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

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:14:25=E2=80=AFPM UTC+2, Rant & Sweaty wrote:
> On 6/15/2023 11:26 AM, Rupert wrote:=20
> > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:41:11=E2=80=AFPM UTC+2, Ran & Swat wrot=
e:=20
> >> On 6/4/2023 9:30 AM, Rupert wrote:=20
> >>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:03:58=E2=80=AFAM UTC+2, Rat & Swan wro=
te:=20
> >>>> Discuss.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Pretty fair to ask, really, what do you mean by saying that?=20
> >>>=20
> >>> So okay sure we get your main point, that if you're considering a sit=
uation=20
> >>> where no actual animal exists and we merely have at most a "potential=
=20
> >>> animal", then there is no entity there that stands to "enjoy a benefi=
t" if=20
> >>> the "coming into existence" happens.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Then, on the other hand, if we contemplate an animal leading a comple=
tely=20
> >>> miserable existence, we may be tempted to think "Isn't it true to say=
 that=20
> >>> is was a misfortune for that being to come into existence, and other =
things=20
> >>> equal those who were able to prevent it from happening if they had kn=
own=20
> >>> should have done so", then having gone that far, maybe we're tempted =
to also=20
> >>> say "So it is at least somewhat reasonable to speak of happy beings b=
eing=20
> >>> fortunate to have come into existence, whether or you not you talk ab=
out it=20
> >>> being in some way morally obligatory to bring such beings into existe=
nce if=20
> >>> you can, which is a separate issue". So you have that thought as well=
.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> And of course I've shown you articles written by professional philoso=
phers=20
> >>> on this topic in the past, on which you've poured unmeasured scorn. B=
ut=20
> >>> still, above I have outlined two thoughts that might be had on the to=
pic,=20
> >>> one of which you probably endorse, and the other of which has at leas=
t some=20
> >>> initial plausibility about it.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> And is there really anything more to be said? Do you think this is in=
 some=20
> >>> way a question with an objective answer, perhaps an answer that is=20
> >>> immediately obvious to everyone more intelligent than David Harrison,=
 and=20
> >>> that you know this and you're doing a good public service by repeated=
ly=20
> >>> pointing this out?=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Anyway. Your goal in writing this post is whatever it was, and you di=
d say=20
> >>> "Discuss"... so... I've discussed a bit.=20
> >> I guess the mathematics thing didn't work out too well for you, eh?=20
> >=20
> > Was invited to speak at an on-line seminar held by University of Barcel=
ona=20
> > because people liked my recent Philosophia Mathematica publication, sti=
ll=20
> > attending conferences, still research active, currently working on thre=
e=20
> > projects which if accepted as correct will have a lasting impact in the=
 field,=20
> > and two other papers in the pipeline as well. Have been advised by a fr=
iend=20
> > that I should be able to crack the UK academic job market if I stick wi=
th it.=20
> >=20
> > However, yeah sure, I am currently unaffiliated. I earn enough from mat=
hs=20
> > tutoring at present to cover roughly 40% of my share of our basic house=
hold=20
> > expenses, and I also received a research grant to work on an AI safety=
=20
> > project, nearly finished writing that one up, significant mathematics=
=20
> > component there, and we received enough money from that for me to be ab=
le to=20
> > say that from that alone I fully covered my share of our household expe=
nses=20
> > from start of August last year up till end of July.=20
> >=20
> > 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 underac=
hieving=20
> children of rich fucks. You've never even been an assistant professor. Wh=
at=20
> happened to your tenure track aspirations? I think you have to be in your=
=20
> fifties by now, or at least very close to age 50. For all of your impress=
ive=20
> achievement in obtaining a Ph.D in mathematics, what you have done since =
then=20
> amounts to dilettantism =E2=80=94 basically, dabbling.=20
>=20
> Obtaining a Ph.D in mathematics: impressive. Dabbling and dilettantism ev=
er=20
> since: unimpressive. Age 50 +/- with a Ph.D and only covering 40% of hous=
ehold=20
> expenses: parasitism and sponging.

I'm 47. I have obtained a PhD, yes, and I have also attained eight peer-rev=
iewed publications with an h-index of 4, including one recent Philosophia M=
athematica publication which got me invited to speak at an on-line seminar =
at the University of Barcelona. There have been very kind verbal and writte=
n remarks about some of my papers, including from someone whom I certainly =
would consider to be a leader in the field of philosophy of set theory. Eve=
n assuming I have no further research achievements in the future, it is obv=
iously totally fair to say that I had the aspiration to make a contribution=
 to human knowledge, and I did so, and some of my contributions have been w=
ell-received.=20

Obviously it would be absurd for me to be interested in whether you judge m=
y life achievements to date to be "impressive" or "unimpressive". You have =
no ability whatsoever to understand anything I've written, obviously. You'r=
e quite welcome to think whatever you like. What gives you the idea that an=
yone should reasonably be interested in what you have to say?=20

Why would you even be investing mental energy in the first place into wheth=
er I should be judged "impressive" or "unimpressive"? You really should thi=
nk carefully about that last question, right. I mean, obviously, I judge yo=
u to be "unimpressive" in various ways, that goes without saying, right. Bu=
t it's not worth my while to bother to say so out loud. You might be onto s=
omething if you retorted "You don't know what you're talking about, Rupert"=
, that would certainly be one consideration, which definitely applies to yo=
u here I would think, but the other aspect of it is that it's simply not an=
 interesting topic to me.=20

I don't care whether your life achievements are "impressive" or "unimpressi=
ve". No sensible person should care what I think about it. So I don't bothe=
r to let you know what I think. You shouldn't waste your valuable time tell=
ing me or anyone else what you think about my life achievements either. No =
rational person is interested in what judgment you make about the matter.=
=20

I mean, hey, the very worst case scenario for me here, right, would be that=
 you're actually right here, and that my life achievements to date have bee=
n unimpressive (and maybe somehow or other we don't end up concluding the s=
ame about yours, because you never wanted to have a research career or some=
thing and you're quite proud of whatever you've achieved in this computer-r=
elated career of yours that you never tell us anything about). So okay, wha=
t next for me then?=20

That would mean I should apply myself to being more successful in the futur=
e, right, nothing more than that. Except obviously, there are various clear=
 reasons why I simply don't attach all that much weight to your point of vi=
ew or any advice you may have about what I should be doing. I would be pret=
ty stupid to care in the slightest what you think about what would be the b=
est way forward for me, wouldn't I? I think you have to agree with that.

As always, you waste your breath on unimportant topics about which you clea=
rly are not in position to comment, in the transparent and pathetic despera=
te hope that your words have the power to hurt. Nothing new.