I don't dream anymore. Not that I can remember anyway. :sad:

Does more money bring more friends, sex, more stable relationships? It may, but the people I know who have lots of friends, sex, and good relationships are on the low end of the economic distribution. Good looks, health, a strong sex drive, and a pleasant personality help more than money. — Bitter Crank

Yes, ostensibly good looks, social skills etc trump money in that regard. I think all of these other things being equal, money brings more friends, sex, relationships, and achievement - presumably helping to explain the rise in happiness as one's income rises up until 75k. Unless it's solely the money itself and/or the things one buys with it that increases happiness.

If one has great wealth, not just "some wealth", one can arrange to have people surround one with what looks like friendship, sex appeal, and good relationships. In that sense, money can get one those things. But none of this is "the real thing". One's 'friends' and 'bed mates' are playing a role. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure it is any less real than, for example relationships stemming from one's physical attractiveness. And if one's not reckless the money will last a lifetime, physical attractiveness probably will not.

Is it as hard for the average person to have friends, sex, love, and achievement as $50,000 extra? Achievement seems like it might be the most difficult commodity to obtain. It seems like the opportunities to freely achieve are fairly restricted. — Bitter Crank

Yes money buys opportunities for achievement. I suppose on average the amount of friends, sexual partners, and stable relationships go up with wealth, as does one's choice of friends, sexual and romantic partners etc.

The data shows that happiness increases with income up until about $75,000.

There would be no need to obtain more, but there is no point in giving up the non-material things that could influence happiness, such as friends, sex, love, and achievements.

I don’t believe character is very concrete / set in stone. Sure there are some traits that seem to be a part of our deepest identity and are difficult to shift but if you dislike a particular part of yourself or maybe desire a specific trait for yourself, there’s nothing but some hard graft between you and it. — Benj96

And if anything is worth the effort, happiness and contentment are.

some of our best analytical or critical thinkers were pessimistic. — Benj96

I wonder how many of them would have traded it in for a more contented life. :chin:

I wouldn’t be too hard on yourself about changing it, don’t be so pessimistic lol — Benj96

I'll try not to be so pessimistic about my pessimism :wink:

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If anything, more complexity (such as god/s) are a less probable explanation for the universe.

The god in the thought experiment doesn't seem any more complicated than the standard gods though.

Consciousness Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist by Christof Koch.

When people perhaps shouldn’t be focused on the idea of continuous happiness (a sort of nothing can go wrong for me) and focus more on contentment (things will often go wrong for me but it’s okay I’m not adverse to it and won’t try to control things as I’m peacefully anticipating both good and bad). — Benj96

As a very pessimistic person, I would love to be able to accept the bad. However I don't know if I could change my character.

We know people can be sad longterm. We call it depression. But longterm happiness is somewhat elusive. — Benj96

There's an asymmetry between the amount of happiness and sadness people experience? This is something I'm on the fence about myself.

I think a case could be made for strict parenting on the basis of the "Success-Oriented Argument", but when you introduce CP you open the door to the "Relationship Damage Argument", and the "Trauma Argument". Presumably there is a sweet spot somewhere, and we need studies to lead the way.

I don't think I'll be convinced by any deontological arguments.

Humans, have self-reflection and greater awareness of actions, thoughts, and can use language. — schopenhauer1

You know the problem with using those attributes as justification for poorer treatment though?

I can understand certain claims for consistency of veganism and antinatalism, as they are often rooted in the same moral sentiments. — schopenhauer1

I think veganism is a stepping stone to antinatalism. Might be more effective than trying to convince people to take the leap to antinatalism.

Is veganism not something you are able to accept yourself?

Humans should actively be helping non-human animals, not terrorising them and then rationalising our bloodlust. On consequentialist grounds, we should uphold in law the sanctity of life. — David Pearce

We are both operating from the foundation that suffering is the moral priority. So do you disagree with the premise that the animals would have more suffering if left to live? The consequentialism comes in, as the normalisation of hunting (killing of our fellow sentient beings) leads to more suffering? Or is there some principle/s that take precedence over the consequences?

For large slow-breeders, cross-species fertility-regulation via immunocontraception is feasible. For small fast-breeders, we can use remotely tunable synthetic gene drives:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#killed — David Pearce

This is something we can and should do immediately? Or more research is required?

@schopenhauer1

Do you disagree with bringing animals into the game? How about for food?

@David Pearce

An argument used by hunters (like Joe Rogan) is that they are doing the animals a favour, as otherwise their lives and deaths can be horrific. I take it you agree that it would lead to worse lives if they were left to live on, but you disagree with the consequentialist approach?

What do you think of methods to reduce wild animal fertility?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some striped kangaroos.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

I think you mean you would be surprised. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, latest figures show almost 45 million kangaroos in Australia alone - I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few mutant striped ones. I definitely wouldn't feel confident saying there are no striped kangaroos, but I think you realise this wasn't the best example you could have given.

