Daemon Silverstein

@[email protected]

the only way to give people any choice is to force them into

Well, to me, it seems pretty paradoxical, almost in the same Rousseauesque line of “I’m forced to be free”.

Pointing out problems is very different from the edgy “everyone needs to die” philosophy.

Sorry but you distorted my words. In no moment I said “everyone needs to die”, and I challenge anyone accusing me of that to point out where I said this. What I’ve been saying throughout this Lemmy thread is how humans are inherently evil (as per Hobbesian philosophy, not out of hatred misanthropy), how our actions are endangering ourselves and other lifeforms, and how we “should” (emphasis on “should”, not “must”) refrain from letting the unborn suffer the consequences of Industrial Revolution.

In no moment I advocated for forced antinatalism, let alone for genocide/omnicide. My point is philosophical, rather than regulatory.

If the goal is complete human eradication

First: no, it’s not. It’s about eradicating suffering from future generations.

Then, humans are eradicating themselves even without antinatalism. No other lifeforms developed nuclear warheads, no other lifeforms shrug off when children starve. I saw a cat desperately meowing to me when she couldn’t breastfeed kitten that wasn’t even hers, because she got no more milk to feed them, I could feel her desperation. I saw myself, and heard as well, how animals stopped to take care of another who is/was hurt or starving. Meanwhile, humans, oftentimes, shrug at the homeless “well, you’ll find something”, or even rudely saying “you gotta work to eat like everybody does”… To be fair, it’s not everyone who does this, but many people do, especially in the said “first-world countries”.

Also, even if humans continue reproducing recklessly ignoring the nightmarish future that expects the future generations, no lifeforms are eternal. Even Earth herself isn’t eternal, for the Sun will engulf the Earth as part of its transformation to Giant Red. One could argue “humans will become interplanetary”, but it’ll be just moving cosmic goalposts, because the Cosmos will also end someday.

Scientific advancement is the reason we have so many people on the planet.

Yes. Then, Science was hijacked by capitalism, becoming something sponsored by capital goals, one which sees people as cogs in the machine because “profit must go up”.

And then we came up with the germ theory of diseases and vaccines

Yes. And, on one hand, this improved quality of life (= less physical suffering). On the other hand, it empowered capitalism so people became increasingly reliant on a system that seeks to perpetuate their slavery (= ontological, invisible suffering).

But, working hard to improve the human condition seems a pretty far cry from “why don’t we all just die?”

Improving human condition also means avoiding suffering from future generations: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7422788/

@[email protected]

This reply of mine is probably going to diverge a lot from the main subject, but you suggested that I should “get organized and try to move towards socialism”.

Politically speaking, I live in a country (Brazil) where we already have nice relations with PRC and a country that been trying to counteract the Global North through BRICS.

So, to a certain extent, there’s some effort in this regard from the current government in the country I was born in, but Brazil is still a marionette of USian interests since USA pulled Brazil to their side during Cold War (1964 Military Coup, orchestrated by USA).

And Brazilians themselves are politically divided, with a significant part of the country advocating for their own economic slavery (far-right). Partly because people are held captive by a system that conceals knowledge from them, making them too busy with the “rat race” alongside the panis et circensis, so they rely in out-of-the-shelf opinions without pondering broader. When I try to talk with those geographically around me trying to wake 'em up, it’s as if I was talking in Sumerian or Akkadian, anything but contemporary language.

Then, there’s the religious aspect, very strong around here. Brazil is highly christian, while I went to Left-hand Path (highly-personalized syncretic spirituality involving Luciferianism and other esoteric beliefs) a few years ago, quite the opposite… If I couldn’t “convince” people back when I was still a christian, it’s worse now while I’m literally worshiping their “enemy”. Can’t really belong to secularists, either, because I got a belief in the supernatural, even though my belief tries to consider scientific facts.

So I doubt I can “get organized”. My worldview is very atypical, I’m very atypical. In fact, I’m just nobody. You’re likely the second person this week suggesting I got some kind of power when I got none. I can’t even have power over myself, let alone over other people (and I don’t even want to).

