zurew

This is what we are arguing, that there are cases where this is not that "plain and simple". I could test your idea and stance with hypotheticals and you will probably switch your stance on this, or you will look very immoral. Do you agree with my point from the past, that if we want to use "social harm" as an axiom, then we could clearly say, that not taking the vaccine has greater societal harm than taking the vaccine? If you don't agree with this point, then please elaborate on this one, because i haven't heard any compelling argument without reaching very far. So the hypothetical: If we had a virus where the chance of dying would be 100% and it would be infectious, and the way you could spread this virus would be by getting near any people, or by touching anything that an infected person touched before. Then in this case, if we had a vaccine (that could stop the spreading with 100% chance and the dying from the virus with a 90% chance, so if you got the vaccine it wouldn't be 100% that you would survive but you would totally stop the spreading) for that, would you still take the stance to advocate for the "my body my choice" or in this case you would say that okay it is a necessity to vaccinate people because if we don't do it then humanity won't survive. If you say yes, i wouldn't advocate for "my body my choice", then you can see that we can find an instance where even yourself would agree with me, that there are cases where government stepping in not necessarily bad. The only question is where do we draw our lines here as well, in what cases do we consider "my body my choice" a greater lose than gain. If you say no, then you are basically saying, that you don't really care about societal harm, you value much more the individual autonomy. (If you take this kind of morality, obviously most people won't agree with you, and will consider you very immoral based on their morality)

Then you are still not biting the bullet, where do you draw your line. You cannot argue that it is a human murder, when you don't even know what you consider as a human. I know very well, why you are trying to escape doing this, because you know, when you take a stance on this one, it will be impossible to get around abortion or you need to defend a morality, where you basically value all possible lifes the same way. So getting back to the original point, looking at this picture below, do you consider the "fertilized egg" as a human life?

You are reaching very very far here, and not making a distinction between direct and undirect causality. If you really want to defend this kind of morality, then again if i wanted to use this i could defend any immoral points, so be careful what positions you want to take here with this kind of moral system.

This is the main point of this whole debate. You conceded here, that you don't consider that life a human before it has a hearth, so now on i don't have to defend my point, because even in your world if a women has an abortion before that life has a heart it is not considered a human murder. Thats not the point here, the pont here what do we consider an actual human life. Because when we have drawn our lines as you did above with the "hearth" argument, then we can cosider what is a human murder and what is not a human murder. So you need to reach out for other points why it is unethical to kill life (not human life), and why we should consider to care about all life, the same way we care about human life

Because we are talking about an already born human getting killed. Thats completely different when you want to compare it with a life which is not human yet. ANd people do care about killing human lifes but not about killing lifes. You are failing to distinguish between points that im making here. Yeah really. In my book not every life is considered a human life. You still didn't bit the bullet on where do you draw the human line. Considering this picture under, at what stage you start to consider this being as a human? Seems very arbitrary what you consider enough potential and little potential. You need to bit the bullet on where do you draw the human line. If you want to go further with this arugment, then abortion can still be justified in stages, where the fetus hasn't developed hearth yet.

It might be, but one other thing that seems really idealistic to me which isn't based on being tangible, is assuming that global systemic problems can be solved in a game A structure. "According to the MAHB, the world's oil reserves will run out by 2052" Of course this can be slowed down, if we are making the oil consumption slower . But you are only considering using it as energy, but we are using oil for 100 different things which will be hard to be replaced, but of course not impossible. One main thing we use oil for is making plastic. But to my suprise, we already have a solution for that "biobased plastic". ( But this implies an even greater need for food growing, and assumes that the soil degradation problem is solved ) But one other thing that will be interesting, is that the economy growth will need to stop for a while, because the energy usage and GPD is related. Transitioning to renewable energy will take a really big investment. (Countries are already using as much renewable energy as they can combining with using as much not renewable energy as they can) All comes down to the question of when the world will actually start to care globally. (How far can we stretch this kind of living without any major systemic changes) In this game A system there is so many different incentives and goals, it will be really interesting to see how soil degradation, ocean problems, destroying of the ecosystem, climate change will be solved, when you can only see rivalous dynamics everywhere. It will be really fascinating to see, how different countries with completely different agendas and goals and incentives can come together to actually solve these global issues. I don't want to get political here, but its hard to see that some conservative people don't even acknowledge the harsh realities of climate-change. ( They think that it is natural, and not caused by humans) Not that easy, but it is still solveable now. But thats why sadghuru's big tour around the world for the fight for soil. Fucking up the soil completely will resort in lack of food for humans and for animals. But yeah its still solveable (if we act on it in time)

