I would define more living or truly living as living the Good Life. What that looks like is the fundamental question of philosophy, but I think a component we haven’t touched on yet is helping others. I don’t think we should help other people because it gives us a happy experience, but because it fulfills who we ought to be.

I didn’t think living=experiencing.

I don’t think that, but saying ‘the purpose of life is to live’ implies more life is more better.

Not necessarily, living longer could be at odds with experiences like sky diving or bull running.

Absolutely, that’d lead you to as many partners as possible while discouraging birth control. Plus tangentially it’d incentive trying to reduce the number of children other people have to increase your share of the gene pool. (Which I think is one of the paths you were getting at with eugenics)

How would you prioritize what to experience? By novelty? Or would you be happy to watch every movie ever made?

I mention those because it’s a common trope in fiction for curiosity of experiences to lead down disturbing paths. Slanesh in 40k comes to mind.

I thought anonymous was anyone who wants to be. In which case, lots of programmers on Lemmy, get on it!

Seems like that’s how you’d get murder, cannibalism, sadism, and things like that if you don’t put limits on it somewhere.

I literally put it together in highschool when someone mentioned it to me after learning about how clouds form from nuclei.

General aviation still uses leaded gas almost exclusively. It’s really hard to qualify replacements though the FAA, and airports don’t want to carry multiple fuel types.

Do you think you can have effective communism with only self interested parties? That was my take away from your comment, that you can get communism as a logical extension of greedy motives?

When someone says capitalism is human nature, I don’t think they mean that industrial automation allowing unskilled workers is human nature. So they’re using a different meaning of capitalism. To address their concern, you would show counter examples of large groups of people working together for a common good rather than their own enrichment. Rather than just saying they’re using the word wrong.

Good video by Dan Murrel on the subject. There is a colonel of truth in that there has been a race to the bottom for film studios. But this is unlikely to help the situation, and will likely only lead to fewer movies overall.

https://youtu.be/zlhv8V5n0sQ

When you survey people on the street, would they use that definition? English isn’t a prescriptive language, the definition is what people use it as.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

But you’d say that capitalism requires the technological advancements of the industrial revolution by definition?

I was asking to clarify, because it sounded like your definition of capitalism was something like ‘uses industrial machinery to allow for unskilled work.’ By that definition, I agree that by definition capitalism didn’t exist till after the industrial revolution, since industrial machinery didn’t exist yet. But I disagree that capitalism requires industrial machinery.

Ceramics (roof tiles and pots) were manufactured on an industrial scale in Rome for example. They employed workers and produced massive numbers of products.

What is your distinction between employing people for money and capitalism?

What would you call employing people for wages around 0AD? I don’t think it’s feudalism.