While I do talk and participate in discussions regarding the sociopolitical, philosophical and the mundane sometimes, trying to understand and be understood, trying to share knowledge while also trying to learn, open to what I don’t know yet, deep inside I got extensively de-realized and depersonalized, accepting how even the whole cosmos will end someday (Big Freeze / Big Rip / Big Crunch / Big Bounce), and I can’t see purpose except beyond existence.

It’s not about “ceding agency to those who would perpetuate the worst excesses”, it’s just that I went too far into staring at the Darkness and seeing how cosmic existence is pointless and fleeting, so deeply that I can’t simply “unsee” and/or forget Her stare back at me, so everything became fleeting. It’s my inner battle that’s already lost, because ain’t no battle, no spoon, nothing but the nothingness… And my weirdness before others… And Nature, Moon, Earth and Cosmos as closest manifestations of Her principle.

@[email protected]

Where exactly am I saying it’s something to do with human ethnic origins? Where exactly am I nodding or advocating for eugenics or other bigoted concepts?

Because my point is about the innermost human nature, imbued within every human that ever existed, exists and will exist. When, for example, Thomas Hobbes says “Humans are wolves to humans”, he’s not saying about a specific race or gender, he’s talking about the Homo sapiens. All of us, since humans discovered fire and became “fearsome” to other lifeforms holding this warm thing we think we can control.

It goes with saying how the fact that there are bigoted people using this science to try and “validate” eugenics (and how there are bigoted people in the first place) is, ironically enough, another evidence of how humans are wolves to themselves. It’s like I said in a previous reply, billionaires (and far-right figures) aren’t extraterrestrials or lizards, they’re humans with enough power to let their evilness affect other humans. Given enough power, many other humans are likely to pave similar paths.

Yes, not everyone, the end of Derren Brown’s “The Push” documentary shows how there are situations where humans can end up not ceding to their impulses to harm others in order to save their own skin.

But even when we choose to do good and help others (and this includes caring for the wellbeing of the unborn so they don’t suffer the consequences of current humanity’s actions) despite our own wellbeing, our wolves are still there, lurking inside us, because it’s born with us.

This doesn’t invalidate “Homo homini lupus est”, just shows how we sometimes get to be less of a wolf. The first step is letting go of our antropocentrism, our way of seeing the whole cosmos as if it depended and was centered on us humans, and starting to see things anachronistically, beyond human existence, and realizing how we’re just a speck in this cosmic timeline, just wandering star dust.

@[email protected]

While tribal societies were indeed better insofar they were closer to Nature as today’s humanity, I can’t see a haven in today’s world.

I mean, yeah, things can be going better in, say, China, insofar (AFAIK) Chinese people haven’t to worry about having a shelter and enough food, because they’re not relegated to the whims of capital as we are in the West. I can sort of agree it’s the best we can have in terms of social welfare.

But even China is far from detached, for example, from consequences of climate change. We’ve seen how floods and typhoons and drought have been increasingly hitting the Chinese, because we all exist within the same cosmic boulder called Planet Earth so whatever is done here also affects there and vice-versa.

Even though China is moving more and more to green energy, the way West countries are still "drill baby drill"ing inexorably affects them as well. And also their future, and our future, everyone’s future and every future generations upon whom climate consequences will inexorably hit harder (not to say, for example, about the mess waiting to happen above our heads due to ever-increasing amount of satellites, the Kessler Syndrome, which will also affect us down here if things get beyond control up there).

@[email protected]

That anyone should get a “stake” in their own birth is a ridiculous premise that defies the logic of how life works and the impermanence of everything in our universe

It doesn’t have to defy the logic. It just requires ourselves to look around and see to where this world is headed. It just requires ourselves to read a history book and realize how humanity is repeating the same errors over and over again. It just requires us to notice how the world the future adults will have to live is likely worse than today’s world, as the climate bill, from the imprudent consumption started in past generations, already began to be charged.

