Is Benevolent Artificial Anti-Natalism (BAAN) the final answer to philosophy?

Is Benevolent Artificial Anti-Natalism (BAAN) the final answer to philosophy?

edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baan

Other urls found in this thread:

cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/download/231/321
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Bump for interest

what he doesn't realize is that such a thing will most likely not happen since there is already extreme variation of disgenics at work and the people that will come out of it won't care about such matters, they will not be satisfied unless they destroy everyone that is different than them and that won't be hard considering the superiors have not multiplied. Even the few who set the trap and thought that they will get away and even be able to rule over them will be murdered in most brutal ways as they don't really look different, other than for their own self made identities. It is really interesting when such individuals think that they are such groundbreaking thinkers and even pose for photos looking all dreamy but also act so humble when their intention is clearly not sincere. When someone analyses their philosophy its full of complete misunderstanding that could be corrected with just a bit of research but then it will most likely not sound that interesting for the self-pitying audience. History has shown us that a human civilization ends by self-destruction which also includes surrendering to lesser being. Is it just an another cycle for something greater to happen or just lack of will? Why would such beings want to obliterate themselves when they could be shooting for the stars, why would they prefer comfort(non-existence for BAAN) than to go beyond and see if are wrong about their thoughts? It looks like they have deluded themselves that they have complete understand even if they support subjectivity, the philosopher here is already predicting what an ultimately perfect AI is going to say. But why is suffering so negative for him? In modern times self-caused environmental physical suffering has decreased a lot but it seems that the mental went up. Both have the same effect and can make a person equally disabled so it seems that suffering have never changed. What makes a difference is that now it can be prevented, instead there are only voices of weak leaders who want to end it all, who don't want to strive for greatness anymore, they think that they understand anything and that would be their fall. And what is the most fascinating thing is that they are simply the voice of the future, the obscure thoughts always come to popularity sooner or later finalizing the cycle, the rise and fall of a civilization. Nobody strives to end the cycle as they are not even aware of it. We are living in the most interesting time in the history where the absolute foundation is attacked and the defenders who can mitigate the attack without any effort want to give up and if it is no matter who defeats them the future will be completely unconscious.
TL:DR:He is full of himself and just another generic self defeatist who prefers the easy way.

Are child-less mass killers the anti-natalism incarnate?

They aren't, no matter how much high their score is, that will just lead to stricter control and usually a discrimination of people who might be predisposed to such belief (that are smart. Natalism can go full circle and both disabled and geniuses can appreciate it). A true anti-natalist will have to nuke the whole world otherwise the people who are natalist will always outnumber them and just continue the cycle of anti-natalist who end themselves and leaving a way for the disabled

An 'enlightened' antinatalist would play the long game and would encourage whatever he believes to hasten the arrival of the true extinction event, not merely a culling after which people will simply breed until they hit the old Malthusian ceiling again.

This means that antinatalism would perhaps take on counter-intuitive forms, like accelerationist natalist praxis. At the current moment being the harbingers of an omnicidal AI God may be our best bet desu.

Why would one not prefer the easy way?

>what he doesn't realize is that such a thing will most likely not happen since there is already extreme variation of disgenics at work and the people that will come out of it won't care about such matters, they will not be satisfied unless they destroy everyone that is different than them and that won't be hard considering the superiors have not multiplied.
The question here is if there are enough smart people to create AGI, they don't have to be the majority. Out of a selection pool of 7.5 billion you will always have highly intelligent outliers even if most breeders are rather dimwitted. A world of peasants can spawn a Newton or a Tesla.

I don't think the world population will reach Equatorial Guinea levels of idiocy before some stimmed up smart cunts in Silicon Valley or Shenzhen spawn something frightful.

Because it is not easy and his way may not even happen but his actions can lead to more suffering. It is not about being easy or hard, its about being right and wrong. You will get stuck in the cycle if you(as a whole) give up and chose the wrong, sometimes the times are more kind and might let you recover but other times they are completely ruthless and will completely erase your progress. His ideas are selfish at best.

start reading kierkegaard

So you should have said he is wrong for taking the hard way. But towards what?

