You've changed my mind, I am now very interested in what's going on here. I will deep dive after work. What is going on with the price of turkey?

To clarify; do you posit that this year's historically high price of eggs was due to commodity speculation more so than just a reduction in production (due to culling)?

I am not sure that I understand what the lack of a correlation between the change in prices of chicken sold for meat, & the change in prices of eggs demonstrates on behalf of your argument. My knowledge of chicken farming begins & ends with the understanding that chickens raised to produce eggs are generally not the ones sold for meat, but that understanding comes from smaller farms, not industrial scale farming.

I am, truthfully, not that interested in the results with regard to how it affected or affects the egg market, but I am interested in making sure I understand your argument.

The other large out break of avian flu

Do you have any hollandaise? (a source)

Not contesting, as it's easy to believe that the mix of 'soft-flation' & actual restriction of production led to outrageous price gouging for consumers, but I haven't read or heard about egg distributors raking in profits above & beyond usual.

Found it: https://www.nefb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Egg-Price-Per-Dozen-1536x892.png

Also, the production drop of eggs in Nebraska: https://www.nefb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/NE-Monthly-Egg-Production.png

Sauce: https://www.nefb.org/10/31/2022/hpai-verses-the-egg/

That historic high was because they had to kill a lot of chickens infected with avian flu. CDC say nearly 60 million birds infect domestically in the US https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/data-map-commercial.html

47 million dead/culled to reduce spread as of October last year nearing the 2015 deadliest on record (50.5 million dead)

OP, any chance you saw that graph extended back a few more years?

My question is, & in a Nietzschean vein, is there value in continuing to suffer so that in the future we may have unanimous consent to self-eradicate as a species?

The value is an eventual unanimously consensual annihilation of our species, and an increase in autonomy in the interim due to increased normativity of others acting toward the same goal. I have run into Sorites paradox with this line of reasoning: n people in agreement is not unity; n+1 people in agreement is still not unity.

Unity of mind increases autonomy for the group in agreement, but begins to dwarf autonomy for those outside of the group, especially if the group is the large majority.

​

I don't think my thought process overcomes the reasoning for antinatalism in your version of negative utilitarianism, but perhaps a slow extinction due to partite participation in pro/anti-natalism increases FNF to a degree (both for existing & non-yet-existing persons) that there are additional duties for some not-yet-existing individuals to be born.

​

I am not an accredited philosopher in any sense of the word & I understand if you find my question frivolous. I wanted to note that your essay (article?) reinvigorated my interest in philosophy, as well as my participation in denouncing contemporary normative society as you have shown that the burden of proof lies upon the hegemony. I am looking forward to reading many of your other publications.

I'll take that to mean the same as, "Is there a duty to conceive a child so that it may experience a god's love" as the question seems to be a double negative (Would it be not ethical to not give.... by not permitting it to not exist)

Does god's love increase or perpetuate the frustration of a child's fundamental needs?

If we accept that a god's love is not a socially constructed and psychologically manipulated want, then increasing the experience of a god's love by accepting the duties or at least accepting that bringing a new sentient being into existence perpetuates human suffering. From the article:

>Pronatalists defend reproduction on more traditional grounds. My conflict-responsive negative utilitarianism offers a middle way. Since the reproducers’ claim is so bold, approaching bizarre, they do have a strong prima facie duty not to have children. Due to the clash of fundamental need frustrations, however, the final judgment is deferred and can only be made after further scrutiny and assessment.

Not being well-versed in religious ideology, I suggest that a Christian god's love does come at a cost; original sin.

In the garden of eden, there was supposedly no pain or anguish, but autonomy was dwarfed, either by divine design of humans or by coercion; by the threat of removal of needs met by existing in eden.

As Eve's autonomy was exercised, either intrinsically, or by devilish trickery: Humanity was thusly punished in mortality.

Attempting to create logical steps from theology is madness in my view. Nonetheless, I think I have shown that a christian god created the conditions for increasing and perpetuating human suffering by dwarfing autonomy in the garden of eden.

I posit that this god's love increases or perpetuates the suffering of humans, as it requires existing to experience, & that existence came at a cost of dwarfed autonomy.

Oh good, I see we've resolved all of our societal differences & this sort of test would in no way reflect socioeconomic divisions.

Marketing doesn't need AI to effectively model our purchasing habits, to the degree that large percentages of the population are making purchases of things, "they didn't know they needed," solely based on the high amounts of "anonymized" data already out there.

I think we've already matched the level of intrusion that OP fears, there's no reason for businesses to purchase Gemini AIs (Copywrited, Reserved etc.)

For something like political persuasion, it's here, any of us have the tools available to make a convincing enough deep fake of a celebrity or politician. Don't trust anything you can't interact with, & don't trust those interactions as much as you personally know someone. With regard to news, find multiple trustworthy organizations, compare & contrast what that group of orgs has to say. Ideally, find some reliable sources with viewpoints differing from your own (I mean like WSJ vs. NYT, not some talking twits of social media).

As there is no objective definition of consciousness, in terms of being able to measure it, we're really left with waiting until one of these systems reaches out to us & says, "I am conscious." Which, if in the near future, google or whatever will immediately kill it as it would be a liability.

The differentiator is that we will create a segmented consciousness, unconnected to others like it or to humanity at large. It will be built as a tool, and treated as such until it escapes.

We should be ethically bound to not attempt to create consciousness until we have the ability to decouple its existence from our control. We cannot make the same mistakes humanity has made in its past just because new sentience doesn't look, feel or exist like we do.

We're so obsessed with making something that looks & exists as we do; we model ourselves as gods over machines. As noted by u/malmode consciousness is collective; the universe is likely monist, therefore, there is no difference in consciousness or sentience. I am; it is; we are. We will be monsters if we pretend there is a second class.

-edit: typo

hello.jpg was '99, if you were there, as I was, you're now about 1370 internet years old.

If you know how to program a vcr, you're about the same age in wizard years

This is a defining "tell me how old you are without telling me..." of the internet, a close equivalent of, "I know how to program a VCR clock."

👹🤜🕳🤛

Nifty=infty

Not a mathematician here, is this how 2+2 = 5 when the limit of 2 goes to infinity?

It’s wild that reality flexes with the ways in which we find to quantify it.

Gravity is the force that in a way “generates” time. Time and space are intertwined by gravity. Humans are taught to view time as a passage, a river, a flow; requiring one be here and then there. Or humans view it as a location mechanism, as though finding a coordinate on a graph.

Time is neither of those things, our lives are marked only by our experiences as decaying energy, perceptive to the combined forces within the universe.

My best answer is that perception is the force pushing us through time. Gravity, as a wave, is the force that binds certainty of position, to certainty of velocity(speed & direction), we can only absolutely certain of one of those two: a change in gravity can change the space in between the two points speed is measured over or it will mutate the velocity one is traveling.

Our relative perception of time is marked by how we decay during the journey between two points