Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MSGRiley t1_ithve2w wrote

In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy. It's often used to try to make someone's position look more tenable by essentially saying that the choices are, do as I say, or face unspeakable horrors.

For instance, patriots do not destroy monuments or shrines or works of art. Look at the forces that destroy these things now, and you will see tyrants, authoritarians, anarchists and subversives. The Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, the activists hurling paint at paintings, those who tear down statues because their regime doesn't want to be reminded of the past, these are not patriots.

Development is required for humanity to grow and thrive, yet it's described as desecration. The unspoken alternative being that humanity die off, for lack of land to cultivate into agricultural gain.

These aren't the choices and presenting the options here, seems to suggest that either the Earth will be "desecrated", and children killed, or people will have culture and civilization.

I think our time would be better spent reminding humanity to be careful how we judge progress, if it's clearly reckless and damaging. As humanity expands, space on Earth becomes less available and we should plan better for an Earth with 10, 20 or 30 billion people on it.

Further, the more we learn about renewable energy, reduced waste and recycling, the better we'll do exploring the universe outside of Earth.

−1

Chroderos t1_iti100c wrote

Earth with 30 billion people sounds horrifying no matter how you slice it. I really hope we stabilize below 10 billion.

3

iiioiia t1_iti7bkz wrote

> In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy.

Technically, you are calling it that. You do not know what other people think.

1

MSGRiley t1_itji81g wrote

Well, lucky for me they wrote it down.

2

iiioiia t1_itjmg2n wrote

Some unluckiness: there is no single implementation of an algorithm to test that against novel internet propositions - all we have are human "algorithms" that tend to be implemented using heuristics, and the possessor of the heuristic has little insight into its operation, and typically has low if not negative interest in whether their algorithm is sound.

1

MSGRiley t1_itjqwv0 wrote

So, your argument seems to be that since it "could" be false, it's false?

0

iiioiia t1_itjtz8b wrote

No, that would be your heuristic interpretation.

My argument is contained within the text of my comment - interpret it literally and you should be able to come up with a closer version.

(I guess my plan to be nice to you didn't work lol)

0

MSGRiley t1_itjvpb0 wrote

>No, that would be your heuristic interpretation.

Is that your heuristic interpretation of my interpretation?

1

iiioiia t1_itjw5p8 wrote

In part, but I am working from a much more advantageous position than you: I have ~direct access to my mind, yours is virtual (or at least: much more virtual).

0

MSGRiley t1_itjwu9v wrote

>In part, but I am working from a much more advantageous position than you: I have ~direct access to my mind, yours is virtual (or at least:
>
>much more virtual).

Or you could just restate it more clearly instead of going off on this infinite loop of abstract obfuscation.

2

iiioiia t1_itjxewr wrote

It's a fair point!

But then, this is Reddit - expecting seriousness on this platform is perhaps not a great idea, and behaving seriously is...."not popular", to put it nicely.

1

MSGRiley t1_itjxx4z wrote

Look at my comment history and post history. Clearly being "popular" isn't even in my top 20.

2

Neither-Message2218 t1_itiu842 wrote

> In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy

Who is "we"? Do you presume to speak for all philosophers?

0