Plus it would be cool if you could recommend some particular essential non-fiction books that should be taught in schools, or that people should read if they didn't read them in school.
So in the whole anti-natalism/pro-natalism conversation (which I'm mostly agnostic/undecided on, currently), my friend who is a pro-natalist, argued that the success/stability of our world economy is dependent on procreating more children each year than the previous year, so that we not only replace the numbers of the people who existed from the previous generation (and some, to account for the statistical likelihood that many won't have children or will be sterile or die young etc), but also ensure that the population keeps growing in order to produce more and more human labor to "pay back the debts" of previous generations, because all money is borrowed from somewhere else... this is all very murky to me and I wish someone could explain it better. She is also of the view that this will inevitably lead to population collapse/societal/civilisation collapse because we live on a finite Earth with finite resources that can't keep sustaining more humans & human consumption (and are nearing critical environmental crises), but that there isn't any other option than to keep producing more children because a declining population wouldn't be able to support itself economically either. Basically the idea seems to be that economically & societally we're on a collision course for self-destruction but the only thing we can do is keep going and making increasingly more of ourselves to keep it running (however that as individuals, we should be plant-based & minimalist to reduce our impact to the environment, non-human animals and humans for as long as possible). And she is worried about the fact that fertility rates are falling & slated to reach a population peak followed by a decline in the relatively near future. As I said I'm not sure how I feel about this view but at first glance I think that the effect of having fewer children in providing relief upon the environment and helping safeguard our future is more important than preserving the economy because destroying the actual planet and life itself seems worse than economic downturns/collapses, but I really don't know enough about economics to say for certain.
Someasy 8 months ago • 100%
Fuckmas
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
Yes, I meant singular they. "They" isn't typically used for objects in the singular ("it" usually is used there). Nothing I'm saying has to do with plural pronouns, I should've made that clear. It's about he/she/they vs it (designating an entity as a personality vs an object, you might say).
And I think any entity with a personality could merit potentially referring to them as he/she/they, rather than "it". If they're conscious then I think it's definitely warranted, which is why I think "he/she/they" shouldn't be restricted to humans only, and should apply to all animals (or sentient animals which are at least the majority), as well as any other hypothetical sentient beings such as sentient AIs or sentient aliens.
Non-sentient AIs are what I'm really asking about though, but ones so complex that they demonstrate something resembling a personality. That's where it gets tricky about whether to designate them as "he/she/they" or as "it", personally. Presuming they don't specify a "faux gender" (like calling Amazon's Alexa a "she" without really acknowledging Alexa as a female), and if they were gender neutral/gender unspecified, the decision would probably be between calling them either (singular) "they", or "it".
In my opinion, given the lack of sentience, I wouldn't see a problem with calling non-sentient AIs "it", but if they were hypothetically complex enough to faithfully represent a human for example, I would then struggle to call them "it" and might have to go with "they".
Someasy 9 months ago • 50%
Those are great lmao.
And wow yes, I hate it when someone says "I'm going to pee/piss" or "I need to take a shit". Like just say you're going to the bathroom, or, you know, voiding (jk) like a normal person.
Someasy 9 months ago • 50%
Old meme, this is not the debate raging on because I saw this exact image ages ages ages ago. Just saying
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
It refers to objects, they refers to sentience or the fact of "someone" being a conscious individual rather than just a "something".
But in this case, they would be acknowledging on some level, even superficially, AI's personality and agency to a degree.
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
It didn't really, it said people may choose both. It's also an AI. I wanted to see what real people thought. I thought this was a good question.
Someasy 9 months ago • 33%
The most sophisticated AI imaginable short of it becoming sentient, let's say.