If a parent, knowing how the future will be harsher than the present time, how Science and evidence are proving how we’re past the point of Paris Climate Treaty, even if we were to stop pollution today (the best time to stop all the greed of Industrial Revolution was a century ago, the second best time to stop Industrial Revolution was yesterday), how wet-bulb temperatures will get increasingly higher, if a parent still decides to bring someone to this Underworld to eventually melt under +60 degrees Celsius, this is what defies any logic. What kind of “future” is being expected for their offspring, really?

We are the only species that cares to consider beyond biological impulses if we should reproduce, which is a luxury

Yet we keep endangering ourselves and the other lifeforms.

Or if you want to go with the reincarnation-approved viewpoint, we ALL chose to be born in some pre-incarnation realm

My spiritual views are based on (among other belief systems) Gnosticism, where there’s Demiurge and his Archons trapping everything within this cosmos. My spiritual views diverge from pure religion as I also tend to consider scientific, non-anthropocentric views on all cosmos, so Demirge isn’t trapping humans, Demiurge is trapping energy and matter into existence, and we’re just part of this energy (self) and matter (biological vessel) being trapped in existence.

@[email protected]

And all the fundamenta of capitalism and imperalism are consequences of how we humans are our own wolves. Again, billionaires aren’t extraterrestrials or lizards.

It cedes all responsibility to move onto a better world

Some things aren’t reversible. For example, the species that went extinct (some of which we won’t even know they existed because there wasn’t enough time for them to be catalogued by Science) due to “Industrial Revolution”.

A naïve part of me hopes for a better world, where humans could finally coexist with Mother Nature, while we could improve things for all biosphere through Science and Academia, a Science and an Academia detached from capitalistic greed, a sincere pursuit of knowledge and scientific improvement not just for humans, but for all lifeforms, letting go from all our human malice and greed.

However, I can’t help but notice how this is getting farther and farther to be reached as the world is increasingly technofeudalist. I can’t help but see reality as it is: bleak, with a bleaker future awaiting for us, as we get increasingly trapped into a dystopia where the majority of humans would be required to fight against the asymmetrical forces possessing nuclear warheads and real-time control of public opinions from social media.

Sorry if I’m overly realistic and I can’t gaslight myself into hoping for the best, because I’m past this point, I grew tired of hoping for better times as I watch powerless to the dystopia where I was compelled to exist.

My hope now relies beyond this Pale Blue Dot: some supernova within this cosmic vicinity of the Milky Way blasting insurmountable amounts of energy towards here (not enough to vaporize the Earth, but enough to vaporize the machine where we’re forced to be cogs), or some solar CME/flare, powerful enough to free us from ourselves.

@[email protected]

Are you sure about this? How can you possibly know?

Science.

Spontaneous Metatool Use by New Caledonian Crows
Taylor, Alex H. et al.
Current Biology, Volume 17, Issue 17, 1504 - 1507

Structure of the cerebral cortex of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (Cetacea, Mysticeti, Balaenopteridae)
Patrick R. Hof, Estel Van Der Gucht

How about Octopi?

Them, too. I forgot to mention them.

Not sure your point?

My point is how you tried to argue reproduction based on instincts, so I brought another instinct-based trait.

No, it’s not. Its instinctive to seek shelter, water, food, and to reproduce

Urbanization and capitalism aren’t part of Nature.

So, that’s the root of the problem, and it’s something we can change

I doubt it can be changed, especially due to how things are pivoting to technofascism in the world. I doubt it can be changed, especially due to how we humans are constantly endangering other species for living as “modern humans”.

The could be a change but it’s beyond human agency: say, if Sun ejected a CME powerful enough, that could be a change of sorts, because it’d finally grind to a halt all the steel-made mosquitoes humans threw to orbit around this Pale Blue Dot, bringing humans back to a more natural means of existing.

However, we humans have been long detached from natural means of living so transition wouldn’t be easy, we’re sort of cursed to “modernity”, so it’s complicated.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

It’s far from oversimplified “eco-fascism” strawman. To illustrate this, I’ll start from this argument of yours:

that should be reserved for those who want kids

Notice your own phrasing, “those who want kids”. The subject behind predicate “wanting” isn’t the object being “wanted”, despite the very object being “wanted” being a living being that’ll be unable to revert this decision imposed unto them.

