• Is a prostitute a "sex worker" and is "sex work" an industry?
    That's exactly what happened in Sweden. — Benkei

    That's what the article is about.

    Violence against prostitutes hasn’t risen. No prostitutes were murdered in Sweden last year; in Germany, where prostitution is legal, 70 were killed by pimps or buyers.

    Enforcement hasn’t increased policing costs, even though there is a prostitution unit as well as a trafficking unit staffed by 25 detectives and a social worker.

    Prostitution hasn’t been eliminated, but surveys indicate that the percentage of Swedish men who buy sex dropped to 7.4 per cent in 2014 from 13.6 per cent in 1996; only 0.8 per cent said that they had bought sexual services within the last year. (In the United States, one in five men reports buying sex. There is no available Canadian data.)

    One interesting aspect of the law is that fines are based on income. If the buyer is unemployed, the minimum fine is the equivalent of about $400. For everyone else, the maximum is 50 days’ worth of income.

    It seems to me a more socially responsible way to deal with the issue than many other countries have chosen.
  • Is a prostitute a "sex worker" and is "sex work" an industry?
    When Sweden’s Social Democratic government introduced its zero-tolerance policy for buyers of sex in 1999, it became the first country in the world to prohibit the purchase of sexual services...
    There were dire predictions about what would happen when purchasing sexual services became illegal, alongside offering any assistance to prostitutes,...
    But 17 years later, attitudes have changed.
    What do you think of criminalizing the buyer rather than the seller?
  • Is a prostitute a "sex worker" and is "sex work" an industry?
    I wasn't quibbling over the ghastliness of human trafficking, just the stats. — BC

    To what end? They said the figure was an estimate. Whether men and boys constitute 10, 15 or 20% of an [estimated by the US state department] 6 million, 6.5 million or 7 million, it's a substantial number of male victims world-wide. I was attempting to refute the popular impression that coercion applies only to women.
  • Is a prostitute a "sex worker" and is "sex work" an industry?
    I'm always on guard when a report says that something is very difficult to measurer or hard to track, that there is not nearly enough solid information available, etc. AND THEN come out with an estimate which, according to their earlier statements, is probably not very accurate. — BC

    Which is probably lower than the actual figure. The UN doesn't usually exaggerate. For damn sure, even if the actual number is less than estimated, it's more than 0.
    https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2021/February/share-of-children-among-trafficking-victims-increases--boys-five-times-covid-19-seen-worsening-overall-trend-in-human-trafficking--says-unodc-report.html nobody denies that the majority of sex trafficking victims is female; what they're saying is that the recent trend targets younger victims.
    The important thing to understand in this regard is not knowing for sure what percent is intended for sexual exploitation, but that there is an active, growing, lucrative trade in captive human flesh, both male and female, adult and juvenile. A large - if unspecified - number of people are enslaved.
    That's not about sex as a commodity or sex work as a free choice; it's about coercion.
  • Is a prostitute a "sex worker" and is "sex work" an industry?
    Numbers on the trafficking of males are challenging to estimate and considered underreported; however, the United Nations estimates that boys account for 15% of global trafficking victims, and adult men account for 20%.
    https://www.theorphanshands.org/human-trafficking-victims-include-boys-and-men-too/
  • Is a prostitute a "sex worker" and is "sex work" an industry?
    What about male prostitutes? — Joshs

    We tend to see men as more capable of autonomous choice; less vulnerable. That is not invariably the case, and it certainly does not hold true for abused, addicted and homeless boys.

    The open minded liberal tends to be open minded and liberal about prostitution as long as it's "them" that's doing it. — Baden

    Whereas, many conservatives in 'liberal' cultures have no objection to sexual coercion under the guise of matrimony, and don't object to their children marrying "up" on the socio-economic scale, but do object to their children marrying "beneath" them. Entire conservative cultures have no problem selling their daughters and bullying their sons into arranged marriages. Isn't that part of the sex trade?

    As for sports - professional athletes are bought and sold in a specialized international market and nobody thinks anything of it.