Of course AI isn't sentient/conscious, but it exhibits traits of high intelligence, even personality, and behaviours consistent with sentience, even if it's merely simulated. The answer ChatGPT gave me: > Referring to AI as "it" is the most common practice since AI, as a technological entity, doesn't possess inherent human-like qualities. However, as AI advances and becomes more integrated into daily life, some individuals prefer using "they" to acknowledge the complexity and multifaceted nature of AI systems. This choice can reflect a perspective that sees AI as more than just a tool or machine, attributing a certain level of agency or personality to these systems. Both "it" and "they" can be used, but the context and individual preferences often guide the choice. And in response to "Is AI alive in a way?" > AI lacks the fundamental attributes of living organisms, such as biological processes and the ability to reproduce. However, AI can exhibit behaviors that simulate aspects of intelligence, learning, and adaptation. While it's not alive in a biological sense, some people metaphorically attribute a form of "life" to AI due to its dynamic nature, ability to evolve, and perform complex tasks autonomously. This association with "life" is more symbolic or metaphorical rather than literal.
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
Brilliant! Thanks
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
Thank you for your contributions.
Someasy 9 months ago • 80%
Void
I think this is the one.
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
What if you're in the jungle?
Someasy 9 months ago • 75%
Urinate > micturate tbh... micturate sounds like you're doing something ungodly to a mouse.
Someasy 9 months ago • 50%
I guess it does, but it also seems to imply a small snack or small drink rather than being able to refer to meals and drinks of any size...
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
This sounds like a different thing I'm imagining now. If anyone's seen Upload...
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
Peelooping
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
Thank you but I'm unsatisfied with both "defecate" and "excrete" as they usually are interpreted to mean pooping, I think...
Even though that may not be technically the only use
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
"1s and 2s"? .. no, not good enough.
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
My savior.
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
I feel like a complete dumbass saying "vinctuals" just now. What a dumbass I was a minute ago.
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
But you couldn't say "Bob" and "throw" are both "languages". You can't say both are words either... (can you?) They're a name and a word, respectively. Is there another term perhaps for either a word/name (rather than a general concept for what they're part of)?
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
I realised and corrected it just as you commented, lol. Thanks
Someasy 9 months ago • 100%
You were getting more victuals 😉 (food and drinks)
Someasy 9 months ago • 75%
Sorry I didn't mean to make fun, bio break is an excellent term
Someasy 9 months ago • 75%
"Entering meatspace for a lil bit" 🤓
Someasy 9 months ago • 44%
If anyone is interested, you can call food and drink collectively "victuals". That's another one I was looking for.
I want a word to refer to words and names collectively, and a word to refer to peeing and pooping collectively (not "relieving yourself" since that is disgusting)
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
Filed next to "Hyperdrive" in my to-watch list (British 2006 scifi comedy)
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
Or a bit like The 100
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
We already knew that right? Pretty sure it was basically known for a long time that season 3 would be the last.
The show is bad, really bad, but the setting and story is Lost-like. Good trashy entertainment.
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
I had similar thoughts!
I guessed that Witt was trying to be noble and stand guard defending Dot and the shopkeeper, but it was still pretty stupid. It also doesn't make sense to me that he just wanted to thank her and wasn't concerned that she was a criminal and somewhat responsible for the situation he was in. He strikes me as a character that will die trying to be a hero, but actually mess things up for other people with his naivety. Especially since Dot was the one telling him what to do instead of the other way round, he was clueless.
The shopkeeper was even more of an unbelievable bonehead, but I guess that kind of has precedence in Fargo.
But by far my biggest gripe from the first 2 episodes released, was the traps that Dot set up in her house, how they didn't even seem to work that well (if Wayne could avoid the sledgehammer without even knowing about it, couldn't a skilled killer like Munch also?), the fact that she would risk her family getting killed by them accidentally, and how casual Scotty and eventually Wayne were about it too. It just doesn't make any sense and I felt like previous seasons haven't been that hard to believe before.
Why did Dot (Juno Temple, the woman who gets kidnapped) tell Witt Farr (Lamorne Morris, police officer who helps her) that this isn't her first getaway, considering that she's trying to hide her criminal past/previous identity? I understand it obviously served as a reveal to the audience confirming she did have some kind of prior criminal involvement, but why would she say it to that police officer, especially when she then subsequently ran away and pretended the whole thing never happened?
