choice?

The conditional is correct.

Do we just fly around, raping other civilizations for their wealth and propagandizing back home?

Only if those civilizations refuse to interact with us, as was one of the assumptions

Are we, then, to just keep going until some civilization manages to fly an F-14 up our tailpipe?

That won't happen, given that the civilization meets the assumptions

Or do we take the advice of the Peace/war game, and offer friendship first?

Sure, we offer friendship first. When they refuse, we rape them, take their wealth, and propagandize back home.

[myrkul]

Or do we take the advice of the Peace/war game, and offer friendship first?

Sure, we offer friendship first. When they refuse, we rape them, take their wealth, and propagandize back home.

OK, let's bring this back home. If your neighbor doesn't want to talk to you, does that make it OK to shoot him and take his house? Even if you say to your other neighbors, "He was mean, he didn't want to talk to me!"?

Don't forget, that we may not be the baddest asses on the block. If we make friends with a few other civs, then destroy one because it wouldn't trade, how is that going to look to the others?

[nimda]

Hey, maybe they open their doors to trade before we completely destroy them. Matthew Perry?

[myrkul]

Hey, maybe they open their doors to trade before we completely destroy them. Matthew Perry?

Well, that was a non sequitur.

Fine, I'll modify my question:

If we make friends with a few other civs, then destroy attack one because it wouldn't trade, how is that going to look to the others?

For that matter, what if that's the first one we meet, how will that look on our track record to the next one?

[nimda]

It'll look like they better open their goddamn doors

[myrkul]

It'll look like they better open their goddamn doors

Or maybe team up and wipe the new bully off the starcharts?

[nimda]

If they're strong enough to do that, we just wave MAD in their face.

[myrkul]

If they're strong enough to do that, we just wave MAD in their face.

...and that is...?

[nimda]

Mutually Assured Destruction? Remember the Cold War? Those drills where they made us get under our desk, the "Duck and Cover" videos, the doom clock, etc

[myrkul]

Mutually Assured Destruction? Remember the Cold War? Those drills where they made us get under our desk, the "Duck and Cover" videos, the doom clock, etc

Are you an idiot? Do you actually think that a half-dozen space-faring civilizations can be wiped out simultaneously by one? it's not like we'll have nova-producing bombs pointed at every sun.

[benjamindees]

Hey, maybe they open their doors to trade before we completely destroy them. Matthew Perry?

Could you be any more isolationist?

[nimda]

Mutually Assured Destruction? Remember the Cold War? Those drills where they made us get under our desk, the "Duck and Cover" videos, the doom clock, etc

Are you an idiot? Do you actually think that a half-dozen space-faring civilizations can be wiped out simultaneously by one? it's not like we'll have nova-producing bombs pointed at every sun.

Hey, maybe they open their doors to trade before we completely destroy them. Matthew Perry?

Could you be any more isolationist?

Me? hwat.

[myrkul]

Me? hwat.

So, we're agreed, then, that being peaceful at first, and only fighting if attacked is the way to go?

[nimda]

Me? hwat.

So, we're agreed, then, that being peaceful at first, and only fighting if attacked is the way to go?

So we're agreed, then, 5 BTC?

Hwat? He called me an isolationist. How in the world does my bewildered response of one word translate into agreement?

I'll agree on the "peaceful at first" part.

[myrkul]

Me? hwat.

So, we're agreed, then, that being peaceful at first, and only fighting if attacked is the way to go?

So we're agreed, then, 5 BTC?

Hwat? He called me an isolationist. How in the world does my bewildered response of one word translate into agreement?

I'll agree on the "peaceful at first" part.

Well, you quoted my response in the message, along with his, so I assumed it was a response to both.

Why won't you agree on the "only fight if we're attacked" part? Didn't we just go over how badly it would end if we attacked unprovoked? (No, saying, "Go away" is not provocation)

[benjamindees]

Could you be any more isolationist?

Me? hwat.

Matthew Perry joke.


I'm just glad we can all get along.

[nimda]

Me? hwat.

So, we're agreed, then, that being peaceful at first, and only fighting if attacked is the way to go?

So we're agreed, then, 5 BTC?

Hwat? He called me an isolationist. How in the world does my bewildered response of one word translate into agreement?

