You simply reply nuh uh, to the points that there is no such thing as need, that there’s no such thing as an imperative, that there’s no such thing as purpose, etc that the other user wrote.

I’m not sure I put all statements they said, feel free to go back and read them again.

I ask that you engage with this topic you’ve chosen to respond to, and to do so with some relevance.

I understand the topic is of some distaste to you, but a thing’s correctness and our enjoyment of its implications are two different things.

Read everything you said lol. Oh right, you said nothing, made no points, and made no attempt to engage what the other person was saying.

And the ceo of the company gets their share, right? No they get significantly more.

Im sure the child workers in the vein of matchstick girl would be super enthusiastic that they had been saved from those awful dark ages.

Certainly I don’t want employers earning a profit off of the work of their employees. Certainly no more than they are making at maximum.

The value that each person contributes would have to be tallied and paid in full. It was a simplistic example.

Someone receives the books and someone buys new ones, I guess you have to chop the value of each book sold into pieces.

That’s kind of a coop model. Then if you want to go full socialism, the workers own the means of production so there’s no books to buy or utilities to pay.

Incorrect. Workers have no attachment to a particular workplace and always have the option of working somewhere else. The success or failure of any particular business is immaterial to the workers.

If I work at a bookstore and sell 10 $10 books, I do not receive $100. That’s what it means for a worker to receive the full value of the work they do. What would the business owner get under this arrangement, don’t know, the value of whatever books they sell also.

Business owners are not entitled to one cent of the value their employees produce. Maybe take 10 percent off for upkeep of the business, other than that, the workers should be getting the same value as they produce.

There’s many other proposed economic systems. Food being produced == food having a cost. You left that part out. X being produced is the part that has to do with the nature of reality. X having a monetary cost is artificial.

People tend to disapprove of their own exploitation and they ought to.

>Why would someone labor to profit another?

>This never happens

It happens every single day. It’s called work. What benefit do I get if a store or a business succeeds? Nothing. It’s the submission of one’s own goals before that of another. It’s exploitative because the employee receives less value than is produced by their labor. People work because they have to, it’s a captive audience and there is nothing fair about these arrangements.

Alright, you’ve satisfied me that you know what entropy is at least. I jest, placating gesture.😅

I decided to look into these immortal organisms, and none of them are truly immortal. Even the regenerating jellyfish have been observed to fully die source. Tardigrades too. Even you wrote appear and seemingly.

Animals can extend life through various means, but not forever, organisms aren’t built to last, species are.

>encoded in dna not nature of reality

I regret to inform you that dna exists in reality so it absolutely is bound by its nature. This can explain how copying mistakes are made, etc.

Even certain animals without telomeres can’t live forever.

Aside from all that, predation, disease, and injuries are also related to entropy and the nature of reality.

To your point about causing other entropy to increase in order to decrease our own, that goes to my point about eating.

Even the highest quality foodstuffs can’t reverse the aging process, no matter how much energy is pumped in. This has to do with more than just telomeres (although I addressed those already). Aging is a complex process that needs to be further understood.

I’m optimistic about the future of aging science and technology also, we should shoot for the stars! But we should be pragmatic about the realities of being an organism.

I’m pretty sure the breakdown of the human body due to aging and wear and tear would lead to organism death well in advance of trillions of years.

Even the elderly consume the same amount of energy as the young but just eating can’t extend life forever.

Entropy is at work at all times to move systems from highly improbable states like human beings into highly probable states. It’s very much a problem.

It’s at work at all times. It only needs to work once. This is why magic is impossible and why the hard problem of death will never be solved.

Heck even computer systems degrade with time if you wanna go the human consciousness in computers route. Entropy defines the limits of the possible.

And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.

Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.

It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.

Well we won’t be able to solve death entirely because of entropy. I think most of the research now is on extending healthy years.