I am now making a conscious effort to reduce the scale of the quote spaghetti.
Singular Intellect wrote:
No I'm not. People can interact at any level and to any degree they personally wish... False. All interactions must be completely voluntary...
'Bubble universes' they can connect to any number of others to any degree they wish, so long as the criteria of freely given consent is met by every party.
Ability to share the bubbles doesn't mean you're not living in a bubble. Because this entire... I'm going to call it a 'society' for lack of a better term... consists of people who have every incentive to become a pack of petulant masturbating man-children.
Any kind of psychological growth or discipline they might display will be blind luck; the norm would probably be for interactions to be short before they lose the ability to agree to disagree, take their respective toys, and part ways... because it's so much easier living in a fantasy world where you don't have to interact with those pesky other sentients, as long as you can have good enough VR to drown out whatever residual social-animal instincts in your head are screaming at you.
"To American exceptionalists, "freedom" means being able to do what you want unencumbered by obligations to your fellow citizens. It is a definition of freedom the rest of the world finds bewildering."
I find it a bit bewildering too.
What obligations? Obligations no longer exist in my scenario, because there is absolutely nothing you can give another person they cannot provide themselves. The only exception is your social interaction, which must be entirely voluntary and at whatever level the parties decide to go with.
You have merely confirmed my existing opinion about your position- you honestly do not perceive
that this is a problem, that there might actually be something undesirable about deliberately creating a world in which human beings are not bound by any obligations of any kind. Note that this includes more than financial or physical things; it also involves the social obligations that civilize us, that render us able to be
civil to each other.
How is being "free" of such obligations to other people intrinsically a goal that it's worth optimizing the universe to obtain?
Another, more significant objection is: how do you define volition? What beings are capable of having a free will which must be honored? Does a baby get this kind of perfect universe where nothing they don't want ever happens to them? Because a baby whose every wish is gratified is not, and will never become, a mature, developed mind. Babies aren't human; they become human by a process of socialization. You are not doing a baby a favor by granting their every whim and desire, because they are unable to wish or desire their own growing-up.
Young minds will develope in the universe(s) created by their parents until they reach a point of self awareness and independence to decide things for themselves.
That is no answer- where, and how, do you draw that line? Is a six month old infant capable of making their own decisions? A three year old? A six year old? A twelve year old? An eighteen year old?When
in the development of human thought do we grant people this supreme power to gratify their wishes and reject any interaction with other people that does not gratify their wishes? Giving that power to an infant means the infant never grows up- the same for a toddler, or even an adolescent.
Who gets to judge "maturity" here? The question of who is mature enough to be trusted with power over their own lives is not an easy or self-evident one, even when the amount of power being given to them is relatively limited.
And what if there are layers above "adult" maturity? It's not hard to find physically grown men and women who are most emphatically not
full-grown psychologically. Giving many adults all their wishes would be a disaster, for their own self-actualization's sake, even if you can suppress any physical consequences of doing so?
What makes you think that the minimal unit of "mature enough to have a right to see all their wishes granted" is, say, twelve or fifteen or eighteen years old?
I'm concerned about the logical path of development for people in such a scenario- it seems too likely to collapse into the aforesaid petulant masturbating man-children, because it's too easy to retreat from anyone whose behavior displeases you, even when it's your own damn fault.
Granting everyone the maximal amount of ability to do what they want without being encumbered by obligations to other people is not the same thing as creating a perfect universe. It's far too simplistic.
I'd argue that the fact that you can come up with such a short description of what "perfection" looks like should warn you that you haven't put a large enough volume of good enough thought into it.
It is not about my personal sense of a god complex, or lack thereof, or anything about me. It is a general observation about people, and about the dangers of viewing self-gratification as the supreme virtue.
No one will be obligated to consider or subscribe to your opinion on the matter, and nor will you to anyone else's either. So what's the problem? So far your objection boils down to "I don't think it's a good idea because I say so" and my response is "I'll let everyone decide for themselves, your opinion means fuck all to anyone but you'.
My argument is that you are committing a philosophical error.
See, a philosophical argument takes the form "Belief X is incorrect, or at least of limited validity, because [argument]." You are taking this and saying "Well, it's just your opinion that Belief X is incorrect, so how about I redesign the universe according to Belief X? No one will make
you act as if X is correct, after all..."
That is about equivalent to saying "You think two plus two is [number], and I think two plus two is [number], so how about I
write all the math textbooks except the one I'll hand to you so you can teach your kids your way."
If I'm wrong and you're right, this is a very odd way to go about it- you're totally abandoning the question of why
your ideal universe is a good place, in favor of just saying "well, this is how I'd do it and if you don't like it you'll be free to pretend it never happened."
If you're wrong and I'm right, then you're saying "well, I'll just do this horrible disservice to humanity because my opinion is that it's a good idea, and I will ignore all your arguments about what I should do
because I am a hardcore libertarian and everyone should follow their own opinions!"
In neither case does this kind of thinking make any sense.
Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:
What is this 'favourite character' you speak of? I have walls lined with bookshelves, having a single favourite character would be like having a favourite brick.
-Story of my literary tastes.