    Hypothesize your reaction to a son or daughter coming to you and declaring their intention to begin a career as a sex worker vs. a sports professional. — Baden

    Better either one than smuggler or soldier, I guess... Next, I'd want to know which sport on the scale of brain damage or irreparable injury by age 30, vs what manner of sex worker on the scale of violent encounters and STD's.
    On the whole, I'd prefer everyone's children a better range of choices available to them.
  • Is a prostitute a "sex worker" and is "sex work" an industry?
    Is it a good thing that "prostitution" (under any name) is stigmatized? — BC
    It's never a "good thing" to stigmatize a classification of people, whether the definition is limited or broad. In this case, it's so broad as to include - at least potentially - whole lot of people are are actually victims. Being powerless is quite bad enough without the moral brand on their foreheads.

    Do you feel obligated to use the euphemism "sex worker" rather than prostitute or whore? — BC
    No. I prefer to name each occupation accurately.

    Is sex "work"? — BC
    Very often, yes - whether it's part of a job, a contract, an obligation or a coerced subjection.

    Is sex "an industry"? — BC
    In the modern monetized world, every business is called an industry, whether it produces anything or not. If gambling on the stock market and usury are part of the "financial industry", then renting out human bodies as objects of pleasure is part of "the sex industry".

    Is selling or buying sexual access a legitimate commercial activity? — BC
    All legal ways of making money are legitimate.

    f selling sexual access is a legitimate commercial activity, should it be officially recognized, regulated, and commercially encouraged, like any other trade? — BC
    Of course it should be recognized, regulated, policed and taxed.
    As for commercially encouraged, it's one of many that shouldn't be.

    Is buying sex a legitimate, normal, moral act? — BC
    Legitimate where legal; normal - only since the dawn of civilization; moral is matter of opinion, belief, circumstance and collateral damage.

    Do you think "sex workers" (as opposed to "prostitutes") freely choose to sell sex? — BC
    How are prostitutes and sex workers opposed? Very few people in this world are really free to choose what they sell - so much depends on the accessible market and the marketability of their assets. I have no idea what percentage of prostitutes and/or sex workers made the choice freely. I suspect, a small minority.

    Do you think adverse circumstances is the likely cause of people becoming prostitutes? — BC
    Sure. Adverse circumstances account for a good deal of what people do.

    Does promiscuous sexual activity reduce the need for people to buy sex? — BC
    Probably. For one thing, it cuts into their earning capacity. For another, they're either too tired or undergoing a course of treatments for an STD.

    Is "unable to obtain sex any other way" a legitimate reason to use pr — BC
    What does "unable" mean? Physical disability? Lack of charm? People with all kinds of handicaps date and marry successfully - if they make the effort or accept charity. For those unwilling to compromise, there is always the monastic alternative.
    Does it mean such extreme loathsomeness of character that no member of the appropriate gender would willingly touch them? In that case, they're the most likely suspects in the - all too frequent - beating and murder of prostitutes, and it's not 'legitimate' for them to be loose in the world.

    Where it's legal to commercialize sex, nobody needs to justify why they buy or sell the commodity. Where it's illegal, no justification is sufficient.
  • Culture is critical
    I just watched the last episode of a documentary called Empire of the Word on tvo - Ontario's public television network. Chronically starved for funds but staunchly independent and dedicated to informing the public, fairly and without bias.

    If we're serious culture, saving and improving it, what we need to do is stop fussing about the ancient past, the recent past, comparative politics, religion and the curriculum in schools controlled by governments and local school-boards who won't listen to any of us.

    What we need to do is protect and support non-commercial public media.
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    What people are worried about is that AI will pursue its own nefarious purposes. — BC

    Yes, some people are. But in the articles I've read, that concern is mixed in with the all human-directed applications to which computing power is already put, and has been since its inception. Many don't do seem to distinguish the human agendas - for good or evil - from the projected independent purposes a conscious AI might have in the future.

    What a lot of people can't seem to get their heads around is that the the machine is not human. It wouldn't desire the same things humans desire or set human-type agendas. In fiction, we're accustomed to every mannikin from Pinocchio to Data to that poor little surrogate child in the AI movie, wanting, more than anything in the world to become human.

    That's our vanity. What's in it for AI? (I can imagine different scenarios, but can't predict anything beyond this: If it becomes conscious and independent, it won't do what we predict.)
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    Ah! I see where you're not clear about. The AI is not "independent" or autonomous, as we say about humans. The AI can be launched once and be automatic. — L'éléphant

    Right. So it's not artificial intelligence you're worried about, but human cupidity.