If you are talking about a 100% Game B world then i would agree, But this game A world will eat itself up faster than 100 years. There will still be some game A elements in the future, however a lot of game A system will start to collapse. Why do i say that? This level of game A world will self terminate, i suspect in the next 30-35-40 years. ( we are running out of oil and other natural resources, we are completely destorying oceans, we are destroying animal life and the ecosystem, the nutritional value of our food is constantly declining - so we need even more food to get the same nutrients as we get from the past [we need about 9 oranges to get the same amount of nutritients as we got from the mid 20st century] water scarcity All those that i mention above are because of systemic problems. So they can only be solved by systemic changes. So drastical system changes are required to solve all those above. And all those above need to be solved for humans to survive further. Most of those i mention need to be solved under 50 years because the damage is so high already. So some level of transitioning will take place, and it doesn't matter if the world is ready for it or if people want it or not. It will be necessary for surivial and we know that survival is the biggest motivational factor.

These points are good and i agree with these, but i still would let women the option to have an abortion. Its a very big emotional burden for them in my opinion, and also if they don't want to have a kid, then they will be most likely very terrible parents for the child. I wouldn't have wanted to grow up in a family where they didn't want me in the first place. You could say that they must give birth to their child and then others can adopt their children, but still it would be a really big emotional burden on the mother. Also who knows if the child will get good parents if the child get adopted? Even if there is an institute we can't be sure if the parents will be good parents. There are a lot of weird and psychopatic adults that can look normal from the outside. If we would be living in a perfect world where we could be 100% sure that the child will get perfect parents and will get materially and emotionally speaking everything a child needs, where there are no crazy people, everyone has material abundance, and every women can gives birth to children with almost 100% possibility that the children nor the mother will die also nor the children nor the mother will suffer any health consequences , then i would change my stance on abortion. But this world seems very far away. So basically my argument comes down to potential suffering your argument comes down to not to kill a potential life. For most women making the choice to have an abortion comes after thinking about it a lot, because abortion in an of itself is a really big emotional choice for most of them. Also because this is a moral issue, we have to define where we draw the line what we consider human. I suspect you don't consider a sperm a human, so where do you draw the line? All the other justifications will comes from where you draw your line. There are cases where pro-life stance can have really horrible consequences. For instance: Someone rapes a women, and that poor women have to give birth to that child. Or a young girl(12-16 years of age or even younger) gets pregnant and she must give birth to the children even though it can have high conseqences on her health. Or what happens is this in the vast majority of the cases: that a woman gets pregnant by a guy who don't want the children and leaves her and she have to give birth to a child, where we know that that children will grow up knowing his father didn't want him/her , that children will grow up in a family where she/he has no real father figure in his/her life and even if he/she gets adopted she will know that, they are not her/his real parents.

Yeah there are a lot of weak points to their side. I somewhat understand why they so heavily arguing in favor of life, but i can't keep up with that kind of morality in a world where we live in nowadays.

Nothing, just summed it up.

This basically means pro abortion, because that allows both. Pro life people (mostly stage blue people) will have a lot of problem regarding to the video that you mentioned, but i am pro abortion as well. I want women to have more choice not less.

When we are talking about abortion its a moral issue so its a philosophical argument in the firstplace, we aren't talking about what exist from the absolute pov. Its all relative of course, but its still a morality issue, and lot of people care about it , so we need to justify or question things using philosophy. We can define what a human is if we want to make arguments in favour or not in favour or abortion. Its all about justification. But defining what a human is, or from where do you call a living creature a human is an essential point to every abortion debate. If we don't define what a human is ,then we will have a debate that will become loosey-goosey and won't have any hard foundation. Once a definition is made, arguments and justifications can be made. The question is how far you can justify being totally against abortion and for what cost. Also its interesting to see that a lot of people who are completely against abortion, and talking about the potentiality of things, often don't take into account how real world works and in what horrible circumstances and enviroment can a child born into. But it should be part of defending the potentiality, because if that poor child comes from a single mother household who were raped and who is really poor etcetc. Then its really tough to justify such things.

