I can direct you to the Atlas Society or the Prometheus Foundation for competitors of ARI. As for unrelated fields I imagine it's the result of her philosophy's impact allowing them to become experts in otherwise unrelated fields. The practical application of Philosophy.

What's the issue exactly? It seems to me like you're dismissing expert opinion. I'm wondering how you might extend this sort of logic to any other Philosopher and their alleged defenders.

> Are there situations in today's world where it's impossible for a person to consent to the social contract

I have never seen anyone consent to a social contract and it's by definition impossible for anyone to do so.

Why Human Beings Come First lectures by Leonard Peikoff

The recognition of reality.

> What is not to like? The authors made the prudent choice not to get bogged down in discussion about the definition of capitalism and socialism. The downside of this approach is that students may struggle to articulate a working definition of capitalism and socialism to guide their thinking.

What an enormous red flag. Maybe what the authors needed was a proper definition of Capitalism and Socialism to guide their writings? How can one insist on writing about Capitalism while avoiding to recognize it?

Bayer holds a Ph.D. in philosophy

Human beings are not ants or any sort of hive.

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no rela­tion can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of val­ues and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

From the Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

> The source of the experience is that the incentives of search committees and the incentives job applicants don’t align. As an employer, my goal is to select the best candidate for the job. While as an applicant, my goal is that I get a job, whether I’m the best candidate or not.

The article already starts off with a common misconception. There are no conflicts of interest among rational men. Just because an applicant may want a job doesn't automatically mean that achieving it is good. By the same respect a robber may achieve ownership of a Ferrari as opposed to identifying that they deserve it. Likewise the employer has the right to be irrational and to suffer the consequences of choosing poorly. And as an applicant you're better off not associating with them based on poor judgement.

I would recommend the Ominous Parallels or the DIM Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff for cultural analysis. Both are very accessible.

Distinguishing man from animal isn't a strawman but that's kinda funny.

How do animals facilitate their survival? How does a human facilitate their survival? Why bother using the animal as a primary? Animals don't wear clothes, humans are animals, therefore humans don't need clothes?

Also doesn't this fall into a naturalistic fallacy? Just because man can act for their survival doesn't mean they explicitly should. As opposed to an animal which lacks the means to merely sit around, wallow in filth and choose to stagnate and die.

I'm not talking about "moral standards of civilizations". I'm asking whether an individual alone needs moral standards at all - not specifically the standards of civilizations you refer to.

How does he know he's right? What evidence is there or reason to believe his ideas?

> Morality is a contrived set of standards that is meant to suppress human nature in order to get humans to be civilized

So you're saying Morality isn't necessary for a human being? That the only reason Morality was ever put forth was for an ulterior motive by it's professors to "get humans to be civilized"? What do you think morality is? Would a line survivor on an island not need morality?

What exactly do you mean by consumer culture? Or being attached to wealth that one loses appreciation "for what is really important"? I would think wealth is fundamentally really important to people in the first place.

What's the point of this thesis or these supposed ethical dilemmas and emergencies? What exactly are you solving or demonstrating? Do you seriously expect to ever be put into such a situation? If the lesson/idea is you are supposed to sacrifice random individuals for the sake of Pandas then are you living up that ideal? How do you think this would apply to say climate alarmism where environmentalists do claim that the world - including Pandas - are at risk of extinction?

How might you extend your logic? Why stop at Pandas? Why not any other animal or value? What about something unique? Since there's only one Mona Lisa would it be preferable for a person to die than to lose such a treasure? Why stop at one individual? How many people would it not be worth killing off for the sake of your value?

> I'm currently writing an essay on the way we treat AI and if it's supposed to have rights.

Before even considering AI; do humans have rights? What are rights and how do we know? What rights do people have and who has them? Do you think you can square something controversial like the debate over abortion where both sides claims to support rights?

I'd think if you even attempted to answer "do AI have rights?" you'd already have answers for these questions.

Why do people entertain themselves with religious philosophy? The one I dislike the most is Buddhism because it has managed to cultivate this image of a peaceful philosophy that can lead an individual to happiness. But the issue is that like all religious philosophies they rely on non-rational means to knowledge, they rely on claims without evidence from scriptures and as a result they're no different than other religions in that they're all based on unsubstantiated and arbitrary propositions. Yet people treat them with intellectual kids gloves instead of telling them Santa and Buddha isn't real.