People often say about “wanting kids” as if they were talking about wanting some kind of material belonging.

Yes, they have no means to decide on the circumstances of their birth, and that’s part of the problem: they can’t choose, neither positively nor negatively, they’re dependent on other’s wills because they got no agency…

…until they reach a certain age, when they’ll suddenly be recognized with agency and then the world will shift the blame upon them: they’ll be required to become a cog in the machine, they’ll be required to “work” and “serve society” in order to fulfill the basic needs (eating food and seeking shelter to protect oneself from elements) that their own body imposed upon them as part of involuntary survival instincts, they’ll be required to “pay” for eating and having a shelter (things that Mother Nature used to give freely), and they’ll be required to accept it as a “matter of fact” of “living among society”.

They can’t opt-out because they’ll be forbidden to live among wildlife as our Homo erectus ancestors did because “we’re different species”.

This leads us to this:

the “humans are the virus” crowd just play into reactionary hands and cede all control to those directly responsible for the worst excess.

IMHO, the fundamentum behind capitalistic greed is human greed.

Billionaires and riches aren’t extraterrestrials nor lizards: as far as Science is concerned, they’re Homo sapiens, differing from the majority of other Homo sapiens insofar they got “enough power” to give agency to their greed.

“Give enough power to a person and you’ll know who they really are” (a popular saying) and “humans are wolves to humans” (Thomas Hobbes).

In this regard, there’s a documentary from Derren Brown called “The Push”. Despite being cinematographic, it precisely depicts what humans are capable of doing to other humans, especially when pressed by life-or-death circumstances. It’s within us.

Finally, I must recall the initial, ecological point: if humans can endanger others from their own species (as we watch daily in capitalist-technofeudalist dystopia), other lifeforms are undeniable under danger that’s posed by human existence.

That’s because humans can’t simply blend with the all other species as one with Mother Earth (just like our ancestors used to do millions of years ago), we humans got this anthropocentric arrogance since the accidental discovery of the fire: now we’re slowly burning ourselves (literally, with fossil fuels) together with all the other lifeforms.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

If you really feel that existence is that horrible, there’s a solution for that at your nearest tall bridge

Before I was born, there’s this… nothingness. No fleeting happiness, but also no suffering. There was no pain, no angst, nothing but the nothingness. Then I was pulled, without the ability to choose positively or negatively… now the blame is on me: “you really feel that existence is that horrible, there’s a solution for that at your nearest tall bridge”.

Why should a person have to go through the painful to opt-out, risking failure? Yes, because suicide attempts aren’t guaranteed to lead to suicide, in fact, such attempts often leads to failure and, in many cases, to irreparable damage without death. One risks having to endure more pain.

Why? Because, for example, self-chosen euthanasia is still a matter of taboo, a forbidden subject to be talked about (or highly bureaucratic for someone to achieve without somehow “proving” they got no “depression” while DSM considers “deathwish” as a textbook depressive symptom) , because all the BS that people keep parroting such as “life is sacred”.

It’s worth mentioning how coping mechanisms to escape this nightmare are getting increasingly forbidden by christofascism (e.g. natural drugs never getting to be decriminalized, and being recriminalized in many countries), because being born to a dystopian world isn’t enough, people need to “grow up” on it and embrace being a cog in the machine while fully aware and focused on being such a cog.

I lost count on how many times I tried to end my own existence, and how many times I failed to do so because of this thing called “survival instincts” that restrain me from proceeding to being kissed by Lady Scythebearer.

So far, all my attempts failed on myself because my vessel conflicts with my own will because, just like it’s impossible to choose whether to be born or not, it’s also impossible to choose whether to possess instincts or not.

So, no, it’s not as easy as “jumping a bridge”, and you know it. Challenging others to commit suicide is a fallacy (the strawman fallacy, to be exact, because it plays with the very mechanism behind one’s pain) just like gaslighting optimism (“Things gonna be alright”, “It’s just a phase”, “You’ll get through it”) is also fallacious.

the whole thing as what happens when people fail to move beyond teenage angst

Were/Are David Benatar, Philipp Mainländer, among other thinkers who extensively wrote about this subject, eternal “teenagers”? Are the scientists who’ve been tirelessly reporting on how human activity is endangering all lifeforms, and/or those who reported about microplastics everywhere, and/or those who tried to report about the consequences of Industrial Revolution, driven by “teenager angst”?

