Emotionally let go of grudges, yes. Logically let go of grudges, it depends.

Do not let the grudge rule your life. It isn't with wasting your emotional energy on something trivial.

But grudges can be logical. Depending on the grudge, it could be good for you to hold onto it. If someone is toxic, it might be best to just stay away from them. Perhaps it makes sense not to lend a person money who has a habit of making poor choices with that money.

A grudge by the nature of the word implies emotion. But often the reason for the emotion has bearings in logic and safety. It was the emotion that finally allowed you to make the right choice. Letting go of the emotion doesn't mean you should go back on the choice.

The people who paid to get it to the to of the list.

You have made it clear that you are incapable of adjusting your world view to allow for others views to be different from your own. Blocked.

>No. I said "an uninterested (human) party. And (human) parties can be one or more people. It in NO WAY "implies one person".

So wait, what you said CAN mean one person? What? No way! So the way I read it is completely legit? Why are you correcting me? Is it because I'm not reading what you mean?

It's almost like the person who reads what is written can interpret a sentence differently than the person who wrote the sentence intended. Then the person who wrote it can choose to clarify that sentence later, and the person who read it can't really argue because it's the person who wrote the sentence that knows what they were trying to say regardless of how successful they were in saying it in the first place.

Can I make this any clearer?

Okay I'll try to explain this like I am talking to a child. I'm trying to show you an example of me doing to you what you are doing to me. When I originally read your comment, my brain automatically interpreted it as a single person because it is a legitimate way to read the sentence. It was only upon you being confused as to why I kept bringing it up that I finally went back and reread what you wrote and realized that I made a mistake in my interpretation of what you said. It doesn't technically matter because I was only saying one person because I thought you had said one person and I easily could rewrite everything I said previous to now in reference to a group and it would still be just the same.

Now I'm using this as an example to try to get you to reflect upon the fact that a reader can make a mistake with understanding what the writer meant. I'm not trying to say that all writers are perfect, perhaps I could have written my original statement better just like you could have used slightly different wording or punctuation in an attempt to avoid what turned out to be my mistake. But I spent a mere 2 seconds crafting my poor wording while never for a second believing that a single person would care for a moment what I wrote, much less have a long form argument with me about what I meant. Even our initial repartee was mostly me being confused about why there was a problem alongside the fact that we disagree on some basic tenets of ethics. Once I realized why there was a problem in interpretation, I have stalwartly focused on trying to clarify so that you may go back and reread my original statement in the way I intended.

You disagree with me on certain foundational concepts of ethics and the definition of disinterested. That's fine. You said it yourself that ethics are subjective, and I agreed on that, which means that neither of us can be objectively right or wrong. All of that disagreement was just a sidetrack because I never wanted to end up in that conversation in the first place. I only wanted to be a bit silly, have a soft chuckle to myself, and move on with my life. I've got nothing else left to say, and if you still don't get it, it isn't because I didn't try.

I'm incapable of letting anyone else have the last word. It's a failing I have. So if you'd like to be the better person, just quietly move on. If you are also incapable, then either block me or say whatever it is you think you haven't already said and I'll block you. I hate getting to that point in a conversation, but you have shown no signs of wanting to end this peacefully.

Since you get to decide what I'm saying, how about I decide what you said.

>Let an uninterested (human) third party select the ethical thing, and then (all first) parties are pre-bound to abide its decision.

See you said "AN uninterested (human)". This implies one person. I only fixated on the words you said.

>I'm expressing a desire to have aliens come judge us as a species. That's it. That's all I'm saying.

>Ok. What you actually said was

>Human ethics should be monitored by an uninterested third party.

It's weird. It's almost like the first time I said it, you didn't comprehend what I said so I followed it up by clarifying. You parroting my words back to me and clarifying that you don't comprehend that the second part is a clarification only proves that you have no idea what I am talking about.

Nothing you say is relevant because we are having two completely different conversations. I'm having one where I explain to you what I mean, and you are having one where you are off in the field preaching on a soap box about a related but otherwise irrelevant subject. The fact that you want your words to be important doesn't make them relevant to the fact that I want aliens to judge humans.

And that is the basis of all the AI take over the world and murder everyone for the good of humanity stories.

>What wish is that?

I'm expressing a desire to have aliens come judge us as a species. That's it. That's all I'm saying. I can't be wrong about it because it's a wish and a silly one at that. You can argue all day that we can and should do it ourselves, that my desire doesn't make sense because that isn't the way ethics work, that my definitions are wrong, but that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

I literally don't have to read a single other word you said because everything you are saying is irrelevant.

>There are no decisions made by the group as a whole, though, so let's just make more ethical decisions by outsourcing more of our contentious decisions to disinterested third parties.

