Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Deep Ecology is bullshit

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 31, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
Can you breathe virtual air?  Eat virtual food?  Drink virtual water?

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 31, 2014, 10:39:23 AM
Such things pale, when virtual sex is available :)

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 31, 2014, 11:56:15 AM
The whole idea of 'progressive' is without any kind of merit. It doesn't even seem to be an 'idea' at all.
The first time I encountered the term, it was used by hippies to describe a pointless kind of so-called music, that seemed horrible to me.
Nobody questioned it, back then, because nobody ever admitted to not knowing what was meant, man.
It was just what hippies liked, and so hippies liked it.

The irony is, Progressivism is even more unrealistic and fantastical than the traditional religion it claims to replace and oppose. Unlike that religion, Progess places its heavens, its hells, its narratives all on earth and in the physical cosmos, rather than beyond it.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 31, 2014, 12:19:17 PM
What sets conservatives apart from progressives, is an ability to actually detect reality, and react to its stimuli.
Progressives, as they are so fond of reminding us, are more intellectual. Which is precisely the problem.
Intellect is the means by which an ugly life, which one decides to hate, is processed into something it is not, and rendered out as a means to appear superior to those considered less intellectual.
It is a warping to suit the ego of the one that warps, to manipulate the critical faculties of an audience.
It all depends upon having an audience. It is entirely about people.
Intellectuals frequently label me as ignorant.

Ignore-ant. One who ignores. Esp: one who ignores ants.
Our kitchen is full of ants. My wife becomes upset at this. I urge her to ignore them, and allow the creatures to go about their business, unmolested. She has some difficulty with this. So do I, but life comes with difficulties. Overcoming them is part of life.
Ignoring certain things is part of overcoming.
Thus, to some degree, ignorance is power.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
April 02, 2014, 08:29:41 AM
Can you breathe virtual air?  Eat virtual food?  Drink virtual water?

Why would we design AI to depend on such things? Even humans could be bioengineered to eliminate such dependancies. Or at the very least, to significantly minimize them. The desire to continually rely upon them is pre-emptive atavism.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
April 02, 2014, 12:40:38 PM
Can you breathe virtual air?  Eat virtual food?  Drink virtual water?

Why would we design AI to depend on such things? Even humans could be bioengineered to eliminate such dependancies. Or at the very least, to significantly minimize them. The desire to continually rely upon them is pre-emptive atavism.

A tofurky in every pot and a unicorn in every garage.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
April 02, 2014, 12:58:13 PM
There's nothing wrong with atavism, if it is the result of dumbass humans finally registering what a colossal mistake they all made, some time back, and reverting to their previous state, before the grand mistake.
One really useful atavism might take the form of intellect atrophying back into its former insignificance, and soul re-emerging as the dominant faculty by which life is lived.
I use the term 'soul' here as a thing akin to objective observation. Much like a crow interacts with what-is, without reducing it to a judged, domesticated, and harmless 'fact', or 'known-quantity'.




Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
April 03, 2014, 12:58:01 PM
Can you breathe virtual air?  Eat virtual food?  Drink virtual water?

Why would we design AI to depend on such things? Even humans could be bioengineered to eliminate such dependancies. Or at the very least, to significantly minimize them. The desire to continually rely upon them is pre-emptive atavism.

The problem is that your vision of the future is that it is unrealistic. The amount of concentrated energy resources that's left after 300 years of extravagance will not support the manufacture of the physical components required for artificial intelligence if we don't figure it out within decades. Not that we know what those will look like, but it's safe to assume that if they are at least as taxing as computer components are now, they won't be available in the future humanity actually has before it. There's so much more to consider in that equation.

As for reducing the humans dependency, well I suggest you sit down with an introductory biology text book to get an idea of the complexity of what you're advocating. To be frank, you need to sit down with a lot of reading because your views aren't grounded in anything but contemporary myth.