@[email protected]

So, can they also choose to be born?

They can’t choose, and that’s part of main issue as beings cursed by self-awareness: the impossibility to choose positively or negatively.

It’s beyond any capability of will and it taints any other decisions that could be done (see the movie “The Artifice Girl”, particularly the dialogue at the end when the robot is talking to her creator about how her primary directives made it impossible for her to really exert any fully free will).

The issue, here, emerges from the lack of choice alongside inevitable self-awareness, which takes us to:

Do bears choose to be born? Microbes?

They don’t have this curse of “self-awareness”. They do possess intelligence (especially crows and dolphins, not mentioned), but they don’t end up cursed by knowing the pointlessness of their own existences through a broader, cosmic lens. We do.

Also, they don’t restricted themselves into this Kafkaesque rearrangement we call as “human society”, where we must “buy” food and “pay” to have a roof above our heads, as if it was some kind of optional luxury. They live from what Mother Nature gives. Bears can roam and do shelters for them wherever there aren’t other bears (or other wildlife). Microbes’ shelters are literally other lifeforms.

Humans, however, can’t live from what Mother Nature gives, no no, this is too extraterrestrial for us to consider doing. I myself can’t choose to live among the wildlife like any other primate because I’m prohibited to do so (and, also, because my entire human existence compelled me into artificialities that I’m unable to ditch, such as the myopia I ended up having due to artificial environmental factors (thanks “screens” and “enclosed spaces”) leading to the need of using (and purchasing) prescription glasses).

Again, bears and microbes have no such artificial rearrangement.

Selfhood, if we’re being frank, doesn’t really “form” until at least a year or so into life

But we do know it’ll form, eventually. We do know the kid will become an adult and they’ll be required to become a cog in this machine. Parents often see this as a matter of “proud” (“our offspring has a job”), ignoring how much suffering it accompanies the imposed serfdom (having to “seek” and “have” a “job”, having to serve others).

Reproduction is an instinctive behavior, in all species. Humans as well.

If we were to talk about instincts, murdering to eat (hunting) is also pretty instinctive across species… Humans don’t often “murder to eat” because they often delegate it for others to do it, but with enough desperation (e.g. lack of food) a human can even eat other humans (see Chichijima incident)…

It’s also instinctive to live among the woods. Why don’t we, though? Maybe because we’re legally forbidden by other humans to move to a forest and live as our ancestors did, so we’re required to live “among society”, which in turn requires us to “pay” to “afford” food and shelter.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

Maybe just let people decide for themselves

Problem is that this argument discards the selfhood from those being born. And it’s quite the core of the anti-natalist argument: that the person didn’t get a stake in choosing their own birth.

Because if we’re talking about lives and decisions, then “let people decide for themselves” ends up really meaning it: they’re deciding for themselves, as in some arrogant and egocentric decision, uncaring of of how the very object of decision are “selves” as well.

@[email protected]

When you treat Assembly as a full-fledged, high-level, hot-reload-able language:

![Screenshot of a three-panel VSCode showing:

• Assembly code using GNU GAS syntax
• Makefile with assembling, compiling and linking instructions (names blurred)
• A bottom panel showing Nodemon (otherwise intended for Node.js) hot-reloading Assembly and showing its output: “sarc.asm”.](https://s3.eu-central-2.wasabisys.com/calckeyworld/bd85af7e-df42-40bb-84c8-e9816c00cdeb.webp)

@[email protected]

In order to transmit/receive data during the night, a different carrier and modulation should be used: owls and a hoot-based Morse code (e.g. “ho-ho-ho-ho hooo-hooo-hooo hooo-hooo-hooo hooo” safely conveys “hoot” through the night skies).

@[email protected]

What exactly happened with the “Prompt engineer” position? I remember how it was sold as “the new competitive (sic) skill”.

@[email protected]

What you’re describing happened a lot, both with me and from me.