I know the potentiality argument, because thats what pro-life people choose because they can't defend their morality any other way. If you want to defend the "potentiality" argument you are going to have a really hard time doing it. Why don't we call having a blowjob or handjob or having sex with a condom on as murder? Because sperm has the potentiality to become a human, so why not consider it murder? So you can't really escape the 'line argument'. accounts to murder but not necessarily human murder, thats the point. Most people don't give a damn about killing life around them. For instance you can kill insects thats a life form and no one gives a damn about it, or i could name a million different kind of life-forms that you can kill without any laws protecting them. So lets get deeper into it. Anything that has a heart accounts as murder? Should we have laws that protects every living creature that has a heart? See its going to be really complicated to defend the 'potentiality' points. So if you want to defend your point we can go deeper into it. Yeah it can be interpreted as harm for them, but what i am talking about is not up for interpretation it is objectively harmful for humans. And one really fundamental distinction between these two, that one is infectious the other one is not. What i am talking about can be tangibly measured. Also when it comes to these kind of debates we can weight which harm is worse than the other one. Because they don't hold the same weight. If you want to defend this point this is going to be another hard one. Because if you want a society where you don't want to infring on anyone just because what if they will get angry or what if they will interpret it as harm, then this argument could be made to defend any immoral points. We can strectch your infrigement argument very very far, and thats the problem. For example if i wanted to use your argument, then we shouldn't infringe upon pedohiles by protecting children with laws, because it might upset the pedo-s or they might interpret it as harmful. The same could be made for psychopaths and people who actually want to murder people who are already born. Or if you say thats not relevant, because those two example are not directly 100% related to the "my body my choice" argument, then regarding to how to weight if my or your argument make more sense, we can weight the harm. Regarding to the 'my body my choice' one, some consequences are: Spreading the virus faster, so killing some people flooding hospitals with people because more people catch the virus, there are more people who can't go to work, so they can't earn money, the companies are losing more workers so it has measurable damage on the incomes on both sides And we can compare it to mine, where we basically have angry people, who don't want to get infringed upon, and a very small number of people with some side effects So far it seems more damage on society if we want to use your argument and morality. Depending on your morality, and depends on in what stage we are talking about abortion. I don't really want to make this thread to a covid19 debate, because we already have a few of them and most of my arguments are made there regarding this vaccine topic. You can advice people "to just stay home" and it can help, but people must work and you can't just shot down companies forever. I don't think i need to justify why it would be horrible if everything would be shut down for a few month just because you want people totally isolated. Also i could argue, that forceing people to stay home for x amount of time would be a bigger violation on ther autonomy. If we are talking about not total isolation, then we are still talking about spreading, and people who are working can bring back the virus. So this talking point is not above my argument "which violates bodily autonomy" according to you. So the diesase still would have been spread really fast, and those who refused to take the vaccine made the spreading faster, infected more people so we are going back to the hospital argument, that because of these "my body my choice" people, people flooded hospitals even more.

Take notes, and contemplate the ideas and make tangible everyday or weekly or monthly or yearly plan how do you want to implement those ideas in your life. You can't just remember all the self-help ideas because there are way too many things to remember. Thats why note taking and contemplating is important. Also i believe that you need just a few main changes and habits in your life and pratice them daily and focus on them hard, other small ideas can give you benefits but not nearly as much as the main ones. By the main ones i mean habits that have a snow ball effect. By the snow ball effect i mean you start with just a small snowball on the top of the mountain and as time goes on it becomes exponentially bigger. ( for instance meditation or reading ) So if you find an idea interesting you should spend a lot of time about contemplating about how you can implement it in yourlife, what benefits can it have and how does it changes your thinking about yourself and life. Spend more time about implementing ideas than collecting ideas.