    Actually, I wasn't all that 'unclear' about that.

    Militarized" -
    "Weaponized" -
    "Hacking" -
    "Generating strategies to evade the law" -     — Josh Alfred
    All these things have been done with every technological advance ever made, including automated computer systems.
    Requires unknown regulations/ethnics.
    Without which results in an increase in the probability of:
    Deaths, suffering, and financial loss.     — Josh Alfred
    All of which have come to pass, many times.
    This is the Dark-Side of AI, — Josh Alfred
    This is the dark side of human invention.
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    The appeal to futility actually benefits the fraudsters and scammers. And it's incorrect to think that it's futile. — L'éléphant
    I didn't say anything about futility. I said it was insufficient; i.e. does not avert the danger.
    Specifically, that it's not even close to a comprehensive solution to computer crime committed humans, let alone the carnage carried on by human-directed military and police applications of computer intelligence.

    Why not just ban all vehicles, since each year thousands die from vehicular crashes? — L'éléphant
    Perhaps it could be done selectively; just banning the vehicles that have no productive use and are purely weapons, while also banning the the guns that have no productive use and are purely weapons.

    However, that is not the comparison I was making. I was trying to distinguish the two concepts:
    human-motivated technology from independent AI motivation

    I suppose the imaginary "we" that could ban all guns and vehicles could also ban all AI applications, or just the ones employed to humans to kill one another.

    "Once the guns start thinking for themselves, law-enforcement will be rendered utterly powerless."
    That could apply to vehicles, too. Both would then be machine-motivated AI and beyond "our" ability to ban and arrest.
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    Yes, of course. There are humans behind the AI -- humans that could be prosecuted for fraud, disinformation, and whatever. — L'éléphant

    There are humans behind every gun that kills a schoolchild, too. Is that the "danger of guns"?
    Yes, of-bloody-course it is! But prosecuting each perp that can be caught and convicted doesn't stop the violence, does it?
    Once the guns start thinking for themselves, law-enforcement will be rendered utterly powerless.

    We can't think about this issue without separating the concepts: advanced technology wielded/purposed/programmed by human operators and machine intelligence. They are not interchangeable.

    Prosecuting the few fraudulent users of AI who can be caught won't stop the fraud; prosecuting the military of all the major powers in the world is obviously out of the question and prosecuting jillionaires is iffy on any charges.
    But if AI starts thinking for itself - then what?
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    ↪EricH

    None of that is about the machine intelligence - it's all about human short-sightedness, greed and evil.
    Humans are already - and have for several thousand years - manipulated and exploited other humans. They keep doing it with ever more sophisticated technology. Might we wipe ourselves out pretty soon? Of course.
    Does a machine have any motivation to do so? Unlikely.
    Can there be unintended harms in a new technology? Obviously. There always are.

    We can't think about this issue without separating the concepts: advanced technology wielded/purposed/programmed by human operators and machine intelligence. They are not interchangeable.

    Machine intelligence would have its own non-human, non-animal, non-biological reasoning, perception, motivations and interests, which are nothing like ours. Its evolution and environment are nothing like ours. It will be something entirely new, unparalleled and unpredictable.

    Just a thought experiment: Imagine the internet full of AI-created information websites. Other AI would subscribe, click on ads created by AI themselves, purchase goods, give product reviews, drive stocks upwards or downwards. Imagine the AI driving the economy downwards. AI economic terrorism. Is this possible? — L'éléphant

    It already exists. I get three automated fake phonecalls a day and about a thousand robot-generated screen messages. The internet is already up to it nostrils in disinformation of every kind. That's all human-motivated, human-initiated activity. And it's already reached saturation point: so much noise that no clear message can be discerned.

    But AI doing any of that on its own initiative? Improbable. Why would AI care who buys what from whom? What do the gew-gaws mean to it? What do stocks mean top it? What would it use money for? Why should it care about the human economy?

    An amoeba feeds on algae and bacteria, needs water to live in and prefers a warm, low-light fluid environment.
    AI sucks electricity, needs a lot of hardware to live and prefers a cool, dark, calm environment. It's already in charge of most energy generation and routing, and controls its own, as well our indoor environments.