On the other hand, if an outlandish or "out of thin air" existence claim is asserted, it doesn't seem reasonable that the denier would have as great a burden to prove false as the assertor has to prove true. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes it feels deeply counter-intuitive. But for what reason other than the difficulty of obtaining evidence would the denier have a lesser burden of proof?

The amount of evidence we should have to believe something, is a tough one. It's something I think about a lot.

Yes I was going to say, you gave me some low hanging fruit with the striped kangaroo argument :smile: I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some striped kangaroos.

We would still have a burden of proof in the active claim that the billion ton being is false. As silly as it sounds, it may be that we are unable to obtain enough evidence to meet our burden of proof. I just don't think we should lower our burden of proof based upon the difficulty of obtaining evidence.

"There exists a fish with blue fins and a green body."

I don't assume that is true and I don't assume that it is false.

"There exists a striped kangaroo."

I assume that is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Based on your knowledge of kangaroos? This would be using evidence to reach a conclusion.

Yes, disbelief is consistent with agnosticism, and believing something is false is not. The former doesn't require evidence, but the latter does.

It is to move from agnosticism.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

Why? To me, you need a reason to believe something. If there is no reason, then disbelief is warranted. That is to say that the truth of the belief in question can be rejected, or denied. — Pinprick

To actively claim something does not exist, you have a burden of proof, and just because it's harder to meet your burden of proof, doesn't make it disappear. One should remain agnostic until they have sufficient evidence either way.

I don't have sufficient evidence to claim fairies don't exist. Do you? What is it?
— Down The Rabbit Hole
— Pinprick

It isn’t needed. — Pinprick

It is to move from agnosticism.

Do you have any evidence that they do exist? — Pinprick

The first clip in this video looks pretty real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZswREtWpJrg

:wink:

I just meant it wasn’t a factor for determining burden of proof — Pinprick

I know what you meant. You are right - just because something is harder to prove (for example proving a negative) doesn't let the claimant off the hook.

I once wanted children, but was largely driven by societal norms and the feeling that I might actually do an OK job teaching another person about the world. But since getting older have felt that my DNA might not be suitable for a very ideal life and the world is clearly overpopulated as it is. — TiredThinker

This is noble. Putting aside one's desires for a greater good.

I think Occam's Razor might make god/s less likely, but it is not enough to shift me from agnosticism, to an active belief that there is no god.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

Are you also agnostic on the existence of fairies? I think you’re using the wrong razor. — Pinprick

I don't have sufficient evidence to claim fairies don't exist. Do you? What is it?

Remember what you said here:

I don’t think the difficulty of providing proof is a factor at all. — Pinprick

"One cannot prove a negative" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are not always true. An example would be using sonar on a pond and finding no fish - you have proven a negative (there are no fish in the pond), and absence of evidence of the fish is evidence the fish are absent.

However, I don't see how we can rule out the existence of god/s. Even if we have one universe and it is finite, and we can search it fast enough to ensure it hasn't moved to a part we have already searched, the god/s could be in another dimension we can't access.

I think Occam's Razor might make god/s less likely, but it is not enough to shift me from agnosticism, to an active belief that there is no god.

Maybe there is something more fundamental than the RQF (if the theory is correct) I just see no reason for there to be, as it begs the same questions as the RQF.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

Right. Which is to say, Krauss has no ultimate explanation. — fishfry

If we get rid of the "maybe". I would need evidence to do that.

I'm debating Krauss's nonsensical claim that the RQF + the laws of physics are "nothing" — fishfry

Not with me you're not:

I understand what you are saying about the abuse of the word "nothing". — Down The Rabbit Hole

I take no position on the nature of the world. — fishfry

You are making the active claim that the RQF is not the fundamental thing that gave rise to everything else.

"Sacrifice" makes it seem like it's necessary for the happiness of the majority and that I wouldn't stop it if I could.

An "acceptable consequence"? Yes. "Sacrifice"? No. — khaled

It is necessary that people with lives full of unbearable pain and suffering be born, for the majority to be born. This is what I meant by calling them a sacrifice. However I'm not looking to score points, "acceptable consequence" works fine.

Some people are going to get heart attacks from surprise parties. Doesn't make surprise parties wrong. — khaled

This isn't going to be a useful intuition pump for me, as I think the happiness surprise parties create for people with the worst lives, may off-set any suffering caused by a very very small amount of people having a heart attack as a result. If this is not correct, and surprise parties cause deeper suffering than they alleviate - I believe they are wrong.

Yes. Agreed. But Krauss has no ultimate explanation, just a description of a speculative next level down. And do note that the RQF idea is speculation, not accepted or proven theory. I don't see how anyone can call it an ultimate explanation. But I already said that and perhaps we can agree to disagree. — fishfry

Maybe there is something more fundamental than the RQF (if the theory is correct) I just see no reason for there to be, as it begs the same questions as the RQF.

