wow look at all the people who gave a shit nice post verb 10/10

Picked up the sendoff from last time. 33:10 mark.

First point, I don't neccessarily see why he solely equates traveling to Mars as a need to fuck elsewhere. Granted, the question was based around colonization of Mars. There's other reasons that people hold for wanting to travel.

Second point. When he lists off the four magic words of evolution and talks about it, he's missing something. In the case of our planet, our world is the only current case of evolution we have. With how many combinations that matter can arrange itself into and the complexity of it, the options likely exist that the model of evolution on another world could be entirely different from ours. And the potential exists that you might even coin the respective evolutionary path and result as "better" than ours.

I can agree with his point that for the most part, people are stupid. The term I would use instead however, would be primitive. Our current state is by no means neccessarily the final end product, just a potential work in progress.

Third point. So far, this discussion has been about humans in their present state, complete with positive and negative emotions/feelings. The guy asking the questions seems to be stuck to asking about making a working utopia with the current status of human beings.

The whole point about us being primitively stupid is missed both by Ham and the fellow asking questions. In our current state, I'd be 100% certain that we could never achieve a "utopia" of any kind. If we moved past our simple, basic attributes, which I would say contain both negative and positive emotions, then maybe we could.

But that all comes down to the very simple question you can ask. Why?

Why go through that undertaking if the universe doesn't need us? I can take that very same line of reasoning and ask you the same thing. Why go through your respective undertaking? Because if you stop and look at it, reaching the end goal of anti-natalism is just as much of an undertaking as is speeding up our evolutionary process into something that is unrefutably "better."

Your answer to the question of "why" probably is to due with being morally right. From the stance of morals, the best way to prevent harm is to prevent a thing that can be harmed from ever being made. And to that end game, the ends justify the means even if they end up being hypocrytical or shitty, correct?

I can only ask, technically, isn't making something that can't be harmed just the same end game? Coming out with an end result that's beyond what we are now, that isn't bound by to simple things that we currently are?

Last note to add here before I sleep.

When I refer to the ends justify the means deal. If you had a red button that instantly poofed everybody out of existence, you'd press it. I'd be willing to bet whatever semi-functioning organ of mine that's left, that if you had a red button that casued excruciating pain before killing everybody dead, you'd still press it, due to the moral belief that the end result would outweigh that pain.

Since the button doesn't exist, all you're left with is the hard and slow way, that may or may not involve bullshit and hypocrisy along the way.

Now then. It's my personal belief that a decent majority of people tend to be shitty. And it's likely that they'll do shitty things. I'm under no guise that following the road of evolutionarily advancing ourselves will be pretty. As I said, people tend to be shitty.

But that applies to your approach as well, funny enough. You really think it'll be a clean trip to offing ourselves? I betcha one day some disturbed mind is going to commit something horrible and suddenly the term anti-natalism will have a big media spotlight dropped on it.

Leave it to people to abuse things. The respective end I talk about, really, is the same end as yours, just on the opposite side of the coin. But both ways end up having a hard trail to walk because of shitheaded people that will no doubt abuse things/lead things astray.

Go figure.