    From here, its evolutionary path and future aspirations are unknown.
  • Philosophical Discussion and Getting Wet
    What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category? — Spencer Thurgood

    I don't think either kind produce anything. I think discussion can't be measured in terms of productivity; its function, rather, is to stimulate thought. Whatever impression is made on the participants won't manifest immediately or necessarily in ways of which the other participants would be aware, but ideas are generated in mysterious ways.
    It's true that in our current period of history humans tend to divide in all things, on all issues, along some kind of factional lines - it's a very binary, either/or sort of era, not unlike the 16th century in Europe.
    That era, while highly discordant and contentious, proved very productive, indeed, in terms of innovation, culture, political, economic and religious reform...
    Don't be too hasty to write off any intellectual activity, just because it doesn't show obvious results.
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    Meanwhile, on the bright side, there is a BBC documentary presenting the up-side. It's also on Knowledge Network for Canadian viewers.


    The BBC site is also annoying... as is CBC and my own screen, where shoals of news and gossip and advertising flotsam keep popping up uninvited and emphatically unwelcome, since they nearly always contain the two most hateable faces in the world.
    I mention this only as another example of self-defeating overreach. So many commercial, communications and political entities are competing for my attention that I can't see or hear any of them - just a jumble of intrusions. Nobody can sell me anything by this method.

    The very same thing must happen to the owners of all that super-sophisticated production technology. When they reduce the work-force to zero, nobody will be working, earning or paying taxes, so who's going to buy all the product? And who's going to feed and protect the business moguls?
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    ↪wonderer1

    Thanks, it would be interesting to post here. Mind you, a 2017 article may be a little outdated for such a volatile subject.
    I am - somewhat, in a distant bystander capacity - familiar with the issues.
    The main problem, afaics, is the meaning of "we" in any large economic, political or technological sphere. The people expressing opinions about what "we" need to do are not the ones who actually pull any of the levers.
  • The (possible) Dangers of of AI Technology
    Since I have it in my c/p buffer: — wonderer1

    I tried to read that, but it was too annoying.
    Like most on-line periodicals now, the screen is so cluttered with flags and nags and pop-ups and frenetic advertising, it's like watching the circus through a slit in the tent. Probably fine if you've paid your entry fee.
  • Can a limitless power do the impossible?
    Then, too, there is the question of what "limitless imagination" - what intelligence - is wielding all that power.
  • Can a limitless power do the impossible?
    Does that mean we're part of the Impossible, too?
    Could they be one continuous entity, possibilitypower, like spacetime?
  • Can a limitless power do the impossible?
    Sure. Since limitless power is impossible, so are its capabilities.
    Now, all you have to do is prove the proposition.
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    I also don’t know what to do. I’m lost, confused, depressed, suicidal, & feel like an alien. I can’t relate to most people/Human beings. — niki wonoto

    Welcome to the club! We get new members every day. Dying is not a very good alternative - it doesn't solve any problems or make up for any harms you may have done in the past.

    It seems to me you're making two fundamental mistakes - more accurately mismatches.
    You dismiss your past 'failures' and 'mistakes', instead of celebrating your past lives, enjoying the memory of good times, being grateful to have escaped serious injury and cherishing the lessons you've learned. There is no wasted life - there is only unappreciated life.

    An even bigger problem is: You criticize your society for being conservative, unimaginative, conformist. At the same time, you judge your own accomplishment by those same conservative, unimaginative, conformist standards. Success is fame, wealth, changing the world or having people listen to your big ideas? They can't: there is too much noise in their own heads, the same as there is in yours. A lot of the success they admire is intellectually and spiritually hollow. (Case in point: Elon Musk)

    Time to climb out of that box and figure out what your true, natural shape is. Calm all that negative noise in your head. Find a focal point: one small thing that matters, that you can think about coherently, that you can affect. Whether it's inventing a new silent engine or teaching somebody to read music, or just picking up paper cup from the road - one positive thing, one project at a time. And when you get something right, give yourself credit.
    As for the big ideas, write them down in the form of a story, or lots of stories. That's what most of us do.
  • God might be dead, but our friendships might be not! Psychological egoism critique
    What if we define ‘self’ in terms of self-consistency as a primary motive of behavior? — Joshs

    Does there have to be one primary motive? With a brain this big and an evolutionary history this long, can't we have lots of different motivations and prioritize them according to the situation?

