-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
karbytes_22_september_2024.txt
41 lines (24 loc) · 6.98 KB
/
karbytes_22_september_2024.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
/**
* file: karbytes_22_september_2024.txt
* type: plain-text
* date: 20_SEPTEMBER_2024
* author: karbytes
* license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
*/
I want to be very clear about something I believe (and find quite useful to believe): every person without exception believes that nothing but itself is worth preserving (and that explains why climate change remains an unresolved issue).
In other words, what I profess to believe is that “no one loves any person (or thing) except for itself.”
I think that those who believe in some afterlife are too fantasy driven for me to find sufficient value in taking seriously. Hence, I do not take them seriously given how little they seem to appreciate their current lives and the world they currently inhabit (and do not seem to mind letting turn into an uninhabitable wasteland after they die (which means they do not mind if persons inhabitating that world after they die suffer from torturous habitat degradation along with the loss of what humans built over many generations and across thousands of years)).
I will take seriously only those who admit to being agnostic about any after life (whether that afterlife is heaven, hell, or reincarnation).
Then I imagine that the only people I would consider even remotely to be friends of mine are those who admit to only caring about themselves and to being uncertain about what science has yet to “conclusively” (with substantial peer-reviewed and time-tested empirical and logical evidence) prove.
If such friends and I were in a burning building, we would already know at that point that “it’s every person for itself” and that none of us would try to save someone other than itself at its own expense (or even at all). That, I believe, would spare me the disappointment of being betrayed when I learn “too late” that my friend was merely lying to me when it said that it would sacrifice itself to save me or, at the very least, attempt to rescue me if doing so was feasible and did not necessarily involve that person having to sacrifice its own life nor otherwise take serious damage.
(Interjection approximately eight hours after originally writing this note: I am not opposed to pretending to have friends nor to actually be friends with (or simply on “good terms” with) people who do not necessarily share my beliefs and values especially if I think doing so spares me significant suffering. After all, such people might be all that is available to me and such people might be the gatekeepers to what I want and need in order to survive and thrive in any meaningful capacity).
I do not think a human helps anyone but itself without expectation of reward (i.e. induction on pleasurable experience or prevention/reduction of painful experience) for doing so. Otherwise, it would not bother expending resources trying to help anyone but itself.
If I care about anything at all, I only care about it because I find utility in it; because it provides me pleasurable experiences or reduces my misery.
I do not believe that anyone says anything other than, “I love myself,” when that person professes its love for something other than itself.
(I love nature only if I exist).
Well, those are my thoughts for tonight. Good night!
* * *
The following journal entry section is a (hopefully more coherent and useful) follow-up to the previous section of this journal entry...
idea_0: I think that most humans are predominantly influenced by and attributing immense significance to mere emotions (which are vestigial evolution-acquired artifacts which have promoted sexual reproduction, territorial acquisition, and tribal cohesion which are themselves means to sustaining the human population over many successive generations) instead of being predominantly influenced by and attributing (more) significance to logical reasoning (based on scientific research and philosophical inquiry). For that reason, I cannot help but think most of what humans think is important, good, and necessary is merely feeling pleasure (by carrying out the compulsions those emotions promote (and which facilitate indiscriminate population growth and pruning those who do not secure high enough socioeconomic status within the population in time before the pruning)) rather than inquiring more deliberately and rigorously into how things (which is less automatic and more resource-consuming than is merely acting on impulse).
idea_1: As an extension of what I posited in idea_0, I think that some people are being left to die through deprivation of resources and/or through social pressure to commit suicide or to be committed to a prison-like institution away from the more cherished, invested in, and freer parts of society (if not outright directly murdered). I would say that is largely due to the fact that it is much easier to indoctrinate "blank slate" human beings who are fresher out of the womb and have not yet had much opportunity to forge their own "deviant" sensibilities than to reform humans who are older, more educated, and more set in their ways. For that reason, humans are encouraged to make its youth the most invested in livestock and those expected to implement desired societal changes while the older and less compliant with such changes are basically set for demolition to make way for the future inhabitants of an idealized utopia yet to come to fruition (and it assumedly won't come to fruition until those stubborn old rebels are dead and then no longer a costly burden to manage).
idea_2: Earlier in this note I posited that each human is exclusively only motivated by selfish compulsions which fundamentally amount to nothing more than an individual's avoidance of suffering and an individual's seeking of pleasure. Such hedonism is what motivates endeavors as complex as scientific research, technological innovation, and philosophical inquiry as well as endeavors as simplistic as sexual reproduction and maximizing individual longevity. I would extend that to suggest that no human sincerely enjoys being dependent on an agent other than itself (especially another human) and that, if a human could suddenly acquire god-like omnipotence, that human would want to create its own customized comfort zone universe to live inside of without having to contend with any serious competition for resources within that environment as well as prolong its privileged embodiment for an indefinitely (if not infinitely) long time period. What that means is that humans are arguably only social animals because their survival and comfort seems to depend on them being approved of and in collaboration with humans other than themselves and not because any of those humans really prefer to be social. If left to there own devices as I mentioned earlier in the scenario of them suddenly becoming permanently omnipotent, I think they would strongly prefer to leave all humans other than themselves behind while instead retreating into their own customized solipsistic paradise universes which they can populate with artificially intelligent assistants which provide entertainment, comfort, and cognitive capability-extension.