Solving Ecmandu’s 3 Problems

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Ecmandu: “1.) The goal of life is to give everyone forever, everything they want at the expense of not one single being in existence.”

Me: What if what everyone wants, deep down, can’t be given to them, but is something they must choose?

Ecmandu: “2.) There are three structural problems with existence:

“a) consent violation: the assumption only equals can consent, and any differences constitute power imbalance and thus violation of consent, meaning, “I don’t want this” - maybe we should solve that problem for all beings!!”

Me: We have to ask permission, and be 100% honest so they can give informed consent. All selves are others, all others are selves, but we should not abuse our power when someone else is at a position of disadvantage relative to us.

Ecmandu: “b) the negative zero sum problem: the assumption that everyone should win, or for every winner there is more than one loser.”

Me: We should not allow unfair advantage/privilege or hoarding of resources as long as hard working people can’t pay for their essentials (Maslow’s hierarchy).

Ecmandu: “c) the pleasurable exclusive access problem: the assumption that all resources should be shared (everyone should win) equally. Also meaning, while you’re having a decent time, you’re invariably stomping, shattering and crushing another’s heart.”

Me: With all the other stuff resolved, all needs are met, so no one will feel deprived, and everyone will be happy for each other. Besides, if everything is shared, nobody takes ownership for a particular job, because they are so overwhelmed with all the responsibility of having everything with everyone, so no job ever gets done. Everything goes kablooey.

Boom. Solved.

2

Amending my answer to #1:

Ec… What if what everyone wants, deep down, can’t be given to them, but is something they must choose, and all our other unmet wants just point to this deeper want for a heaven we are tasked with creating on earth by cultivating wants that pivot around self=other?

3

& the Rawls thing… liberty, opportunity, resources…
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 7#p2852067

4

Key:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 2#p2913802

5

Why I am not responding to Ec’s “problems” again and will just refer him back to pages 7&8 here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 2#p2918332

6

I can solve all three of his non-problematic personal problems, with one word:
Medication.

1 Like
7

John Nash handled it without medication & brought us game theory. So many other examples. Medication alone robs us of the opportunity to properly gain self=other alignment between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors—that should be the focus, and medication that makes such focus impossible ought to be banned.

8

Let’s have faith in the exception being the rule.

Naive, infantile mind.

9

Let’s normalize the exception.

10

…& that is why Jesus so loved the kids, in fact regressed for whose sake voluntarily and not for fear of life defined as ‘existing’

11

Pfft…

Medication can be as simple as food and a glass of water. I don’t need a lecture from you about my biochemistry.

I don’t forgive this universe. Ichthus does. Ichthus should be the one in a mental institution.

It’s not my job to dictate what someone wants or doesn’t want.

It’s my job to create a new dimension when a spirit hits the ceiling.

When a spirit screams or whimpers…

I want all my dreams to come true without hurting anything or anyone.

Ichthus. You do realize you just murdered 8 billion bacteria who are innocent. Their lives are worth just as much as yours.

It’s worse than the holocaust and we do it everyday without a single care.

Ichthus. To be perfectly honest…. You neither think nor care.

It may take you trillions of years to evolve.

Until then. You’ll think you already solved everything.

12

Ec,

Wow. NOW you reply here?

Jesus didn’t succumb to temptation in the desert & blame lack of food & water.

Killing bacteria is not murder. Can they eventually pass a turing test?

You don’t seem to know the criteria for having someone kept in a locked facility.

13

Animals starve themselves to death by broken hearts all the time. There’s no temptation there.

If you truly want the answer to who should be locked up involuntarily.

It should be all of you in the world.

Thank your lucky stars.

14

Oh yeah, you also wanted to hear about bacteria.

They have a fight or flight system.

Anything that has this quality is a life form to me.

Others agree. I’ve seen people starve themselves to death on trees so the tree won’t get cut down.

15

But nobody calls cutting down a tree murder. Nobody calls killing bacteria murder. Everyone privileges life that can (eventually) pass the Turing test.

If you really think all of us should be locked up, consider yourself hunkered down in a bunker.

…except for the fact that you are… here.

Very curious.

16

I call it murder.

You couldn’t pass a Turing test without bacteria or trees unless you’re one of the beings who are called light beings.

Even they have urges sometimes and transform into flesh to enjoy sex every once in a while.

That’s not even getting into the whole omniscient animal discussion.

The bacteria would choose the sacrifice themselves for your benefit in that scenario.

I don’t like sacrifice theology.

It bothers me.

17

You don’t see the world though my eyes Ichthus.

The sidewalk is sentient. It gives me permission to walk on it. The sidewalk can pass a Turing test.

18

What is your evidence that you gained proper consent from the sidewalk to walk on it?

19

Because I know when it didn’t. I offended the sidewalk and had to call on very high powers to explain to it that it’s ok if I walk on it.

Everything is sentient Ichthus. I had a past life of being a planet. Earlier than that, it was just my job to be an earth quake.

And it goes back.

It’s all sentient Ichthus.

20

…by what evidence would you know when it didn’t?