Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

Obviously the utopia is going to colonize the universe.

If the aliens convert, they can integrate.

[Sesq]

"we dont know if there are aliens"

"we are going to colonize the aliens"

what

[Accountant]

There are very likely aliens.

Let me lay this out for you.

IF THERE ARE ALIENS AND WE FIND THEM:

- we teach them about the correct path.

- if they convert, they are part of utopia.

- if they don't, they will be removed from the equation to make room for utopic colonization

IF THERE ARE NO ALIENS:

- nothing happens, we colonize the universe

[Accountant]

Either way, I'm still saving a ridiculously huge number of lives - even one colonized galaxy would have lives numbering in the quadrillions - and all for the low, low cost of 7 billion humans, some of which are not people.

[Shaziro]

Actually, if they converted, they would also die. You can only save exactly as many people as you kill, by your own logic.

[Accountant]

Actually, if they converted, they would also die. You can only save exactly as many people as you kill, by your own logic.

Let me show you the train of logic.

By murdering seven billion people (in a legal manner, since this is not considered death under the current law), I allow the utopia to be formed. The utopia will have no war, which means that all the people who would die due to war if the utopia wasn't around are considered saved. The utopia will have no restrictions on medical research, which means immortality is possible eventually, and that will save even more people. Humanity as it stands will never be able to accomplish things like removing poverty or war. If we compare a humanity that is colonizing the universe versus a utopia that is colonizing the universe, the humanity will over time suffer many casualties that will not happen in utopia. Those are lives that are comparatively saved by the utopia.

[Annadog40]

Everyone with immortality wouldn't be a good thing.

[Accountant]

Why?

[Annadog40]

Attempt to criticly think about a sociaty of immortal humans. Seven billion immortal humans.

[Davsto]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torchwood:_Miracle_Day

[Accountant]

Attempt to criticly think about a sociaty of immortal humans. Seven billion immortal humans.

Hopefully more than seven billion. But I don't engage with people who don't provide reasoning. If it's so obvious, you should be able to tell me why it's bad.

[Accountant]

@davsto: in the show, according to wikipedia, there are many logistical problems as the world's population soars. Of course this will not happen in utopia: there is no utopian who would selfishly breed when overpopulation is a risk. This can be efficiently controlled through a licensing system.

[Umlaut]

Why is my "You want to kill everyone who disagrees" loaded language but your "I don't want to die" and references to suicide are not?

I actually agree that forever is the best amount of time to live and that most attempts to argue otherwise are sophistry.

[Umlaut]

(Haven't forgotten about the bet btw, I will get around to drafting it and PM you.)

[Accountant]

Why is my "You want to kill everyone who disagrees" loaded language but your "I don't want to die" and references to suicide are not?

It IS loaded language. It's specifically crafted to drive home my point about how futile it is to try to get me to recant my beliefs.

[Accountant]

I actually agree that forever is the best amount of time to live and that most attempts to argue otherwise are sophistry.

What I hate most is when the pro-death people try to drag ethics into the argument. Oh, no! It's not natural to be an immortal! It's unethical to be anything other than what God intended! Humans should not live past their natural lifespan!

I'll tell you what's unethical, what's unethical is letting thousands of people die every week when we could stop it if we had the collective guts to pour funding into cryonics or nero-uploading research

[Umlaut]

So you object to my wording on the grounds that it makes Accountant look bad, not because it's loaded.

[Umlaut]

It should be worded in a way that makes Accountant look good, that's the right way to word things.

[Accountant]

It should be worded in a way that makes Accountant look good, that's the right way to word things.

That makes the correct path look good. You should always strive to be as righteous and correct as possible, and that means expressing your thoughts in a way that supports the correct path

[Annadog40]

That is unless it is disobeying the law in the area you are currently in. Then you inwardly support the correct path which dictates you outwardly follow the law, correct?

[Accountant]

That is unless it is disobeying the law in the area you are currently in. Then you inwardly support the correct path which dictates you outwardly follow the law, correct?

Yep!

The rule I outlined in my last post is just a rule like any other and can be overriden by more powerful rules.

[Umlaut]

Hopefully more than seven billion. But I don't engage with people who don't provide reasoning. If it's so obvious, you should be able to tell me why it's bad.

"It's self-evident"

[Accountant]

Hopefully more than seven billion. But I don't engage with people who don't provide reasoning. If it's so obvious, you should be able to tell me why it's bad.

"It's self-evident"

No it's not. If it was self evident, I would be able to see it in the first place.

[Umlaut]

Like if you just said "There is a way I want the world to be and I'm willing to accept any means of getting it there, discarding all notions of self-determination or reciprocity because they don't serve my tastes," I could sort of buy that as a philosophy.

It's when you say that this way is

objectively correct

and that this is

self-evident

(by which you presumably mean "evident to yourself" since no one else seems to have found it evident) that I just can't leave it alone.

[Umlaut]

If you think your own principles are self-evident you have to concede that people fail to see self-evident things all the time.