imaginaryprisons said: Because the majority of humans have better health outcomes when exposed to sunlight while they’re awake and not exposed to sunlight when they’re sleeping
Are you sure? I’ve heard of projects in Scandinavia and elsewhere regarding people whose natural sleep schedule has them being more efficient and overall healthy at later times. Google B-society to check those out.
So even if it’s a majority, the minority that are definitely not morning people is a fairly significant one. I’d also like to see what specific studies have been conducted regarding that, I’ve never actually looked.
Why can’t there be a male hooter’s equivalent where male servers are shirtless and highly sexualized for their bodies and looks
Male Strip clubs. You’re thinking of male strip clubs.
No. Not a male strip club. A strip club is a strip club. I want a place called Cahones where waiters wear Speedos and are forced to stuff if they don’t fill out their uniform well enough. I want them to giggle for my tips. I want it to be so normalised and engrained in our culture that women bring their daughters there for lunch (because whaaaaaat the wings are good! Geeze sensitive much?) where they’ll give playful little nudges like, “Wouldn’t mind if you dad had those. Heh heh heh.” that their daughters don’t even understand but will absorb and start to assume is just the normal way grown up women talk about grown up men. I want to playfully ask my waiter if I can have extra nuts on my salad and for him to swat my arm with an Oh, you because he knows if he doesn’t his manager will yell at him. I want other men to pretend to like going there so I think they’re cool. I want to go to Cahones during my lunch break at work and when I come back and tell the other women in the office where I went they chuckle slightly and the men around us suddenly feel self conscious and they don’t know why.
I’ve seen numerous posts about privilege on my dash lately and there seems to have been a communication problem.
This is super obvious, but I feel like I need to point out most of us have advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others. When you see a post about a privilege you have but think “Hey - I’m not privileged because <this>”, you’re actually recognizing the <this> privilege of others (Which is good! It’s a first step!), but you’re forgetting about your own privileges.
For example, I’m a straight (societal advantage), white (societal advantage), financially secure (societal advantage), atheist (societal disadvantage), married (societal advantage) woman (societal disadvantage) and I occasionally struggle with depression (societal disadvantage).
In discussions about a topic where I have a societal advantage, I need to remember to A) shut up so the disadvantaged have space to speak, vent and state what they need and B) speak up within my advantaged group and share that message.
In discussions about a topic where I have a societal disadvantage, I need to remember my privileges will mitigate my experiences.
It’s really that simple.
There are a few relevant points to make about this.
The first is that even if that were a problem, it strikes me that the best word to describe the solution “just let some people die to keep environmental and populational balance” is, well, “unacceptable.” Sure, it may be hard to solve, but from that it doesn’t follow that we shrug our shoulders and just say, “Oh, well. Guess thousands of people will have to continue dying daily after all.” Which brings me to my other points.
The second is that, as it is, we have resources to support a population that’s larger than the current one, and the only reason we have things like hunger is we’re fuck inefficient at it.
The third is that the overpopulation problem is still a problem even if people keep dying. We’re consuming resources at an unsustainable rate, and that’s a problem we’d have to deal with whether people are dying or not.
The fourth is that transhumanists aren’t only concerned with using technology to extend human life, technology is also supposed to augment the quality of that life. This implies that we’ll want to develop e.g. nanotechnology which will be able to manufacture the resources we need, balance the ecosystem, guarantee sustainable resource production, and make my fifth point much easier to accomplish:
Space colonisation. It’s fairly sad to suppose that we will want to live forever trapped in this tiny rock! I, for one, want to visit Alpha Centauri at least once in my life!
More thorough answers can be found at the Humanity+ Transhumanist FAQ and some other texts I’ve seen floating around on the internet (including iirc a video by Julia Galef?). But the Transhumanist FAQ is the only one that comes directly to mind, so do check it out!
Yes it would! Thanks :)
Once again, I would just like to preface by saying that I’m against neither transhumanism nor anti-death views. I’m just interested in exploring the consequences of such views and how such consequences might be dealt with.
You are actually quite right that we do have the resources to sustain a population greater than the one we have. Some estimates say that, with regards to food alone, we produce right now two or three times as much food as is necessary to feed the world - the issue is that the places that are starving are starving because they don’t have the economic means to bring food to them, or to grow it themselves.
My issue is that there is certainly an upper limit to how much food we can produce. There are limits to the availability of fresh water, the availability of arable land, the availability of the variety of metals we use on a daily basis, et cetera. Which means that your fifth point becomes incredibly important: if we want to sustain a population of people that can live indefinitely, we more or less have to be able to colonize other planets.
What if that’s simply not feasible? There is no reason to believe that we will reach FTL travel - sure, we’ve surpassed limits that were said to be “impossible” before, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we’ll be able to beat the light speed limit eventually. If we really can’t achieve feasible space travel due to physical limits, how do we deal with that in the context of transhumanism? Would it be necessary to impose an artifical limit on lifespan, or a limit on how many people can live on Earth at once?
I’ve always been a huge scifi geek, and I personally love the idea of space travel. But I’m a realist as much as I’m an idealist, and it may never be truly feasible to achieve space travel beyond our solar system - which puts a significant limit on our resources if we want to sustain a population of immortals.
And my concern with regards to resources goes beyond just how sustainable transhumanism is. Just saying that we’ll balance the ecosystem isn’t really enough to me. Even assuming we became vastly more efficient at collecting and distributing food, we’d still require vastly more land and organic resources in order to support a growing and everliving population - land and organic resources which are taken away from other organisms. I don’t know that I necessarily think that our desire to beat death puts us in a position where we can rightly say fuck it and turn the Earth into a veritable machine for sustaining the human population, when there’s literally millions of other types of organisms on Earth who would be harmed by that.
Well, as for your last point, I… personally care more about a single human being than about the entire population of cheetahs in the world. So um. I personally would not have a moral problem with turning the Earth into a thing to support humanity if that was absolutely necessary.
However, as for Space Colonisation, there’s no reason why we should limit ourselves to the Solar System just because FTL is impossible. Sure, we may not be able to reach Alpha Centauri within 100 years, but man we’re immortal we can just wait 1,000 years.
Not only that, but if that’s what it takes - travelling at sub-lightspeed and waiting it out -, we don’t need to live like the people in Wall-E, forced to be trapped “in a spaceship.” We can just upload our minds to a virtual environment and live in it - see each other, reproduce, etc - while we wait for our ship to arrive somewhere habitable, and then we poke our heads out and continue our life in the new place.
I think the moral of the story is: we’ll manage. Assuming from the start it isn’t possible is not a constructive/beneficial/healthy attitude. The one we should take is that until we are faced with incontrovertible guarantee that it’s absolutely impossible under all circumstances to do it, we should still try.