No. No he wouldn't.

In fact, if you read the quote, he is directly stating that he wouldn't. It is almost as if Lewis wrote it due to a prediction that this thread was coming.

correct.

capitalized CORRECT.

<3 masque. his intelligence and obvious desire to share it is sexy as ****. lol

he comes and bangs with...well hell, ME. the idea of a physicist interacting with me. yeah...I mean I'm a faulted, temperamental, knowledge-seeking ******* who won't get on my knees for anyone, but will defer to everyone I deem worthy of listening to.

while I definitely disagree not with his assessment of what HAS to happen but what will happen (and again, he's right on the former but seems to be disconnected from the latter), he's clearly the type that needs to be involved in the decision-making process.

those of us that don't want to participate and instead want to simply live out our lives and accept our fate, let's face it, we're almost always going to impede progress.

whether it's our stated mission or that our non-participation becomes a larger problem due to issues related, every single person that chooses not to help is a liability. even if it's just because we're still eating food every day...

2+2=5
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

repeat that, or become an enemy of the st...err, humans.

I <3 masque. if I'm him, I bow out unless called back to this hypothetical at this point too. he knows he's right. I agree.

I disagree with his methods, but 100% respect his resolve. he should respect ours.

p.s. that said, he is the only one that has spent time putting forth an honest effort into laying out a plan to survive. I remember him asking if anyone else was going to bother...I never have other than to point out issues with his, both macro and micro. my only contribution to that issue is to say that many around me consider me a leader, but I do not. I would want the choice of living my own life however I wanted. I cannot, though I have thought about it a lot this week, figure out how I would react to, "20 years, Earth dies". spectrum ranges from retribution murder(s) to local resistance leader to depression to travel to dedicated, loyal worker to .... I would respect the right to choose and violently defend it, regardless of which side of the fight I ended up on. I've accused masque of not knowing the 99%, but in the end, his quick call for extermination shows that he does. and if humans were to get off this rock in any numbers large enough to survive, he isn't wrong...

Oh yeah, I forgot that masque and I are (now) neighbors. I walked up to the Dish a couple weeks ago. We should go out comet-watching sometime.

(Not a metaphor.)

This is a science maths and philosophy forum, being good at two of them doesn't prevent you from being awful at the third, nor should it immunise you from criticism where you are awful or its value as a forum is diminished.

I suppose awful in your world is to want to save the very capacity to have a philosophical discussion and decent/good at it is that you need to allow it to expire and lose all its meaning and application. It is rather amazing to me that one has sensitivities they care for that they will allow to expire without effort. These sensitivities of course are result of having existed, so by all means lets not allow anyone to exist after this and derive such sensitivities or better ones or understand their true nature and whatever else is left to do with them... That is what competent skill in philosophy is all about, to logically welcome its expiration without protest. To care enough for something to never exist anymore. You must hate living dereds. You must think that the main conclusion of philosophy is that it shouldnt have ever happened, any of it, its rather unremarkable...

When you infer from my posts in this thread that I must hate living you demonstrate the very awfulness that I refer to. Similarly when you consider voluntarily modding an internet forum in some way equivalent to slavery.

I have little doubt you have a talent for science and maths, I have no experience of you demonstrating any real philosophical thinking. You may think that philosophy is easy compared to the subjects you are strong in, this may be, but it does not excuse your poor reasoning about ethical issues nor does it mean one can be an expert in it merely by thinking about it. If you could you may have noticed that I have stated quite clearly the impact on 140 bn lived years, had you cared to leverage some philosophical arguments you may have bee able to address my concern, we may have disagreed but there are utilitarian calculations that may come out on your side, instead you assert I must hate living which is just the latest in a long line of poorly considered and incorrect assertions.

Care to elaborate what is 140 bil lived years vs over 100 trillion lived years that result if we survive say another 1k-10k years after Mars (let alone millions of years in the galaxy of post human intelligence) restarting from say 1 mil people and building a solar system civilization eventually? Plus clearly you do not understand/appreciate that the more advanced a society is also the more ethically dense/complex/rich it gets. So as the system gets more elaborate the ethical content of it will get even denser/more intricate so to speak and for that reason the future doesnt only include more lived years (far more than 20 each) but more complex lived years as well, allowing for far more substantial "volume" of ethics experienced/debates witnessed/wisdom accumulated etc. What are you trying to say with your 140 bil number= 20*7 i imagine? The added non weighted for progress lived years of 100 bil humans lived so far in history and the resulting civilization is easily exceeding 140 bil by the way.