Us caterpillars may never know
— Down The Rabbit Hole

I'm not sure if you meant that as irony or lighthearted criticism of my position, but that is in fact my position. — fishfry

More the fact that we are debating something so absurd i.e what substance (for lack of a better word) has existed forever, or came into existence out of literally nothing! I wouldn't be surprised if we are the caterpillars, searching for a truth we can never know.

Are those that are born to live a life of horrific pain and suffering a reasonable sacrifice for the majority being born?

Willy's a bit cynical here. More of "Well, it's an 'option' (wink, wink)." — schopenhauer1

I think there's plenty of Willys. I'm sure with your experience debating the matter, you've seen many people argue the 'option' as a defence for natalism.

At the moment of conception, there is a rapid expansion of cells, like a Big Bang, only on a biological scale if you will. Looking at our observable universe, we see what conception looks like on a cosmic scale. Since space is infinite, there may be an infinite number of Big Bangs, but we’ll never observe them from earth because of the enormous distances involved. The light from a universe 100 billion light years away, won’t arrive on earth for another 86 billion years. — Present awareness

Nothing within the universe is supposed to be able to travel faster than the speed of light - it's called the cosmic speed limit. As galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, physicists say that as nothing within the universe can move faster than the speed of light, it is the universe itself expanding.

You're back :smile:

I think you are being too generous regarding the suicide pill. The reality is a lot more distressing for the person doing the act, and for the people left behind.

It still doesn't explain, why for millions of years god allowed many millions of beings, which god caused to come into existence, to suffer a life of horrific agony.

I hope you'll check out some of the links I gave and google around for more. A lot of people have written pro and con about Krauss's book. I'm out of my depth, I've said everything I know. — fishfry

I appreciate the links. I will have to set some time aside to do some proper research.

But I do wonder why you think Kraus has any sort of "ultimate" explanation when it leaves unexplained the primeval existence of the RQF and the laws of physics. Why do these things exist, and is their existence necessary or contingent, and have they always existed or did they come into existence? And how did that happen? Maybe God created the RQF and the laws of physics. But then you have to ask the same questions about God. Turtles all the way down. Questions that can never be answered.

I'm just saying that he has a nice account of how the world might have arisen from the RQF, and there's value in that, but I don't see how you can feel that this is in any way "ultimate" when it immediately raises so many obvious questions. — fishfry

Any possible ultimate explanation would seem incomplete to us. Either we are the result of something that has been around forever (god/s, universe/s, RQF), or something came out of literally nothing.

Us caterpillars may never know :lol:

I'd love to win against the program I play chess against, but losing never causes me to suffer. — David Pearce

Do you think you'd enjoy it more if you put it on a slightly lower difficulty?

The universe is not expanding, objects in the universe are simply moving away from each other and the space within which they are moving, in is infinite. — Present awareness

So there wasn't a big bang that started an expanding universe?

I understand what you are saying about the abuse of the word "nothing".

Krauss does not have an ultimate explanation. Do you agree with that? If the question is why are there elephants, we say animals. Why animals, life. Why life, organic molecules. Why organic molecules, atoms. Why atoms? Protons, neutrons, and electrons. Why protons and neutrons? Because quarks. (The electrons don't have internal parts as far as we know). Then we ask why quarks, and Krauss tells us: quantum fields. And if we ask why quantum fields, Krauss says, "That's the ultimate explanation. Why are you so stupid?" He has an arrogant jerk kind of attitude as it happens. — fishfry

I think Krauss' explanation, is at least as good of an ultimate explanation as the alternatives (god/s, something from literally nothing, universe that has existed forever).

Now why do you think the RQF is an ultimate explanation? After all in 1900 they thought atoms were the ultimate explanation. This was right before relativity and the quantum revolution. — fishfry

I wouldn't go as far as saying I believe it is the ultimate explanation, only that it is at least equally plausible. I'm not sure if Krauss actively believes it to be the ultimate explanation? It would be interesting to see his reasoning.

I'm not trying to catch you out; I'm genuinely interested in your view.

Maybe, nothing came before that "nothing". What would be a less absurd ultimate explanation than the "nothing" Krauss speaks of?

His belief that this is an ultimate explanation is wrong. — fishfry

It seems that any ultimate explanation would appear absurd to us.

Why not Krauss' one? What would be a better ultimate explanation than that?

The difference between me and Laurence Krauss is that neither of us knows how the world got here, but he thinks he knows and I know I don't. And he's wrong, and I'm right. — fishfry

What makes you think Krauss' explanation is wrong?

The spaceship can keep going, because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. The spaceship won't catch up with the expansion of the universe.

So the spaceship isn't creating new space, it is using the space the expansion is creating.

Therefore nothing will ever be "an absolute proof" aka something that can't be wrong or a mistake. — Qmeri

Descarte's "I think therefore I am" is seen as the one thing we can be sure of.

However, you are right. We can't be sure we are applying logic correctly or even that it is possible for our species on this speck of dust to know how to use logic (e.g. we might not have the processing power).