It was non-binary with ambiguous genitalia, i.e biologically intersex. — Michael

Yes. They are one sex or the other.

I took "non-binary" as someone who chooses to consider themselves neither gender.

We have to place each of a cisgender man, a cisgender woman, a transgender man, a transgender woman, and two non-binary individuals with ambiguous genitalia into one of the teams and one of the bathrooms.

Who goes where and why? — Michael

Cis gender man Team A (assuming A is male)
Cis gender woman Team B
Transgender Man Team A or B. (If it is sports and testosterone has been used the they would be illegible for Team B) If it is a bathroom then again A or B as most members of Team A would not feel threatened by a trans man.
Transgender Woman Team A (There is significant advantages in virtually all sports from going through male puberty) Bathroom Team A. A trans woman is biologically male and biological males have been excluded from female only spaces for obvious reasons. This may chamge if society changes but we are a long way off.
Non Binary Team A or B according to their biological sex.

Not that difficult

I know, I was seeing what NOS4A2 had to say about that as he believes:

No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever.
— NOS4A2 — Samlw

I see. It is interesting. I don't think any words that could be uttered would upset me in any way unless there was an imminent threat of violence and then it wouldn't be the words, it would be the violence that was the alarming thing.
Any slander wouldn't bother me if there were no consequences but the fact that there could be consequences would mean there should be redress for any damage done. I'm an advocate for not suppressing thoughts but some untruthful words do have direct impact on the recipient and cannot be allowed to be said unchallenged. IMHO.

If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested? — Samlw

I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas)

The fragmentation of community may be a contributing factor to problems, especially isolation as so much is done alone, on-line. Such isolation may foster self-centerdness because it involves living in an egoistic bubble. Lockdowns created isolation, which affected mental health on a long term basis and in the midst of lockdown there was such a transition to virtual life which may be creating many kinds of problems. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. The framework of society in which we live has been mangled. Not for the better IMHO.

This may be right. But maybe not. By and large, humans like interacting with other humans. No matter how human a machine seems, knowing that it's a machine, I don't know if I'd bother. — Patterner

We are hardwired to like interacting. It ensures a higher likelihood of out genes being passed down.

However, the modern world has disconnected from the hunter gatherer scenario we evolved into. Some gamers and young people spend most of their time in a virtual world. they might swap reality of interacting with "people" with an augmented world that reacts with "people".

100% not for me

I understand why you don’t feel joy. Carry on.

As the world (as we know it is 'being dismantled, there no universal consensus about morality and what is acceptable. This was drawn from postmodern analysis and culture relativism. However, that doesn't mean necessarily that ideas of human rights and economic ethics are insignificant and meaningless. What do you think about this? — Jack Cummins

I think the classic standards of service to society and responsibility by the better off in society is more desperately needed than ever. The Victorians had their faults but they built great buildings, public parks and in the 20th Century there was social housing/NHS etc.
Also, there is no structure of what is acceptable any more. The Self has become a selfish infant for many many people.

It’s more like wondering if all that is meaningful is just chemical signal and therefor nothing special. Hobbies, relationships, all that. I’ve stopped feeling joy because of it, I think that if I do something I like it means I value joy and pleasure and would have to accept the experience machine and plug in. — Darkneos

Is that true? That is a convoluted way to look at your existence.

I agree that initiatives need to be started and ones that are innovative as opposed to punitive. The problem may be that the needs of the people, as opposed to those in power, need to be addressed. — Jack Cummins

There is no general consensus about what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, what we should do as a society and what we are responsible for as individuals.
currently, the world is a billionaires plaything. The structured society that was built over many decades is slowly being dismantled.

Indeed. Our knowing it was machine-induced, if that was the case, or even if we thought that was the case, would become part of the experience.

But that's not necessarily bad. I'm told there are amazing VR things out there. I have only experienced one brief thing in a mall. I was a bird flying way above some mountains. It wasn't high quality VR. It was just a drawing, although a very nice one. Anyway, I knew I was not a bird, and that I was in VR. It was still a great experience. Except for getting slightly nausea. I knew if was VR, and it looked like a drawing. And yet, my stomach turned at a rather tame aerial maneuver. Despite the discomfort, it was amazing that that happened to me. — Patterner

My point was that eventually the experience would be unsatisfying and would not be the same experience even if every if it was an exact replica of existence.

