this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
348 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43950 readers
1054 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For me it is Cellular Automata, and more precisely the Game of Life.

Imagine a giant Excel spreadsheet where the cells are randomly chosen to be either "alive" or "dead". Each cell then follows a handful of simple rules.

For example, if a cell is "alive" but has less than 2 "alive" neighbors it "dies" by under-population. If the cell is "alive" and has more than three "alive" neighbors it "dies" from over-population, etc.

Then you sit back and just watch things play out. It turns out that these basic rules at the individual level lead to incredibly complex behaviors at the community level when you zoom out.

It kinda, sorta, maybe resembles... life.

There is colonization, reproduction, evolution, and sometimes even space flight!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] claycle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That’s quite the claim.

Yes, it is, and as explained in the video the original author (and also the person explaining it) admit it is quite a claim, then proceed to demonstrate the veracity of the claim. I suggest you grab a cup of jo, settle in, and watch it. It addresses the points you bring up directly.

[EDIT: Re: Quite a Claim: Yes, and thus fitting the OP's "mind-blowing" criteria for the thread :-)]

The very short answer to "are you immoral for purchasing a cell phone" is "probably yes".

The proposition is not an easy one (it accepts it is extreme), but it is hard to deny when you march down the logic.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Right. And it necessarily follows from that that all humans are therefore immoral. And if that's the case, there is no longer any utility to the term "immoral." It becomes a pointless exercise.

[–] claycle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You've committed reductio ad absurdum.

Yes, most people are probably acting immorally and they are not even aware of it.

That doesn't mean it is a pointless exercise to identify the immoral behavior and strive to reduce or eliminate it, even if it is impossible to completely do so.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not most people. Literally every person. Or maybe you could give me an example of a person that wouldn't be considered immoral by your metric?

[–] claycle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are (deliberately?) skipping over the part of awareness.

Take for example a person who is aware that they cannot act morally when making seemingly normal, banal decisions. For example, they may be aware that when they choose to buy a shiny new cell phone when they have an older-but-still-perfectly-working model, they very likely doing something immoral. Because they are aware of the moral implications of their choice, they can choose hold-off buying a new phone for as long as possible (a morally-positive choice) and perhaps - going a step further - even using that money they would have spent on a new phone to help another person in need directly.

Most people probably don't contemplate the moral implications of the purchase of a new phone, this is true and I accept your position this. But it is clearly not "literally every person" as you have said, since it only takes a single person with awareness to disprove your statement. I am certain at least one such person exists (even if anecdotally), so I rely on the word "most" rather than "literally every".

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ok, but buying a cell phone isn't the only potentially immoral choice made by people regularly, it's just one example. Modern life is a minefield with this stuff, and I'm incapable of imagining a person in modern society who is capable of avoiding every single one of these pitfalls. Hell, it could probably be argued that even existing on this dying planet could be considered immoral or unethical. Again, maybe I'm wrong and you could think of one. Maybe some ascetic living on the street in India?

Also, I don't really agree that awareness is even relevant. You can do immoral things without being aware that the thing you're doing could be considered immoral. The thing itself is still immoral.

Which was kind of my point; that it's impossible to avoid in a modern, interconnected world. I probably did a dozen immoral things before breakfast this morning.

[–] claycle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I probably did a dozen immoral things before breakfast this morning.

Sure, certainly, yes, I'll accept your admission at face value, but could you have done fewer?

[–] thiccdiccnicc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you watch the video? You are both making the same point.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I haven't. I'm currently at work and can't watch. I was mostly pointing out that it becomes a pointless exercise when you realize that every human on the planet is considered immoral

Pointless might be a bit of a stretch. Change begins with recognition - perhaps some of the grand constants must be mutable in order for progress to be made.