Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] OP t1_j8gklbp wrote

Reply to comment by AnarkittenSurprise in Drawing the line between positive use of technology and degeneracy by [deleted]

Not necessarily, it really depends on how widespread and extreme they are and at what scale they happen at. For example, a few immature near-baselines indulging in some perverse hedonism is one thing, but a hyper-intelligent Jupiter brain post-human doing this is a terrifying abomination.

The problem is that if a civilization encourages these sorts of behaviors without restraint it can eventually start to wreak havoc at all levels of society. I think people should definitely have leeway, but I also think society and culture should have some standards as well especially for those who seek power.

−1

CloserToTheStars t1_j8gwgpq wrote

I think you’ll be one of the people saying “in my time everything was just better and simpler” there is no line. There is only people and getting more close to what it actually means to be a awareness or personality, without limitations or constraints. What is the core of us. If that means a naked turtle then so it is.

21

[deleted] OP t1_j8h4t2i wrote

Definitely not. I am all for human augmentation and automation. I just believe that these things should be approached with a degree of discipline and forethought. It's the same principle as how being rich doesn't mean you need to consume for no reason.

2

CloserToTheStars t1_j8j5izt wrote

So you are specifically talking about a time period in which decisions gradually shift overtime. Why? You can not control anything that happens anyway. Well see when it comes. There is a lot more to worry about than what if we would be in a future where this or this would be the topic of conversation. That’s a lot of guess work and seems like a lot of wasted energy. It’s as if you say 10 years back I see Facebook now let’s all think how to guide the social structure towards a more accepting online culture towards coming out of the closet when your are gay. while we have cancel culture, 20 genders, body dysphormia, fake news etc etc. So 1 you do not know the details of the problems 2 you do not know if it will happen 3 you can never guess what will happen when and you will be wrong, looking for an old metric in a sea of a million new variables. I like the mental gymnastics and do it myself as well but ur kinda throwing a needle in a haystack and ask people to be on the same path as you.

1

Kaninenlove t1_j8hf93k wrote

Can you provide a proper mechanism on how this "havoc" will ensue from a more hedonistic society?

9

[deleted] OP t1_j8hnfth wrote

Focus on hedonism above all else is not a logically balanced goal. Pleasure can only be experienced when it is compared to a less pleasurable state of being so thus a society focused entirely on hedonism will endlessly seek more and more extreme forms of pleasure. It's a road straight to insanity.

Again this isn't to say that everyone needs to be some austere monk, it's just that I think that a post-scarcity ultra-tech society should teach its citizens how to balance their hedonistic desires in a way that is balanced and doesn't lead to ruin. It's the same principle as how we allow alcohol but discourage people from being alcoholics.

1

Kaninenlove t1_j8hnwr5 wrote

I suppose that is a good argument against trancendant hedonism, but it doesn't seem entirely aligned with the rest of your post.

8

backroundagain t1_j8hpthy wrote

I don't think that's teachable. The best current society can do is scare tactics, mostly in the form of religion. Either you chase that sort of thing, or it's a non-issue for you.

5

TheInvisibleJeevas t1_j8ilht3 wrote

I don’t think there’s some inherent “dangerous” level of hedonism. If it was impossible to overdose on heroine, no one would have a problem with it. The human brain can only process so many positive chemicals before it reaches a plateau. We’d have to augment the brain itself to both process more of those chemicals and make it possible for us to perceive those increased chemical loads. It might be a useless endeavor, since peaking and returning to baseline is how human brains are wired, and if we keep raising the baseline and peak capacity, we’re just staying the same, relatively speaking. But will it do harm? Nah.

And remember, different cultures see different things as “degenerate.” There isn’t even consensus among the human species on what is and isn’t socially appropriate. And social rules and tastes shift within cultures overtime. Many would say that maximizing the ability for individual expression should be the goal of humanity. As long as you’re not hurting others, let your freak flag fly.

3

AnarkittenSurprise t1_j8j1mzl wrote

I don't think we're communicating on a foundation of common values here.

These labels of innocuous things as degenerate, depraved, abomination, ect. are severely problematic.

Futurism is exciting, but you need a strong base in human history to get a feel for where we're going. If you think the future should be defined by stifling innovation under some form of central cultural authorities, then I'm not sure you have a good understanding of Humanity's trend towards self-determination.

The most successful, stable, and innovative cultures will be the least oppressive. The role of a state in modern, let alone future times should be to protect individual liberties wherever possible, not curtail them.

Traditional group think and monoculturalism is a system of violence against those who don't fit the mold, and will lead to stagnation and revolution.

3