I'll agree on the "peaceful at first" part.

Well, you quoted my response in the message, along with his, so I assumed it was a response to both.

Why won't you agree on the "only fight if we're attacked" part? Didn't we just go over how badly it would end if we attacked unprovoked? (No, saying, "Go away" is not provocation)

It appears my response to you was lost (I'm on my phone). I wanted to wager 5 BTC that we'd be able to destroy planets or planet-inhabitants before we find sentient life.

[myrkul]

It appears my response to you was lost (I'm on my phone). I wanted to wager 5 BTC that we'd be able to destroy planets or planet-inhabitants before we find sentient life.

I have no idea what that even means. All the words are in English, but the order they're in makes no sense, at least not in the context of the discussion.

[nimda]

5 BTC. Bet. Wager.
Before humanity. Mankind.
Finds extraterrestrial, sentient life. Smart aliens.
Humanity. Mankind.
Will be able to either destroy entire planets (world bye-bye), or entirely wipe out said aliens. Extinct ET.


Yes or no? I'd prefer not to use escrow as the time value of my btc is quite high.

[myrkul]

5 BTC. Bet. Wager.
Before humanity. Mankind.
Finds extraterrestrial, sentient life. Smart aliens.
Humanity. Mankind.
Will be able to either destroy entire planets (world bye-bye), or entirely wipe out said aliens. Extinct ET.


Yes or no? I'd prefer not to use escrow as the time value of my btc is quite high.

You managed to find an even more confusing order, but though I was able to figure out what you're saying, your point is moot. Are we going to be able to wipe out ALL life in the universe? That's the only way MAD will work.

[organofcorti]

5 BTC. Bet. Wager.
Before humanity. Mankind.
Finds extraterrestrial, sentient life. Smart aliens.
Humanity. Mankind.
Will be able to either destroy entire planets (world bye-bye), or entirely wipe out said aliens. Extinct ET.

That's not a haiku.
Needs fewer consonants, nim.
Otherwise it's nice.

[dree12]

5 BTC. Bet. Wager.
Before humanity. Mankind.
Finds extraterrestrial, sentient life. Smart aliens.
Humanity. Mankind.
Will be able to either destroy entire planets (world bye-bye), or entirely wipe out said aliens. Extinct ET.


Yes or no? I'd prefer not to use escrow as the time value of my btc is quite high.

You managed to find an even more confusing order, but though I was able to figure out what you're saying, your point is moot. Are we going to be able to wipe out ALL life in the universe? That's the only way MAD will work.

Not really. Tripolar conflicts have occurred before on a planet as small as ours. I can only imagine the differences between lifeforms in different solar systems would be large enough to support a multipolar MAD.

It occurs that nimda has a high chance of winning the bet, though. The fact that we are closer to discovering than being discovered indicates that we are far ahead of any other sentient life in close vicinity.

Though, certainly, destroying life is not nearly as efficient as trying to make peace or even ally with other sentient life. 5 + 1 = 6, while 5 − 1 = 4.

[nimda]

So will you take the bet, myrkul?

[myrkul]

So will you take the bet, myrkul?

No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience.

The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical:

First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems."

They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock.

Wouldn't it be better to just leave the isolationists alone, and trade with someone else?

[dree12]

So will you take the bet, myrkul?

No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience.

The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical:

First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems."

They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock.

Wouldn't it be better to just leave the isolationists alone, and trade with someone else?

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

[nimda]

So will you take the bet, myrkul?

No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience.

The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical:

First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems."

They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock.

Wouldn't it be better to just leave the isolationists alone, and trade with someone else?

Will you take the bet if I simply say that "MAD will work?" I.e. we'll be able to aim it quickly, etc

[dree12]

So will you take the bet, myrkul?

No, it's highly likely that we will have the capability of destroying at least ecosystems before we run into another sentience.