Would I reply on a message board that was made up of AI bots and not some other humans? The replies would be probably more challenging and would would be perfectly tailored to my wants and needs but ultimately it would be unsatisfying as there is no connection. I have no idea if anyone on here is "real" but I'm convinced you are.
Then again, evolution has made us very adaptable so within a week the machine may be our new reality.

How does it not engage? I'm not sure what you mean.

There is little joined up thinking after 13 years of Tory Government and very much a hands off approach to food industry and the giant companies feeding people utter rubbish.
No idea how to tackle any of it but initiatives need to be piloted and then rolled out.
A simple example would be youth clubs and crime. I am fairly sure ever £1 spent on youth clubs and facilities/sports etc would save many times the investment on reduction on court system/prisons and mental health issues
Subsidising healthy food and taxing rubbish would help with long term health.
However, people need to make choices and we as a society have to make the better choices similar but we also need to expect people to up their game and stop be unfit and obese.
The NHS has been in crisis for as long as I can remember.

Isn't our experience just cascading neurons? (I love the phrase, I think I first read it in Self Illusion by Bruce Hood)
If a machine could replicate exactly the pathways we would not know it was a simulation.
However, we do have a part of the brain that detects fakeness (No idea of where it is and where I read about it) so any machine that you aware was a machine would ultimately fail because you would "know" it was a fake and discount the experience.

To live good, you need to treat yourself good.
To treat yourself good, treat the world good — Shamshir

What does that mean?

It seems, ergo, that climate change is the "opportune" moment for the development of a more expansive morality that not only includes all of humanity but also other species, even plants — TheMadFool

I take your points about the definition. I am still a little sceptical about the science and modelling but I'm convinced that we have already trashed the planet.

I agree that we need a more expansive morality but how will this manifest itself? What actions will come from the new morality?
,

Enjoy and do whatever good you can. — Shamshir

Why? For what purpose?

This is what I have a problem with. The good bit not the enjoy bit.

So it looks like a solution on the forefront but it's really just a patch up, since the earth has been leeched off to the bottom of the bottle. — Shamshir

That's my take on it. We have a bumpy ride ahead.

I'll just forget all about it and enjoy the moment.

I put my faith in "Mother Nature" who has ways of resolving difficult problems for species. We probably won't like her solutions, and some among our esteemed selves will be subject to her judgements. — Bitter Crank

So is this an agenda to do nothing?

I am if the opinion that there is little we can do but if there is a consensus amongst scientists that it is a massive issue then what has philosophy got to offer?

I may not be explaining myself properly but is philosophy just a talking shop with nothing to offer?

Obviously, if you want to develop further. — Shamshir

This is the nub of my questions. How do we develop?

We have already wiped out the majority of large fauna from the planet.

What is the way forward? I'm intrigued to what philosophy has to offer.

Individual freedom seems to be no longer fit for purpose. Again, I could be wrong and open to suggestions. I'm new at this .

It's a temporary solution like reducing the flow of blood to stall venom. — Shamshir

I've worked out how to quote!!

Why is it temporary? With 6 billion people and, I assume but could be wrong, a limit on how much we can consume to keep the planet balanced then what is the alternative.

I'll take democracy, the voice of the people; and free markets, the voice of people spending their own money on things that give them value.


This was why I said just carry on and see what happens because I cannot see how the status quo can combat the issue.

That is assuming that there is such a thing as man made climate change.

I'm sceptical of the environmental lobby. I'm unsure if the dire warnings are justified. But there doesn't seem any mechanism put forward to counter the possible consequences of climate change.
Or is it just carry on as we are and if it happens it happens.

think now it's a question of whether you want to die trying to reduce the catastrophe or die making it worse

That doesn't make a blind but if difference to the issue. So if I may as well make it slightly worse and enjoy it. I don't see any moral imperative to change if there are people using way more resources than me. Hence, the rationing question.