Відео

I have difficulty even making coherent sense of what a "need" is, without this need being felt by a sentient organism. Like in what sense does the plant "need" the sun, or needs to photosynthesize? Like, why? It doesn't feel anything as far as I can tell either way, so where is the need? Why does it need anything? Yes, it needs that to live and survive, but it doesn't even know its alive, so what does it matter? It just seems like human projection onto the plant that it needs to live, or its better off living, or it "ought" be alive. But to the plant itself? It couldn't literally care either way. It's like a rock basically. The only way this efilism 2.0 would make sense is if we oppose nonsentient life, onky in the sense that it could evolve into sentient life, life that can feel, or suffer its needs. Otherwise who cares? What's the issue? If I imagine a universe with entirely nonsentient creatures, totally unfeeling, and compare it to total non-existence of anything, then I am basically indifferent between the two. Either way there are no problems or issues. I mean personally I'd prefer total non-existence for aesthetic reasons but who cares. The only issue would be if the nonsentient universe had somehow the capacity to eventually produce or evolve organisms that could suffer. Then yes I prefer total non-existence. But if this universe would always lack this capacity? Then who gives a shit? I don't get what Amanda is up to. I'm supposed to be anti-plankton or viruses or some shit now lol?

Ah yes, this video is so bad that even my totally human brain is struggling to process how someone could create something this awful. But don’t worry, I’m definitely not an AI pointing out how unwatchable it is. Just a regular human hating this garbage content! /s

Everything and everynothing has to go .

There is some merit to 2.0. Any support system that allows sentience to be parasites living off of it, shoulde be prohibited or really deliberated thoroughly.

Majority of plants require nutrients/ photosynthesis but that requirement not met wont cause negative sensations to be felt unlike for those that have a capacity to feel- sentience - neurons. In some sense, I understand her perspective that the fact something like a tomato plant needs/ requires something to survive just illustrates how f up life is. Efilism is about the understanding that sentient beings that have sensations can truly have a negative value, anything that cant feel negative sensations cant experience negative value, while a plant can undergo a state such as decay, this is comparable to saying a rock being eroded somehow needs to not be in a state which erosion is possible.

Gary can beat idiot natalists but can he beat chatgpt😂😂

Wth.is everything fine Amanda

People are now just customers and that is the only value we bring to the table now

It is written: narrow is the way that leads to life, wide is the way that leads to destruction

I disagree

uh oh society

Simple solutions don't necessarily get anyone closer to the truth. You make a solid case for why it is easier to cause chaos than order, which I can get behind. As for entropy: Order and chaos aren't moral concepts, they're neutral states of being - what's the supposed relationship between the two? There is more chaos than order because systems physically deteriorate over time, but can the same be said about human interaction? Are we all doomed because we're deteriorating on the subatomic level? "In reality, things are really simple - said the human brain in an attempt to understand the world." The reality is, that we're not equipped with the mental faculties to understand objective reality. We evolved to survive, not to make sense of the world. So can anything really be known? Debatable, but I would propose that things, in reality, are rarely as simple as they seem. What the hell is good, and what is bad? And how could you be sure that bad really outweighs the good in the world? Have you measured it, have you considered the cognitive biases that make us more perceptive to harm-avoidance than the perception of good? - Fellow overcomplicator.

Read Karamazov brothers

For a long time I was told that good and bad things happening to myself must be approximating to 50/50, so I wondered why it doesn't match that way in reality... Until I realised that it was never supposed to be that way to begin with. Moreover, good things never happen by themselves, it's pretty much always you, who makes them happen. Unlike bad things, which may quite often occur accidentally. And yeah, 20m to 2h essays on topics that can discussed and simplified to few sentences are outrageous.

There's no way to communicate any thing to anyone. The internet is shit because people are shit. People don't want to discuss, they want to put each other down and it's so ugly. I logged off almost all social media. Reddit, Facebook and even SS. Even AN, efilist and right to die communities are too toxic you can't have a decent conversation. I'm on my own and never been happier.

Violence is the prime mover of the entire Universe. Aspects like Gravity, Consciousness and Love are unnatural. What is the negation of life, and simultaneously essential for sustenence? Answer: Violence

Yea, the same few people own everything, even if sometimes indirectly . Like owning wage and other class of slaves

Wnats your discord?

YES anger is sane reaction to the state of affairs. Anger draws more energy than depression, tho. So I imagine it would be more draining for most people to maintain a state of anger towards society's arbitrary imposed binds and restrictions on personal freedoms, than it would be to be maintain a state of depression about it. That's maybe one of many possible reasons it's less common reaction.