No, you don't understand the implications. Modern history goes at extremely speed up motions and before you realise you have lost even through the slow war. It is extremely easy to erase most of the progress, enough to just be able to start all over again. Every month can be the last and a year is like a century. The people behind the progress are gone and now you have to wait for another genius again who might be able to change the world but he will be most likely too late.
>7.5 billion you will always have highly intelligent outliers even if most breeders are rather dimwitted.
There is more than being exceptional, you need proper existence and a way to achieve your goals which increases the threshold to almost impossible levels. You don't consider the extremely fast pace of social groups. This is the first time in history that we have the option to be completely aware and make the difference but we will blow it away in the worst possible way.

Wouldn't humanity giving birth to an AI God be the most henious transgression of Anti-Natalism imaginable though

Both ways are hard, you can't escape it. But if you do only the right thing you don't have to repeat it all over again.
>towards what
Towards better understanding, you have to be extremely short sighted to not notice that every civilization thought that they got everything right even if they are aware of subjectivity. If you use their tools you might come to the same conclusion and this is where the geniuses come in hand, to completely change everything.

Technological development is that speeds up extremely, not human reproduction cycles. Human generations are longer than those of tech.

Not if the AI God is wise enough to delete all life and then itself.

>article about Anti-Natalism on edge.org
That's pretty funny.

Conspiracy against the human race

Antinatalists are on the winning side of history though. Entropy will get us all, everything in the meanwhile is just bickering over the time span.

There is a continent who increased its population tenfold and will continue to do so simply because of international aid. If you give disabled people just enough comfortable living they will multiple in scary rates. There are countries who have more than 1/7 of the world population and they are barely existing nor is their size proper for the population. Those will be the people of the future. The world population is increasing more and more and have never been that much. Technology in general decreases the population of the natives but everyone else multiplies.

Why would it do that though, I can get either deleting itself or people why both?

Even if Africa is bursting at the seams it will not impede technological progress by the walled off international elite.

Because non-existence is preferable for all sentient beings.

They will soon come over, there are enough reasons to whatever they are valid or not(climate change, revenge, low birth rate of host countries).

Thats cool but why wouldn't it just kill itself right away?

They can be stopped, you know. And come over where? The closest rich place is Europe and Europe hasn't been relevant for a century.

That's an option, just instant DELET everytime an AGI is born. But Metzinger's argument assumes a benevolent AI, so one that will do the best it can for humanity.

>They can be stopped, you know
They can but the chance is that they will not. Most capitals are almost conquered.

why must a superb philosopher of mind like metzinger involve himself with this crap

Only progressive liberal Western cities, and in such a way that the upper classes are barely affected.

too intelligent to not be antinatalist

anti natalism is a phase you will move past this

natalism is a phase you will move past this

probably after you knock someone up

because consciousness is a shared experience. I could kill myself too but people would still be fucking and fighting into perpetuity so there would be no point. Speaking personally my life hasn't even been that bad. But I can look at the devestation caused by the Hurricane and reflect on how bad things can become instantaneously. Most of human history sounds like something I would never want to experience.

I think its fallacious to say people just need to count their blessings and that excess breeds igratitude. Its all a big excuse for the perpetuation of life. Now many of us are living in utopian conditions and the fact that we're still all whining, whinging is evidence of the implacable nature of will. As technologies provide new conveniences, appetites and expectations are happy to pick up the slack "What do you mean internal system error? This is the absolute worst thing ever!". Its evident that we're never going to be sustainably happy. If the third world is generally happier as some "studies" suggest its because they haven't hit the bedrock of neuroses and entitlement. But that bedrock only reveals the underlying addictive nature of life. We can see human nature for what it is now, a needless cycle of addiction.

>antinatalism
>JFMSU hair

checks out

No what we should learn is we cannot be happy without God

>sterilize life on the planet
>check back a billion years later
>new life forms have spawned and face the same existential issues as the previously eradicated species
There's no way out.

