0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The same way that you predict the effect of any action on generations yet unborn. Inspired guesswork.Look at Russia and China in 1900. What could benefit present and future generations more than a communist revolution?
Veganism will win, but you're wrong about whyLoose workings for how many cows my dairy consumption will kill (for a reason unknown to me, this text didn't render on the video, sorry): Based on my current rate of dairy consumption (1 litre milk + 500g of cheese per week) Iíll consume another 15,600 litres of milk if I reach 82. The average cow produces 49,780 litres of milk throughout its life, and for every cow there is a culled bull and a child thatís taken away.Timestamps:00:00 Why Make it Easy?02:48 Can They Suffer?06:53 Unnecessary Harm16:02 An Arbitrary Definition19:34 Two Sovereign Masters27:58 Why Not Vegan?!
I don't see how it can lead to determine the future actions of a specific individual.
In order to have a revolution, you need to persuade a few million individuals to behave in a certain way, beheading aristocrats or marching across China, for instance. And the leaders of the revolution are subject to your judgement of morality.Problem is that society evolves, so what may appear to be in the short term interest of the peasant army may pave the way for repression of their descendants.
Lenin, Mao and Hitler had very good models of reality that helped them persuade millions of individuals to do all sorts of things that you might consider immoral.
No, it just shows that society is dynamic and evolutionary (except in the USA).
In order to model the future evolution of society completely, you will need a complete model of every individual plus a predictive model of the climate and all natural disasters. It is for example difficult to imagine how science would have evolved if Newton was not in quarantine. Or if someone had studied the antibiotic effect as thoroughly as Fleming (who just noticed the accidental contamination of a culture) in time to cure Henry VIII's syphilis: No Anglican church → vastly different history of Britain and America....
Common goal: to be richer then everyone else. Now avoid the disagreements.
I can't answer why, but I've never met anyone who aspired to be poorer than anyone else. Have you?
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-algorithm-crime-week-advance-reveals.htmlAdvances in machine learning and artificial intelligence have sparked interest from governments that would like to use these tools for predictive policing to deter crime. Early efforts at crime prediction have been controversial, however, because they do not account for systemic biases in police enforcement and its complex relationship with crime and society.
Quote from: alancalverd on 30/06/2022 17:36:25 Common goal: to be richer then everyone else. Now avoid the disagreements.What do you mean by rich? Why should everyone wants to be rich? To be richer then everyone else, you can make yourself richer, or make everyone else poorer. Is the later equivalent to the former? Why or why not?
Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2022 16:08:30Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves.I think you have just discovered the fundamental point of money. In principle, you get it by working for someone else, and use it to get a third party to do something for you. It is (or should be) the countercurrent of labour.
The Truth About Why America Dropped Atomic Bombs on JapanThe atomic bomb proved to be the most devastating weapon used in any war, past or present, but was the United States justified in dropping two nuclear warheads on Japan for their unconditional surrender? Check out today's insane new video and maybe your opinion will change on whether or not the US should have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think that one thing that gets overlooked in this debate a lot is the fact that at the time the after effects of radiation exposure was not fully understood. The US sent in 250k troops to occupy the bombed cities, with a great number of them suffering the rest or their lives or even dying prematurely. A vast amount of the citizens were killed not from the initial explosion, but from radiation afterwards. Now knowing the effects 80 years later, it changes how we view the decision vs how it would have been viewed and justified back then. I think with history we look at it from our standpoint too much, and don't consider the views, culture, and morals at the time enough.