The point is, that even assuming we have Nova-bombs, capable of destroying entire solar systems, MAD does not work unless we know, ahead of time, who will be attacking, and have that nova bomb aimed at their home system, and that bomb, once fired, is unstoppable. Threatening any force that comes calling with mutually assured destruction only works if you can actually pull it off. Here's a hypothetical:

First race we come into contact with is isolationist. Following Nimda's strategy of knock once, then kick the door down, we force them to trade with us. Second race we run into is not isolationist, and, perhaps, has run into the first one. Their delegates ask us how we convinced them to trade. We reply, "Oh, orbital bombardment can be quite persuasive." After a brief discussion, verifying that, yes, we did just say what they thought we said, they call home, and get together 5 or 6 races that we have never even met before, and send their fleets to Earth. When the fleets arrive, we broadcast to them, "Greetings, don't fuck with us, or we'll blow up these two systems!" They send back "That would be unfortunate, but in the end, we would simply add that to the list of your crimes. We are not from those systems."

They then proceed to turn Earth back into a molten ball of rock.

To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.

I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime.

[myrkul]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Will you take the bet if I simply say that "MAD will work?" I.e. we'll be able to aim it quickly, etc

I've already stated that I will not take the bet, as I think you're right, that we will be able to destroy, at least, ecosystems before we run into anyone else. What I am saying is that ability will do us no good. Holding a gun does you no good if it's not pointed at your attacker. Or if you don't see it coming. And more advanced races may be able to fire a black hole at earth, at relativistic speeds, from light-years away. MAD only works if it is actually mutually assured.

To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.

I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime.

On a planetary scale, we're babies. On a galactic scale, we don't rate even a footnote. It took our planet billions of years to form and develop life. A planet formed even just a million years sooner would produce a race that is currently far, far more advanced than we. To assume we are the baddest asses on the block would be horribly naive.

[dree12]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.

I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime.

On a planetary scale, we're babies. On a galactic scale, we don't rate even a footnote. It took our planet billions of years to form and develop life. A planet formed even just a million years sooner would produce a race that is currently far, far more advanced than we. To assume we are the baddest asses on the block would be horribly naive.

We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe.

At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed.

[myrkul]

Indeed, declaring, say, dolphins sentient would open a huge can of worms. But I think that the can is worth opening.

We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe.

At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed.

What makes you think those badder asses haven't already discovered us, and are currently monitoring our progress? All you have done, here, is argue the case that UFOs are true alien visitors.

[dree12]

Indeed, declaring, say, dolphins sentient would open a huge can of worms. But I think that the can is worth opening.

We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe.

At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed.

What makes you think those badder asses haven't already discovered us, and are currently monitoring our progress? All you have done, here, is argue the case that UFOs are true alien visitors.

I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us (or enslave us, depending on their society), not monitor our progress. If anyone is monitoring our progress, it's the computer simulation we might be in.

Honestly, if their goal is to monitor us, UFOs are not a good method. They're easily detectable, and there are plenty of other methods. They could simply have put many satellites in orbit, undetected.

[myrkul]

I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us

[nimda]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

[dree12]

I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us

The blog that hosts that picture, after a browse, does not seem very credible.

[myrkul]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

No, MAD will not work, because it will not be mutually assured. That we could potentially discover how to destroy planets, or even solar systems, I won't argue. but that would need to be a credible threat before it could be a deterrent. A pistol on your hip is no threat to a sniper, nor to a mob of 50.

My point is this: It's much preferable to simply not bully everyone, than to worry about running into someone who can fight back.

The blog that hosts that picture, after a browse, does not seem very credible.

No, it doesn't. but the picture itself is indicative of a "badder ass" trying to communicate. Don't judge it because I got it off a kook's blog.

[nimda]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

MAD will not work

I bet 5 BTC it will, or the aliens will be assured of destruction without us being assured of destruction.

[myrkul]

stuff

So you say you won't take the bet that "MAD will work," then go on to say that "MAD won't work?"

MAD will not work, because it will not be mutually assured.

I bet 5 BTC it will, or the aliens will be assured of destruction without us being assured of destruction.

I'll take that bet, then, but I'm not going to hold my breath on collecting. (or even having the opportunity to collect or pay out in my lifetime)

What say you to this?:
My point is this: It's much preferable to simply not bully everyone, than to worry about running into someone who can fight back.

[nimda]

I say that's the case in most, but not all, scenarios.

[myrkul]

I say that's the case in most, but not all, scenarios.

Why not all scenarios? And what scenarios would it not be best?