My claim is that the ultimate value of trillions of future lived years (and a significant other also of the past that is now survived as civilization, although one cant value things in such simplistic way as such stupid 20*7 calculation want to make it look) is much bigger than any small sacrifice a few billions will make for 20 (plus i never described a world that in these 20 years would have people working under slave conditions etc , in fact i argued the opposite must happen to be an incentive and to offer people meaning/reward in their last few years). In fact i only introduced violence as last resort in that world if the people started behaving self destructively, irrationally and threatening the effort to save as many humans as possible and preserve life/civilization post earth.

You are looking ridiculous if you want to start a discussion with me about how logical or capable of philosophical arguments i am. I never did that to you. I tend to respect people i talk to even if i disagree and i never belittle them so shame on you for proving so little to do exactly that. How ethical of you! The fact you want to ridicule me is childish. You cannot have any kind of reasonable philosophical discussion of value and relevance to our world without math and physics in it supporting the arguments by the way. So these are not exactly uncorrelated with the quality of arguments one produces. And i still resist to calling you bad or incapable in anything by the way.

Also since you referred to it in the past and here;

Moding/posting of the caliber BruceZ provided for years here without pay or any other benefits and the insulting "thank you" he got by the community (from many posters like you that didnt pay attention to his long term efforts and proper context of discussions) is indeed slave labor. If you had spent the amount of time it takes to produce one of his rich content posts you would know why i called it slave labor. Then try that 2000-3000 times or more out of ~10k posts or so and see how much accumulated effort that is which never "deserved" this final type of treatment by the so advanced ethically community of other moderators and even site leadership ("advanced" my a$$).

it's still there it hadn't ever been removed you really don't pay attention at all do you.

And no voluntarily modding a forum is nothing like slavery and it is precisely this level of argument that hindered rather than helped those that would have preferred Bruce to remain green.

I don't care how smart you are you're an idiot.

I always try to edit my posts for accuracy and removal of errors dereds. If others help that happen i thank them for it. I wish you could also edit yours for ethical value and integrity missing towards those that take the time to interact with you. It is slavery if it buys value for the community that not even real $ can buy and its not treated with proper respect and gratitude later.

What error? That you consider it equivalent to slavery or that I think that's absurd?

You are redefining words in ways that no one else uses them, you may want to consider the consequences of private language.

The error was that i thought you edited out a reference to modship because i had placed it in my memory at the second paragraph of your post, which once i saw as edited i considered the reference removed due to that wrong memory placement (it was always in the first paragraph instead but i was looking for it in the second). Now how about actually responding to my post instead of focusing on trivial petty things and insulting each other? Mature people focus on the important and cooperate always to get to the truth of things instead of competing in insults as if they hate each other.

You continue to deliberately use terms like "logic" to defend your position as the only consistent position possible. But there is no logical deduction that makes choosing to save "humanity" over the next 20 years a greater good than choosing to enjoy one's remaining years with their loved ones in pursuit of their own interests. Different subjective values are not matters of logic. You continue to overlook this most basic point in your exceedingly long-winded posts that have lots of words but little fundamental content.

You would do well in this debate (and others I have read) to stop playing the role of professor giving what amounts to a sermon, and engage in more meaningful dialogue in which key points can be explored in a more linear fashion. In other words, talk less and listen more. It appears to me at least that you're not nearly as smart as you may think.

You've asserted that I must hate living masque so forgive me for not really thinking you're interested in a genuine discussion, you have demonstrated no desire to actually engage other than to condescend or draw inferences that aren't warranted.

And you posted that in response to a post of mine answering Foldndark who was telling me this forum may not be for me because you are a Stanford astrophysicist, like that's relevant.

This depends on whether you believe that an objective reality (and other people) exist outside of your own subjective experience.

Under the assumption that other people exist, you and your subjective values are accountable to other people. So if your subjective values are inclined toward molesting children you will be held accountable, for good reason.

Excuse the crude example here but it must be done: If someone that you know is to choose to enjoy their remaining 20 years by molesting as many children as possible, will you defend their right to such values too?