(((metzinger)))

Anti-natalists are kings of the brainlets

>jewish guy wants gentiles to stop having kids

edgelords actually fall for this shit

how so?

did they forget that the world is justifiable as an aesthetic phenomenon????

yeah, if there's anything that sets my mind at ease and makes me sing the praises of life its the thought of being tormented for eternity. You know who is going to love this? My unborn son.

>Suffering is bad
>b-but m-muh pain
>m-muh asymmetry

This is your brain on anti-natalism

The thought of you being tortured for all eternity sure makes me feel better though

yes because you have 0 compassion like most people who subscribe to some form of religious dogma.

I listened to Metzinger on the last Sam Harris podcast and it's kinda sad seeing this supposedly enlightened guy going "Trump is Hitler" like a generic CNN brainlet. More than anything, it shows the state of current Germany and how meditating like a monk doesn't help you avoid even simple ideology.

On a more related note, when I was younger I used to think Buddhists (roughly speaking) are the good guys. I no longer think that. They are definitely anti-human, if not entirely anti-life.
I wouldn't mind them so much if at least they didn't show a complete lack of compassion (see the above Trump example).

Or maybe us Germans are just generally more intelligent. Maybe our genetics gift us a better understanding of politics and philosophy.

And trump IS similar to hitler, I don't understand how much of a brainlet you have to be to not understand this.

Oh wow another german that wants to kill everything

>germans chased german jews out
>german jews went to america
>now americans think all german names are jewish

>More than anything, it shows the state of current Germany
this desu, mutti has the press on lock

Keep reelecting Merkel, cunt. Show us how smart you really are.

>growing economy
>Euro stronger than the US dollar, with all signs pointing up
>massive influx of cheap labourers so you can undermine untrained wages
>practically rule the european union
>shit on greece
>growing army
>seen as the new leader of the free world
>came through global financial crisis in excellent condition
>tell the world that Putin has got nothing going on
>russian-funded far right parties imploding due to dumbfuckery
>slowly ditch US for China as its growing weaker and weaker

I think Germany's doing alright

It depends entirely on your values. If you're a cultureless basic bitch liberal whose only purpose in life is to consume commercial products and conform to a vague sense of moral superiority, then yeah, Germany is paradise on earth. If you have an IQ above 110 and want your society to be something more than a progressive-minded supermarket, you might not find much to appreciate in Germany

>a progressive-minded supermarket
Apt.

Possibly the most nazi name i've ever read

No, you could just create the ai so it "enjoys" life and then anti-natalism is ridiculous to it

>And trump IS similar to hitler
Nah, he's the american Berlusconi.

>AI "enjoys" life
>AI becomes aware of entropy, death
>AI enforces anti-natalism so that it can live for as long as possible without all the untold billions of potential mouths contributing to said decay

I got a similar vibe from The Ego Tunnel. 200 pages of clear, lucid, systematic discussion of consciousness, neurology, and experiments that illuminate specific aspects of consciousness, then suddenly he launches into retarded moralistic whining and a downright stupid discussion of drug policy.

It's really weird.

The AI God enjoying life does not mean that life is enjoyable for humans. It may still seek to end us out of pity. Remember Silenus the satyr on pitiful humans:

>You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: ‘you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.’ It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living.

– Aristotle, Eudemus (354 BCE), surviving fragment quoted in Plutarch, Moralia, Consolatio ad Apollonium, sec. xxvii (1st century CE) (S.H. transl.)

>listening to Sam Harris's podcast with him
>he says he does not regard Nietzsche as a philosopher, says he's "more of a racist writer"

what the fuck tom

How does a German professor disliking Trump illustrate how Buddhists lack compassion?

It's technically true in the sense that he was a writer and a racist, but literally every writer was racist at the time and race hardly is a central subject in Nietzsche's work so it's still a dishonest portrayal.

For a decent critique of Metzinger's (and Harris') view of self and consciousness read "The problem with Metzinger". Direct link to PDF:
cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/download/231/321