0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
There is no better or more robust way of converting human waste and sunlight into edible carbohydrates and oxygen.
How likely is it that grass will produce a multi planetary or interstellar civilization? They are instrumental goals to outlive our solar system.
It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.
"Grass" includes rice and wheat. The rest of the plant can feed insects or herbivorous mammals, which humans can then eat. An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.
You need to define "our". You and I are the descendants of primordial fish, sauropods, or something else, that really isn't recognisable as homo sapiens. Assuming that dinosaurs had whatever it is that you call consciousness, that quality has survived despite the extinction of practically every species that ever had it. Humans are actually the only species that is determined to eradicate itself rather than wait for nature to do so.
... your villain should not be bad simply because heís the bad guy. He must have believable motivations. After all, villains donít consider themselves villains. They believe their actions are justified.https://jerryjenkins.com/story-structures/
You are confusing moral wrong with inefficiency or ineffectiveness. But the implication of your statement is that moral wrong is defined by the effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.
When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals,
It could also be both.
effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.
Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.
What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?
they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice.
Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct.
Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 10:53:46Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 11:10:23What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems. Are the principles clear? yesDoes it work? yes Does it work better than anything else? yes Is it good enough for what we need? yes Is it reproducible? yesIs it affordable? yesAre there any circumstances in which it won't work? none known.The use it.
Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?