Re: "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to animals

On 6/15/2023 11:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:41:11 PM UTC+2, Ran & Swat wrote:
>> On 6/4/2023 9:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:03:58 AM UTC+2, Rat & Swan wrote:
>>>> Discuss.
>>>
>>> Pretty fair to ask, really, what do you mean by saying that?
>>>
>>> So okay sure we get your main point, that if you're considering a situation 
>>> where no actual animal exists and we merely have at most a "potential 
>>> animal", then there is no entity there that stands to "enjoy a benefit" if 
>>> the "coming into existence" happens.
>>>
>>> Then, on the other hand, if we contemplate an animal leading a completely 
>>> miserable existence, we may be tempted to think "Isn't it true to say that 
>>> is was a misfortune for that being to come into existence, and other things 
>>> equal those who were able to prevent it from happening if they had known 
>>> should have done so", then having gone that far, maybe we're tempted to also 
>>> say "So it is at least somewhat reasonable to speak of happy beings being 
>>> fortunate to have come into existence, whether or you not you talk about it 
>>> being in some way morally obligatory to bring such beings into existence if 
>>> you can, which is a separate issue". So you have that thought as well.
>>>
>>> And of course I've shown you articles written by professional philosophers 
>>> on this topic in the past, on which you've poured unmeasured scorn. But 
>>> still, above I have outlined two thoughts that might be had on the topic, 
>>> one of which you probably endorse, and the other of which has at least some 
>>> initial plausibility about it.
>>>
>>> And is there really anything more to be said? Do you think this is in some 
>>> way a question with an objective answer, perhaps an answer that is 
>>> immediately obvious to everyone more intelligent than David Harrison, and 
>>> that you know this and you're doing a good public service by repeatedly 
>>> pointing this out?
>>>
>>> Anyway. Your goal in writing this post is whatever it was, and you did say 
>>> "Discuss"... so... I've discussed a bit.
>> I guess the mathematics thing didn't work out too well for you, eh?
>
> Was invited to speak at an on-line seminar held by University of Barcelona 
> because people liked my recent Philosophia Mathematica publication, still 
> attending conferences, still research active, currently working on three 
> projects which if accepted as correct will have a lasting impact in the field, 
> and two other papers in the pipeline as well. Have been advised by a friend 
> that I should be able to crack the UK academic job market if I stick with it.
>
> However, yeah sure, I am currently unaffiliated. I earn enough from maths 
> tutoring at present to cover roughly 40% of my share of our basic household 
> expenses, and I also received a research grant to work on an AI safety 
> project, nearly finished writing that one up, significant mathematics 
> component there, and we received enough money from that for me to be able to 
> say that from that alone I fully covered my share of our household expenses 
> from start of August last year up till end of July.
>
> So yeah, going extremely well, thanks for asking. In good spirits.

You didn't obtain a Ph.D in mathematics to be a math tutor to the underachieving 
children of rich fucks. You've never even been an assistant professor. What 
happened to your tenure track aspirations? I think you have to be in your 
fifties by now, or at least very close to age 50. For all of your impressive 
achievement in obtaining a Ph.D in mathematics, what you have done since then 
amounts to dilettantism — basically, dabbling.

Obtaining a Ph.D in mathematics: impressive. Dabbling and dilettantism ever 
since: unimpressive. Age 50 +/- with a Ph.D and only covering 40% of household 
expenses: parasitism and sponging.