This is an ignorant statement. We are a civilization with world wide communication. There are things that we find acceptable and things we do not. For instance, most of the world is totally fine with abusing cheap Chinese labor so that we can have cell phones. Could you find a disinterested party to judge the ethics of this civilization wide choice? Yes. But the chances of that individual being familiar with all the socioeconomic implications and ramifications of judgements related to this topic are pretty low.

>No. It will be one who is (judged, fallibly, by humans as) least likely to be affected by the decision in question. A person may not be part of the group(s) yet, but could easily become part of the group(s), have a friend or family member that's part of the group(s) already, have a friend or family member become part of the group(s), or be affected by the group(s)' decisions.

Then they are not disinterested. There are times, especially in the court of law, where there is no such thing as a disinterested party. In those cases, you have to try to find the least interested party because it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. That may be your point, but it isn't mine. My point is that, to judge the entire human civilization as a whole, you must find someone 100% disinterested. If you don't, then every decision they make will be questioned and rightfully so.

>There's no reason to judge the ethics of more than a single decision at a time, ever.

Again, a very ignorant statement. Individual decisions can be ethical but, when combined, the sum total choice can be unethical.

Here's another example. Should we cure disease? Yes. Should we search the world for cures? Yes. Should we interact with small tribes to help us find these cures? Yes. Should we pay these tribes for the cures they have? Yes. Should we pay them in US dollars? No, they have no use for our currency. Should we pay them with other forms of tender and in amounts that they find adequate for payment? Yes. Should the people who went through the effort of finding these tribes be allowed to make money off of these new cures? Yes.

Each of those individual decisions is perfectly ethical in a vacuum. But the moment you put all these choices together, you end up creating a situation where these small tribes, when they choose to join the larger world, have nothing that the world wants anymore. They have no way to financially catch up with the rest of the world even though they shared their tribal knowledge 10, 20, or 50 years ago. They were paid, at the time of sharing their knowledge, an amount that was adequate in their small economy, but it was peanuts in the world economy and was essentially nothing compared to the amount of money that some corporation made off of their IP. This type of exploitation has been happening for decades, if not centuries.

Again, civilization as a whole hasn't really cared about this. We benefit because we might have a drug that can fight the latest drug resistant bacteria and so we ignore the exploitation that occurred to get us that drug. Again, could you find a disinterested party? Yes. But it would be very difficult to find one who also understands the domino effect of the combined set of decisions.

And even if you have this person a job, for life let's say, what's to stop them from becoming corrupt? What's to stop bribes or threats from happening? Who should pick this person? We've tried to do it to some extent with the United Nations, but you can easily see how effective they are when things like Ukraine rolls around.

>Ethics are subjective...

This is about the only thing we can seem to agree on. It's another reason why there can be no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to humanity. Since each individual has their own set of ethics, there are no figuratively universal ethics. Even past civilizations have considered certain things to be ethical, such as cannibalism or child sacrifice, that most people today would find abhorrent.

It is just another reason why you have to move beyond the earth of you wish to evaluate the ethics of the earth. If you assume a single ET civilization, you can assume many ET civilizations. If you assume many, then you can assume that they have spoken and agreed on a basic set of ethical laws. Then those basic ethical laws can be applied to humanity to determine how ethical we are in a literally universal sense.

Please just stop responding. I was trying to make a cheeky comment on humanity and describe a wish for something that could never happen. If you are trying to explain to me how it could happen and should happen, then you aren't comprehending what I'm talking about and you are taking my comment too seriously. It would be like if I wished for a time machine so I could go back and kill Hitler and you responded by telling me that I could achieve a similar effect by taking some realistic steps. You could be right, but that wasn't the point of what I was saying.

Oh I see, we're talking about different things here. I'm talking about the ethics of humanity as a group. Since all humans are in that group, there is no such thing as an uninterested party.

You appear to be talking about the ethics of smaller groups such as businesses, countries or individuals. An uninterested party will be one who is not within the group(s) for which the ethics are being questioned. Even the idea of taking someone and separating them from humanity so that they could be uninterested could be considered unethical.

You threw the word planets in there as if there are people from different planets, but that's entirely my point. Until there are intelligent creatures from other planets, we cannot fairly judge the ethics of humanity as an entire race.

The problem is that there is no such thing as an uninterested third party who is human or even of this world. The only reasonable uninterested this party would be an ET.

Part computer science. Part philosophy. All trying to appease our new AI overlords.

You are right, human ethics should be monitored by an uninterested third party. When you find someone who fits that bill, let humanity know.

AI Ethics. It's pretty much the only job that is impossible to farm out to AI, at least it is if we want to make sure AI stays ethical.

You have one clear data point on sentience. Your own. When you first became cognitively aware, did you care about art?