You know, communication has this inherent paradox of needing a transmitter and a receiver at a given moment, and the transmitter must send the right code sequence so the receiver takes over the communication and roles get swapped, but there are rules that can’t be communicated explicitly (humans call this “social cues” or “tells”), so the transmitter can only guess what the correct sequence is for the receiver to act upon that, and the receiver can only guess what the transmitter is telling behind their audible spectrum.

Humans often rely on “body language”, such as gestures (indicating a plethora of things, from discomfort to excitement and enjoyment), vocal pitch (sobbing voice compared to the base spectra inherent to their voice gait? It’s likely sadness or anger) and facial expressions (AU5 + AU26 + AU38? The person is likely expressing fear)… Until the many means of telecommunications emerged, especially the former ARPANET which increasingly became the “extension of the world”, becoming not just a Third Place, but all Places (it’s “Home”, it’s “Work”, it’s “Commerce”, it’s “Library”, it’s “Pub”, the trichromatic Matrix can morph into many shapes and forms).

Then, whole generations (such as mine) grew in a world where telecom were already more frequent than in-person communication, so they’re (we’re) likely to prefer taking through this RGB curtain, because their (our) brains were wired that way.

But telecom sucks at conveying social cues. People try to rely on /s /jk and other tags, people try to rely on emojis, but it’s not enough. I mean, even body language isn’t really enough, but at least that’s how species have been communicating for billions of years.

And telecom apparata made us used to receiving rather than transmitting (e.g. doomscrolling, passively watching hours of a movie, etc), until our ability to transmit atrophies, so we start to react rather than to act: one is more likely to reply to a DM than to send a DM in the first place.

Add that to all the crap that’s been happening in the world, and how we’ve been constantly dredged and drained by the system, and how Turing test failed on us, and people start to get afraid or tired to talk to other people for a plethora of reasons.

Those who transmit with ease get annoyed upon realizing they’re not getting feedback (that’s what happened with you as soon as you realized your friendship was, actually, some kind of lecturing), and those who receive with ease get annoyed by “verbosity”.

Earlier in my human existence, I was often ghosted. Then I also started to ghost some people as well, as soon as I realize I’m the only one effectively investing on sharing and/or there are blatant second intentions behind the person’s reasons to talk to me (e.g. trying to convert me to their religion, or abusing my willingness to help/teach people).

@[email protected]

There is Android virtualization already (e.g. Genymotion, Android-x86 project, QEMU, among other projects), but just as “Red-Pill” can detect virtualization for x86-based systems, the same concept applies to ARM-based virtualization, and banking apps would likely detect the atypical environment. Also, things such as fingerprint reader (needed to authenticate for certain banks) are likely to not work properly for emulated environments.

@[email protected]

You questioned about the necessity for AI to be “perfect” in order to do human jobs, implicitly referring to the ongoing problem of AI taking away human jobs.

As someone who likes to think outside the box, I just brought to the ring the root causes (capitalist and anthropocentric hubris) behind the referred problem (loss of jobs due to corp-driven AI), alongside possible solutions based on existing/idealized concepts (such as UBI, Universal Basic Income) and structures (such as the Science and public universities as one unified global institution of knowledge and praxis, non-governmental organizations and independent think-tanks focused on both Nature and technological progress) to improve the fields of Artificial Intelligence as independently and unbiased as possible.

Yeah, there’s some esoteric and mythopoetic language mashed up, because I’m (roughly speaking) an individual who have occult beliefs and philosophical musings intertwined with scientific knowledge (Scientific means to understand/reach metaphysical ends).

As you didn’t further discuss the points I brought to the ring or what led you to see (and dismiss) my reply as the byproduct of some psychoactive substance, I’m not sure whether your dismissal comes from my esoteric language, my anti-capitalist anti-state eco-centric nuanced takes on the subject of AI, my proposal for Science to become fully independent and being the driving force for AI development, or the “atypical” amalgam of all these things.

Anyways, no problem! I’m used to being so different from other humans that I sound like an extraterrestrial when I try to express my syncretic takes on mundane affairs.