[myrkul]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

[nimda]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

Dolphins also have sex for pleasure and have been known to rape humans.

...

eeyup, they're sentient alright

[dree12]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

(emphasis mine)
How?

[myrkul]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

(emphasis mine)
How?

Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):

Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches.  Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.

[dree12]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?

Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)

Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms.

On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.

(emphasis mine)
How?

Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):

Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches.  Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.

It's trivial to make a robot that can do that. Sentient robots is a problem.

[myrkul]

Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):

Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches.  Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.

It's trivial to make a robot that can do that. Sentient robots is a problem.
[/quote]

It's trivial to program a robot to always approach someone with blue sunglasses. Making a robot learn that only a person who can see him will give him a treat is another thing entirely.

[luv2drnkbr]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

This happens over and over.  Countries in the middle east get "democracy" and vote away their freedom.

[myrkul]

My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111

As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.

Uh-oh. What if involuntary organization makes them the happiest?

This happens over and over.  Countries in the middle east get "democracy" and vote away their freedom.

There's a reason you put democracy in quotes. That's probably the same reason they "vote away their freedom"

[asdf]

M8, agree, or disagree. That is all. It's fine to cite the broken window fallacy, but WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. Furthermore, the main argument seems to be "The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas." Funny how we managed to CREATE jobs with WWII then, huh?

WWII was a net positive for America.

How can diverting economic resources to blowing things up create economic prosperity. It's absurd on it's face, hence the Broken Window Fallacy. What good are jobs if they're just oiling the war machine; destroying wealth? We don't want jobs just for the sake of jobs, what we want is WEALTH which the jobs produce.

The depression ended after the war finished and government drastically reduced spending and ended most of the New Deal programs which helped to prolong the depression.

[nimda]

The fighting wasn't in America.

[myrkul]

The fighting wasn't in America.

And? American capital still got destroyed.

[benjamindees]

American capital still got destroyed.

American raw materials got destroyed.  But much more capital outside of America was destroyed, causing our capital to rise in value.  The value rise in our capital was probably larger than the loss in raw materials value, in the short term.

[myrkul]

American capital still got destroyed.

American raw materials got destroyed.  But much more capital outside of America was destroyed, causing our capital to rise in value.  The value rise in our capital was probably larger than the loss in raw materials value, in the short term.

Right, my sand-castle lost a tower, but I kicked down your sand-castle completely. That makes my castle worth more, right?

Because we lost less than they did does not make it a good thing.

[benjamindees]

Because we lost less than they did does not make it a good thing.

No, but...

Right, my sand-castle lost a tower, but I kicked down your sand-castle completely. That makes my castle worth more, right?

We aren't talking about sand castles.  We're talking about the machinery used to create sand castles.  And, in that case, yes destroying another machine makes your machine worth more since it still produces the same products, only with less competition.

Capitalism, as practiced in the global economy as is, is not equivalent to one of Milton Freeman's thought experiments.

[myrkul]

Why are we even arguing this? Impoverishing the world is not a net positive!

[benjamindees]

Why are we even arguing this? Impoverishing the world is not a net positive!

It is to some people.  It's beneficial to recognize this.

[myrkul]

Why are we even arguing this? Impoverishing the world is not a net positive!

It is to some people.  It's beneficial to recognize this.

Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne

[benjamindees]

Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne

Not just the state.  The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.

[myrkul]

Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne

Not just the state.  The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.

Remove the State, nothing to subsidize.

[dree12]

Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne

Not just the state.  The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.

If it creates wealth, they would be doing it. But they aren't bombing their competition, so it obviously doesn't. You don't hear Wal-Mart bombing the local Target in the news.

[myrkul]

Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne

Not just the state.  The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.

If it creates wealth, they would be doing it. But they aren't bombing their competition, so it obviously doesn't. You don't hear Wal-Mart bombing the local Target in the news.

I hear that ADT/Brinks war is hotting up, though. 

[dree12]

Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne

Not just the state.  The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.

If it creates wealth, they would be doing it. But they aren't bombing their competition, so it obviously doesn't. You don't hear Wal-Mart bombing the local Target in the news.

I hear that ADT/Brinks war is hotting up, though. 

Rottweiler is better than both of them combined. Yes, I mean the dog.