/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

Tolerance is garbage and should be a last resort… In this backward world of ours, however, people embrace tolerance and illusory bubbles by default while considering actually solving differences to be problematic, from the simple and natural act of raising one's voice, to genocide. Even the empathic approach (Replace tolerance with genuine appreciation) is seen as suspicious. It is interesting that the same system pushes for homogenization (Of race, culture, technology, laws, etc.)

It would've never come to this if people applied the principle of anti-tolerance from the begining, shame most so called men are actually women these days, stockholm syndrome is a wonderful adaptation after all.

Space is the only answer, we need to make that option not just realistic but convenient, let life spread in all directions instead of annihilating itself via runaway long-term-blind competition.

The real answer, of course, is patchwork. Let's split Germany into the HRE states. You can have a white city-state, a commie city-state, etc. Everyone goes where they like.

What the fuck? Where's your total utilitarianism?

>>8477

My total utilitarianism is no longer short-sighted. I now care for the utility of all past, present and future consciousnesses across all universes. Do the math.

But what if I don't want to kill anyone, or have people kill other people on my behalf?

>>8479

Then you don't have an ideology at all. Ideologies necessarily must involve the use of force, otherwise they are non-actionable in a universe full of agents with opposing motives. Once you commit to defense you have already committed to killing, since the necessity for that level of force will come up in some scenarios. In fact, committing to killing everyone who opposes allows you to apply your ideology without compromise and truly make it your ideology. You just have to make it look otherwise as you plot to gain power.

Pacifism is the anti-ideology.

>>8478

> Do the math.

And, all those people you kill will have very negative utility, and you need to keep doing it to curb Malthusian growth.

I want /pol/ to go home

>>8481

Do the math right or stop pretending to belong among the utilitarian master caste.

Ritual genocide forever!

>>0

Is this a progressivism thread now?

>>0

Note:

This only applies in a FA context, since before then, reductions in population would cause reductions in necessary labor supply, leading to declines in production. After this point, genocide has no downsides from a philosophical materialist self-interest perspective, only from a humanistic boo hoo one.

>>8484

Note 2:

No, you might be thinking that the obvious counter-argument is that even if material prosperity for the individual increases through population reduction, each individual is also at risk of being among those genocided, meaning that self-interest that considers game theory should point to genocide not being beneficial.

Not so. While it is true that a completely random arbitrary genocide would risk everyone, historically genocide has occurred down the lines of religion, race, culture or class.

A person would be risking themselves in a completely homogeneous society, meaning that the benefit was perfectly canceled out by the risk. However, in the real, heterogeneous society, pre-existing pre-genocidal divisions will be amplified, since a member of a race or culture that has the most automated military power would find no material disadvantage to say cleansing Africa and the Middle East in a racial genocide.

People who want to prevent genocide will have to find ways of making society more homogeneous so that each individual risks as much as they gain from trying to argue against it, and people who want to clear more resources for themselves and people like them, will want to try and maintain and expand these divisions. However, those pursuing homogeneity to reduce the incentive of calling for genocide may also be pushed towards genocide inadvertently as they need to genocide those who aren't homogeneous enough. Divisions may be inescapable, meaning that group based genocide becomes materially advantageous for individuals in a dominant group.

Either way, full automation will increase likelihood of genocide by making the economy a zero sum game in which humans only subtract from per capita productivity.

>>0

And that is without mentioning space and natural resources such as "Edenic wildernesses" which are very rare.

Some places of the world grow all the amazing food you could want, have perfect climate and no predators, etc. Nothing resembling civilization ever came out of them because life was so easy.

Reducing population means everyone has places like that to use as they want. Increasing populations means they are paved and replaced by subhuman hives.

Gas the 99%.

>>8486

Pave the fuck out of "paradise", you know what else has perfect climate and no predators? Indoors!

I mean, sure, gas the 99%, but don't let the space you free up just go wild. Impose order. Give everyone their own Versailles. Staffed either by robots, or slaves that we temporarily spare from the concentration camps.

The important question, though, is which "99%" do we wipe out? What demographic traits actually identify the best people?

>>8487

You have not known paradise yourself, only reason why you would say such a thing. Would you crush a seashell to get a vial of dusted seashell? Paving paradise is no imposition of order; There is incredible order in paradise, the computational complexity is so high it pleases one's soul. Simulating the Amazon would be much much harder than simulating Versailles, this is the key to the value of nature.

More importantly, after killing 99% we get both (I agree with paving it all if the choice is between that or all paradise) We get the stars. You can build high-tech spires in a couple of YOUR wildernesses, even pave them all if you want but that's just degenerate taste.

I want entire garden planets for myself, right next to the Matrioshka brains. We can even play ecological engineering and turn the whole thing into a form of art or multiplayer strategy game.

I would do something like kill the dumber 98% then kill all sociopathic-evil people (sociopathic-neutral is fine) and all the collectivist people and all the people with universalist inclinations (Meddlers of other people's affairs.) That should leave a good stock.