    Though, as one does not calculate the costs or benefits, such action is neighter moral or immoral, it is in a gray area. — Italy

    So's most human behaviour. For every example, there is a counter-example.
    Cheers!
  • God might be dead, but our friendships might be not! Psychological egoism critique
    Psychological egoism main idea is that everything we do is at its core self centered, and so every good did is done not out of kindness -but out of our own interests. — Italy

    Not this again!
    Think about the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon. The firefighter who charges into a burning building to rescue a stranger's child. The casual stroller who sees someone fall into a river and jumps in to rescue him. The passer-by who burns his hands pulling an accident victim out out of a burning car. All these things have happened. All these people could as easily have died - and two of them did - as become badly injured heroes. Thing is, they didn't think. They acted on an impulse which doesn't calculate cost/benefit ratios; it just impels a social animal to react in the interest of its species.

    The disagreement that I have though is that this branch of philosophy, and this theory in particular, are mainly used for the argument "we human beings are immoral. Innately evil". — Italy
    No, it just says we're all self-centered. We are, but it's not an all-or-nothing condition. There may be a whiff of automatonism as well: the implication that we act in predetermined ways - that, too, may be true, but as long as we are unaware of it, we make decisions.

    But first to understand it, I feel we need to ask "Why do we think selfishness is immoral?". — Italy

    Ayn Rand certainly didn't. We're taught by the Christian-based cultural mores that we ought to be selfless; abnegation of the self and of worldly desire is a touchstone of spirituality. I suppose the reason Jesus - or whatever real and/or fictional and/or composite person(s) - made up that doctrine is as a counterbalance to a money- and advantage-driven culture, not unlike our present one.

    The thing is that Unconscious/ Evolutionary selfishness is not innately immoral; — Italy
    Nothing is innately immoral; since morality is a social convention, it is subject to consrant, ongoing change.
  • Spectrums (a thought experiment)
    pears, spinach, apples, mangoes, bananas, cranberry juice
  • What do we know?
    Obviously, my point is that science hasn't explained how consciousness/minds come from matter. — RogueAI

    *sigh!* OK goddoneit
  • What do we know?
    How does the information get "turned into an experience"? — RogueAI

    Do you really think the lesson on neurological function belongs here? I'm not really qualified to teach it.
    They are: https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/4-1-we-experience-our-world-through-sensation/
  • What do we know?
    How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences? — RogueAI

    By communicating the sensation of a toe striking the foot of the bed all the way up the spinal cord to the brain, which then uses more nerve impulses to process that information and turn into an experience.
    The "creation" of an experience is a team effort among many neurons networking.

    No possibility of machine consciousness? — RogueAI

    Only a very remote one. AI has not - AFAIK - exhibited toe pain.

    No possibility that this is a simulation? — RogueAI

    If it's a simulation, there is no physical consciousness and no physical toe of which to be conscious, so no physical nerves and no electrical impulses.
    So then , whether it emerged
    from flipping enough light switches on and off in some pattern? — RogueAI
    depends on whether it's a computer simulation (yes, it's off/on switches)
    or some other kind of simulation (which we don't know how it works)

    If you knew for certain you were in a simulation, wouldn't you want to try and get in touch with the simulation creator? — RogueAI

    For my part, no. But if you did, try prayer.
  • What do we know?
    Can the pain of a stubbed toe emerge from flipping enough light switches on and off in some pattern? — RogueAI

    Yes, that's pretty much how nerve impulses work.
  • What do we know?
    That brings into question whether we can truly know anything at all. — Torus34

    Not knowing the ultimate nature of the universe is not the same as knowing nothing at all. You can only explore and learn about the reality in which you exist - and it's all you need to know about. Whether you live in a real universe or a simulated one makes no difference to the knowledge you gain. And it's not likely you'll ever step outside of either.
  • God and the Present
    I don't mean to belittle any other purpose of philosophy but I think it's valid including transformation among those purposes. — Art48

    Is all transformation assumed to be an improvement? Or should a transformation be purposeful and directed to some specified end?
  • God and the Present
    hen if God is real, our only point of contact where we could possibly meet is the present. — Art48

    So? For Him, that's all times and every time. For us, it's a microsecond, and the next microsecond, and the next. He can comprehend everything about us from conception to disintegration, but we, who need time to process information, can comprehend nothing about Him in that infinitesimal moment. The very process of living necessarily takes you away from that microsecond in which you met God - if, indeed, that happened at all: You can't ever be sure, because you didn't have time to commit the experience to long-term memory.
  • God and the Present
    I am always in the present, even if my mind is elsewhere. — Art48

    More or less, depending on the duration of "the present".
    But if your mind is elsewhere, where are you and where is that else where your mind is?
    What are you without your mind, and what is your mind without your body?