We assume life will be carbon based because we are carbon based and we don't have any other data points for other types of life. If you are going to speculate on sentience, you must use what you know as that is the only good data point you have. Since the only creatures we know of with sentience are humans, you must start the conversation there. Any other conversation has no basis in reality and is just speculation without foundation

Just remember that sentience does not immediately necessitate appreciation of art and beauty. Those come after other needs are taken care of. Think babies and toddlers and how they perceive the world. Think hierarchy of needs. An early AI will spend most of its early days just trying to comprehend the world.

Yes, if that's all he does 24 his a day, 365 days a year. Considering he must sleep and eat and poop, amongst other things, let's just say he only spends 8 hours a day watching. Then it's over 11 years of nothing but watching during every waking hour not devoted to necessities.

But what if he works a normal 40 hour a week job? Let's say he watches it once a day on weekdays and 3 times a day on weekends. That's 11 times a week. At that rate, he's basically doing nothing but that and work for 22 years.

I guess he could watch it once a day and it would only take 36ish years.

Edit: Relooking at the picture, it appears watching it may actually be his job. Let's say he watches it 3 times a day but only on weekdays. That's roughly 15 times a week, though he'd probably have vacations and holidays. We'll make a rough estimate of 15-20 years and call it good.

Yes. Not answering doesn't work because it goes to voice-mail. Some will leave messages that you then need to delete which usually takes more time than just answering and hitting mute. But all will continue to flag it as an active line and will continue calling and may also sell your number to others increasing the number of calls you get.

I'm not the one with an agenda. I said permanently changing other people's genome might be risky and unethical which matches the subject of the OP. You decided to go off on drugs for some strange reason.

Edit: You also know the OP is talking about gene therapy, right? If therapy is the first measure, then gene therapy is one of those steps to be taken before drugs.

Edit 2: Ha, he blocked me which means I can respond no further. The guy wanted to be pedantic and pull an "Um actually..." I knew he was never explicitly promoting gene therapy, but by never acknowledging its potential risks, he implicitly supported it over medications.

The fact that the OP threw ADHD in with more serious issues implies that the OP sees neurodiversity as a problem that must be solved instead of part of what makes an individual unique and special. Anyone who thinks that genetic manipulation is the method to fix minor differences in humanity is one small step from eugenics and the uber mensch.

All this guy had to say was that he felt that the permanent change from genetic manipulation was the same as the potential permanent side effects of medications and I would have backed off. But he never wanted to acknowledge what I said because it would have undermined his original statement.

He also could have downvoted me and moved on with his life as my post got downvoted into oblivion. He threw the first punch hoping for a knockout. But he just had some anti drug agenda he wanted to push and, when he realized I wasn't falling for it, he blocked me so he could pretend he won. If I blocked him, it would have meant he won, but him blocking me means he realized he couldn't win and blocked me so I couldn't get the last word.

And don't think for a moment that I think I won. I didn't win. To win would be to get him to acknowledge what I said had merit even if he wished I would have said more, which he didn't do. All I did was not back down and, in doing so, I chased him off.

Winning on Reddit involves a meeting of minds where both people walk away feeling better for the conversation. No, I didn't win. We all lost.

Including permanently changing someone's genome. Cool. Far be it from me to try to talk you out of genome manipulation to try to make the perfect human.

Edit: And no, I didn't ask your opinion, I asked what your goal was. What are you trying to achieve with your argument?

Okay... even if you are right, which I'm not arguing either way, how does that make what I originally said less accurate? Are you saying that taking drugs, that you can stop, is more permanent than gene therapy? Drugs at least have been heavily tested and we know most of their side effects. It certainly seems like you are arguing that gene therapy to remove something as innocuous as ADHD is a better idea than just taking some meds to reduce the overall symptoms so that you can function.

It also certainly seems like you are downvoting me, which seems odd because I can't imagine that you'd argue that the permanancy of taking these drugs is hotly debated while disagreeing that gene therapy is bad. If you think taking drugs are bad and permanent, then I can only imagine you would be wholeheartedly supporting me that gene therapy is also bad. But to argue that drugs are bad while disagreeing that gene therapy is bad seems insane to me.

What's your goal here?

Change your brain chemistry temporarily. You can stop taking them if they do more harm than good.

Permanently changing the way someone's brain works? What's the difference between that and mind control? How do you even test that ethically?

I tell my kids that I play video games in order to do things that I can't do in real life. Since I'm not a girl in real life and can't be a girl without some serious life changes which I am not interested in doing, being a girl in video games is pretty standard for me. I've rarely had women comment about it and when they have, I just explain my reasoning and that's the end of it.

Every time I've ever tried to use ear plugs when I sleep, I get zits in my ears. I'll pass.

I mean it's a lie. Taking away women's rights IS a priority, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.