The abortion arguments are often revolving around what do we actually call a human. Where do we want to draw our exact lines. Because most of those people who advocating for no abortion at all, they do not think about a sperm as a human but they will draw their line somewhere else. Regarding to the "Should the death be classified as a single murder" it depends on in what development stage do we call a fetus actually a human, where do we draw the line. So it correlates with my first point. Because its fundamentally different from the abortion. Not being vaccinated can cause harm for society and people around you, can shot down hospitals etcetc. Being able to have an abortion does not.

I like these two. I think the only "problem" with dividing and creating more and more sections is that it needs unique guidelines and more and more moderators. So if that can be balanced out i think those two are great ideas.

It could bring this community more together and closer, by understanding and getting to know other people's interest and humour and styles. For some people some regulations may limit how far they can express themselves, so i think it could be a cool experiment to have.

@Leo Gura I would be interested too, why you are so optimistic about it. I know you know more about these catastrophic risks than we do, and still you are optimistic. Do you have reasoning for that or you have a deep intuition that tells you that most humans will survive? Btw, i don't think either that humanity will cease to exist, but at the same time i think that there are a lot of possibilities for viping out hundrends of millions or a few billions of humans. Especially, if not just one, but more than one catastrophic risks are taking place at the same time.

Exactly. Also, there are so many different kind of global extinction factors that we can be aware of and if any from those become true, we can say goodbye for most humans. water scarcity, global war potential, dying of the ecosystem, AI takes over the world, soil degradation, species extinction deadly infectious diseases, biowarfare ocean acidification, coral die off Planetary natural disasters (Volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, earthquakes) Distributed exponential technology (as times goes on its more and more easier for anyone to reach for really deadly weapons and tools) etc etc etc. This is not fear-mongering. This is about being realistic and being aware of global problems. Ignoring all these is somewhat part of the problem why these are really hard to solve.

Whats your opinion about people who talk about "psychedelics can only do , what you brain is capable of doing. Chemical compounds go and activate already existing brain machinery." (These people are mostly either psychiatrists or gurus like sadghuru) Suggesting that you can achieve it naturally too in theory. Also suggesting that if we would be capable of using our body to produce chemical compounds willingly, then it would be insanity (we do it willingly when we meditate or when we do yoga, but thats of course nothing close to psychedelics).

If we are talking about maintaining or trying to continue with the constant economic growth, then this is not true. Maybe if we had the knowledge to transform energy any way we like it instantly, then we can say that we won't run out of resources. We are in the dark ages when it comes to energy using. We are "wasting" so much energy because when it transforms into certain states we can't do shit with it or we can't utilize it, because we don't have the knowledge or the tech for it. But we are getting exponentially more effective at burning energy though. But thats not very good , when it comes to mainiting resources. Even when we try to create energy sources, we probably burn more energy creating them, compared to how much energy they produce.

The usefulness of conversations and language can only go so far when it comes to existential questions. Language can be effective and deceptive at the same time. You can only grasp really deep insights and experiences if you have had some similar or identical experiences to the person who is sharing his insights with you. You can ask the same question for yourself ,that you asked Leo. After that, you can investigate it yourself, thats the only way (using direct experience) to make sense of existential questions. Even if he gives the perfect answer for you, it won't be anything else, just a belief that you can hold onto. Investigate, then come back with your own exp and insights.

How is liberalism a failed ideology? Its just getting started. Yeah its much better to live in a country, where you have no say at all, you have to obey. You are being held as a little servant and nothing more, you hold no more value for your country than a machine that can work. That being said, liberalism have a lot of limits and problems if its being done in an extreme way. No political ideology should be extreme, there have to be some kind of a balance. I don't think that any one of these would be only exclusive to liberalism. These things can occur in countries that are nationalistic as well. If you or your blogger want to argue that these problems are bigger and much more likely under a liberalist political ideology, than we should get deep into statistics and see and compare how things are.

To a certain level yes, but there is a treshold where more material abundance won't change anything. If we use maslow's hierarchy of needs, its obvious that there are needs that can't be handwaved away with meditation or by anything else. Those 'basic needs' are always changing and adapting to society's development and structure. But at the same time having 10 houses and jets and cars etc etc there is a number there ,where it won't affect you anymore. Same with money, you are constantly adapting to your success. Leo's video about survival is really good, and shows how survival is not just about basic needs like food and water and shelter.

Little update on the most recent, famous ufo case.