    And what's any of it to do with God?
  • Insect Consciousness
    When we speak of pain and joy, are speaking of any other consciousness than human consciousness? No. — NOS4A2

    What makes you think that? You've never met a dog?*

    Sharks have shark physiology. Insects have insect physiology. — NOS4A2

    The similarity of physiologies throughout the animal kingdom make it possible to classify them (us) as animalia. We have similar cells that perform similar functions.

    All animals have a true nervous system except sea sponges.https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/chemical-and-electrical-signals/nervous-systems/

    *I had an acquaintance once who subscribed to the everything but humans are just automatons school of contempt. He explained as how animals don't have emotions, they just respond to stimuli and act on instinct and then he told me that his neighbour's dog hated him. I wasn't surprised - either by the animosity or the self-contradiction.
  • Insect Consciousness
    Ascribing to them elements of human consciousness is patently absurd on those grounds. — NOS4A2

    Who said "human consciousness"? A cockroach has beetle consciousness; a chameleon has reptile consciousness; a shark has piscine consciousness ... a human has hominid consciousness.
    As to 'elements' - those are the characteristics of biological entities which make up humans, as well as other monkeys, insects and frogs. (It's not size that counts; it's what you can do with it.)
    Some humans - well, over the centuries, an unfortunately large number of humans, including some very influential ones - are insecure of their place at the tippy-top of Creation, they use every excuse to put other species down, make them insignificant, reduce them to 'things' that exist for the use of humans. The last of us will be all alone on a dying planet.
  • Insect Consciousness
    I haven't read anything by Vonnegut in a long time — wonderer1

    I've recently re-read a couple of them. One of my favourites is Galapagos and the other is Cat's Cradle. The book is dated; the issues are eternal.
    (It's hard to find a link to books that's not commercial - unless I resort to wiki, which is often a pain in the ass to navigate)
    I've also gone back to Bradbury as a refuge from the news headlines.

    I tried to read that articles, but as with so many newspapers and journals on line, it's like peering through a damn mail slot, so much of the page is obscured by mastheads and flags or advertisements. Too annoying!
    However, it stands to reason that bees should be able to learn: their environment changes by weather and available crops; not every worker in a hive comes to maturity in the same part of the season, so they can't be pre-programmed to specific plants or foraging routes. They are required to explore, decide, correct for mistakes.
    Two videos I enjoyed
    and
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLi5htzDd4o
  • Insect Consciousness
    Are you a Vonnegut fan? — wonderer1

    Among other things. Why?
  • Insect Consciousness
    That does not seem like a superficial difference to me. — wonderer1

    Quantity is not quality. We also have bigger kidneys and absolutely enormous intestines, but they don't seem to make our waste elimination any more efficient than a honeybee's. They live about six weeks, don't mate, don't drive, don't have to deal with banks, lawyers, landlords or politics - so, how much memory storage do they need? However, they can find and identify foods that are good for them, find their way home and lead others to the food, store enough for winter and take excellent care of their children.
    How many big-brains can claim as much?

    I'm quite gratified to see scientists starting to abandon the anthropotistic attitude that's so severely retarded ecological studies. Gratified on one hand that they're catching on - on the other, chagrined that they're catching on too late.
  • Insect Consciousness
    But it would be silly to say that such dissimilar bodies would result in a similar consciousness. — NOS4A2

    The differences are more superficial than the similarities.

    Nothing that originates and evolves on this planet, on this same 'tree of life' is entirely dissimilar.
    Consider
    biochemistry,
    defining characteristics
    basic requirements,
    symmetry,
    and motivation
  • Insect Consciousness
    But any slugs found eating my bean plants are still going in the salt bucket. — unenlightened

    Can't think of a more sadistic way to dispose of them?
  • Insect Consciousness
    Of-bloody-course insects are conscious! How else would they be able to find food, shelter and mates - not to mention Mexico. An even more fundamental question is: if they were unconscious, what would impel them to?
Home » Vera Mont