Secondly, would you say that there is no logic in your decision?

Allow me to clarify. Your perfectly fine to criticize, it's what this forum is about. No science or philosophy can move forward without vibrant and honest criticism, and I enjoy and agree with some of yours. You're mistaken I'm sure if you think Masque doesn't appreciate the criticisms. Why I said this place might not be for you is that you seem to get worked up a bit when the train of thought leads somewhere you don't like, and for some reason think going there is a bad thing. No, going to those places where you turn around and say, how the f did we end up here is very much the experience you should look forward to in SMP, imo.

Then allow me to clarify, you will note from the actual post of mine that I am pointing and laughing, if that reads to you like I am worked up I don't know how you would respond if I were actually wound up.

Doing philosophy does not excuse one from bad reasoning, that's what I was pointing and laughing at.

Chezlaw and smrk2 are horrible for what they have done to the kids they didn't have...

Or we only have to worry about real people.

The second makes a bit more sense.

Ah, indeed, it is quite a hoot! I think in cases like this, end of the world stuff, we should expect some bad reasoning, and that even very sound reasoning will often lead us to extremely f ed up places.

None of this is really relevant to anything I have said.

You too seem to confuse what you find morally acceptable and what you logically deduce from (yet-to-be-proven-as-universal*) first principles.

* And never will be.

Btw, bringing the Bruce situation into the discussion, imo, is akin to getting worked up. I share Masque's opinion Bruce was a valuable poster who added a lot of content to the discussions here and got railroaded for it. On certain occasions throughout the years, the conversation took us to bad places, much like this conversation ended up with one side arguing they'd sabotage the human race's best chance for survival in the name of human rights, while another would kill those who attempted to do so. Desperate times call for drastic measures, right? I don't think we should be making harsh personal judgements about people in this forum for following certain lines of reasoning, whether they are faulty or not. Just chill out muthafukkas!!

It's not akin to getting worked up, what I was doing was taking a fairly recent example of an argument from masque that was so clearly wrong it would highlight why I think he's an awful poster outside of the areas he is strong.

If someone is going to make claims of others irrationality it helps to be rational, those arguments weren't. It wasn't actually about Bruce it was about masques equating modding a forum and slavery. I also only raised it after masques suggested I must hate living as that's the kind of awfulness he does.

I'm also okay with reasoning being taken to it's limits, however the point is to test out commitments to certain beliefs, what seems to happen here is that certain posters just abandon them in the extreme circumstance without actually understanding what that means for their worldview in non extreme circumstances.

A valid criticism imo. Probably a poor choice of words, hyperbolic at best. Maybe some lost in translation, from English being his second language, frustration, who knows. Anyway, this conversation does remind me of where guys like Neil DeGrass Tyson and other prominent hard scientists go overboard, imo, claiming the study of philosophy is pretty much pointless, as if the empirical sciences can solve everything these days.

dereds what on earth you do not understand about the term slave labor. I didnt compare to slavery, just the term slave labor in the natural modern understanding of it as a poorly remunerated job.

As in placing a lot of effort out of pure love for education and the improvement of other people and having this form of essential altruism not appreciated properly with correct behavior later when a crisis took place. You have therefore a guy putting work to a community that improves its prestige and attractiveness, brand name recognition etc and then not properly rewarding that with similar forms of altruism and recognition/gratitude. This is equivalent to getting all the benefits out the work of a person, then throwing him under the bus letting unacceptable character assassination, harassment, trivialization of contribution etc take place undefended. Yes that is exactly like not getting properly remunerated exactly like the modern understanding of slave labor.

I don't think the world would just go to hell, but that doesn't mean we'd get a colony on mars either. 20 years is a long time and people live mostly for the immediate future/present, not for what happens more than 20 years from now.

Long term planning would change of course and lots of people, though not all, would choose not to have children. There'd probably be a reasonable attempt at something like a mars colony, it'd would just be very lucky to work beyond a successful landing, let alone something sustainable. It would be incredibly hard and it's one thing to say the world wouldn't go to absolute hell, but completely different to say masses of people will bust their ass just for the mars colony.

You clearly linked the two

So in this context it reads as slave labour as related to the labour of slaves rather than a poorly remunerated job, like he didn't actually get paid at all.