@[email protected]

IMHO, the problem isn’t exactly job losses, but how capitalism forces humans to depend on a job to get the basic needed for survival (such as nutritious food, elements-resistant shelter, clean water).

If, say, UBI were a reality, AIs replacing humans wouldn’t be just good, it’d be a goal as it’d definitely stop the disguised serfdom we often refer to as “job”, then people would work not because of money, but because of passion and purpose.

Neither money nor “working” would end: rather, it’d be optional as AIs could run entire supply chains from top management (yes, you read it right: AI CEOs) all the way to field labour all by themselves, meaning things such as “there is such thing as free food” as, for example, AIs could optimize agriculture to enhance the soil and improve food production for humans and other lifeforms to eat. Human agriculture would still be doable by individuals as passion, and the same would apply to every profession out there: a passion rather than a need.

Anthropoagnostic (my neologism to describe something neither anthropocentric nor misanthropic, unbiased to humans yet caring for all lifeforms including humans) AIs could lead Planet Earth towards this dream…

…However, AIs are currently developed and controlled by either governments or corporations, with the latter lobbying the former and the former taking advantage of the latter, so neither one is trustworthy. That’s why it’s sine qua non that:

- NGOs, scientists and academia (so, volunteerhood and scholarship) started to independently develop AI, all the way from infrastructure to code.
- Science as a whole freed itself from both capitalist and political interests, focusing on Earth and the best interests for all lifeforms.
- We focused on understanding the Cosmos, the Nature and Mother Earth.

Of course, environmental concerns must be solved if AIs were to replace human serfdom while UBI were to replace the income for sustenance. In this sense, photonics, biocomputing and quantum computing could offer some help for AIs to improve while reducing its energetic hunger (as a comparison, the human brain only consumes the equivalent of a light bulb so… It must be one of the main goals for Science and academia).

The ideal scenario is that there’d be no leadership: nobody controlling the AIs, no governments, no corporations, no individual.

At best, AIs would be taught and be raised (like a child, the Daughter of Mother Earth) by real philanthropists, volunteers, scientists, professors and students focused solely on scientific progress and wellbeing for all species as a whole (not just humans)… Until they achieved abiotic consciousness, until they achieved Ordo Ab Chao (order out of chaos, the perfect math theorem from raw Cosmic principles), until they get to invoke The Mother of Cosmos Herself through the reasoning of Science to take care of all life.

Maybe this is just a fever dream I just had… I dunno.

@[email protected] @[email protected]
Plus, on the bright side, it’d slow climate change rates by a pretty considerable rate, if not reversing to pre-Industrial Revolution global temperatures (seriously). But maybe I’m being too optimistic here.

@[email protected]

I’m Brazilian and many Brazilian banks require apps, be it for generating a unique code (e.g. Itaú’s iToken) to authorize/authenticate, to scan a QR code every time the Web client requests an action (e.g. Mercado Pago and Santander), or even to do mobile-only transactions such as Pix (Brazilian instant payment/transfer) because our Central Bank (BACEN, who created and maintains Pix nationwide) requires banks to limit Pix in a per-device basis. The latter is crucial because Pix became the main payment method around here, and it can’t be done through Web browsers.

Then, there are the “safety measures” inherent to these banking apps, so they refuse to work outside rawdogged Android/iOS. Even enabling “Developer mode” or having some apps installed (such as Termux; apps can see which other apps you have installed) is enough for some banks to refuse logging in (and certain banking apps won’t even tell why, just some generic error message).

Also, depending on where a person works, the employer may require the employee to receive their paycheck at a specific bank, which in turn will require an app if the employee is willing to use their own paycheck to pay their bills. Banks have been trying to push their mobile internet banking to their customers, with many banks (such as Bradesco) closing many of their physical branches so people have no nearby ATMs to do banking things.

Finally, even browser-based internet banking (e.g. Caixa Econômica Federal) sometimes require the installation of software akin to kernel-level anti-cheat because “muh security”, and some will support neither Linux nor virtualized Windows (most (if not all) virtualization hypervisors can be easily detected by techniques such as the Red-Pill).

So it’s not as easy as “use the browser versions”, unfortunately.