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
The soundtrack by Ramin Djawadi was good though, if I recall
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
I never watched past ep 1, LOL
I just don't want to mix them because I feel like it would make me less clean. Relatedly, what's the best way I can follow the Patrick Bateman skincare routine as a simplified version that's actually practical to follow and contains the most important steps?
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
It's not, but I did come across that one when trying to find it lol
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
No sorry, thanks anyway 😂
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
No, unfortunately.. that seems like a very different vibe to me. But I can see the similarities. It was definitely a movie, and more killer oriented. I'll know it as soon as I see it/hear it.
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
Btw we have a new release date for The Ones Who Live (Rick Grimes and Michonne series). It's 25th February
Someasy 10 months ago • 33%
Hahahaha downvote me, pigeon penis brains. You couldn't ever make something like this
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
Oh you made me realise that it's not just about wanting a bad show. Walking Dead World Beyond was bad, but in a not-entertaining way. Fear The Walking Dead was bad, but entertaining. I'm not sure how to describe it.
Someasy 10 months ago • 100%
Then the show becomes terrible around S4's second half
This show just came to an end and it's got to be one of the worst shows I've ever seen, but somehow always entertaining. Preferable if the show has a large amount of viewers to trash it and laugh at it.
'Where negative rights are "negative" in the sense that they claim for each individual a zone of non-interference from others, positive rights are "positive" in the sense that they claim for each individual the positive assistance of others in fulfilling basic constituents of well-being like health.' 'Negative rights are considered more essential than positive ones in protecting an individual's autonomy.' So when one individual's positive right to do something is at odds with another's negative right to protect them from something, as much as it would be ideal for both parties to have exactly what they want without harming or inconveniencing/upsetting the other, since that's often not possible, the negative right to 'protect' an individual from something seems to trump the positive right for an individual to 'do' something in hierarchy of moral importance and most ethicists seem to agree. For example, I think people's 'positive right' to choose animal-based product or service options when there are equally suitable plant-based options that achieve all the same purposes, isn't as important as sentient animals' negative right to not be unnecessarily exploited and killed, and to be protected from those undesirable experiences, states or conditions. Hence the position of veganism is very clear and obvious for me, and resolves an "easy" ethical issue with a clear solution (essential negative (protective) right prevails over others' ultimately unnecessary positive ("doing") right). When it comes to abortion however, I do believe that it's a tricky situation ethically. I'm pro-choice, but I say that with difficulty, because considering both sides it's not an easy position and I see it as much more ethically complex than the issue of unnecessary animal exploitation. That's because I think you can make the argument that either forcing a person to undergo pregnancy, or terminating the life of an (admittedly unconscious, undeveloped) fetus, are in both cases breaching a sentient (or would-be sentient) individual's negative (protective) right. It would seem to be a clear ethical dilemma, where neither outcome is desirable, in almost comparably important ways. However, ultimately I had to decide that protecting a woman/person from an enforced pregnancy (and the physical and life-changing, even life destroying (or killing) effects, results and experiences that can have), a person being a fully formed, conscious and sentient individual, is more tangibly important than protecting an undeveloped, unconscious "mass of cells" from being prevented from developing into a human being. My thoughts on the matter aside... It seems like in one way the right to abortion is a positive right by claiming assistance from others to "do" something being terminate a pregnancy, while in another way it's a negative right by "protecting" the person via preventing undesirable states and experiences that would be imposed on them by others 'interfering' and forcing them to undergo pregnancy, by denying them an abortion. I'm honestly just wondering what kind right this would be considered. Positive right or negative right? Or both? Thanks :)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b66da0d4-08a2-4675-8f95-6476cc7e994f.jpeg)
May depend on what device you're using, can confirm Samsung does this