is consciousness a good thing?

>>82068209 (OP)
No and we need to take steps to prevent it from happening. We must genetically engineer our species to lose consciousness, but first we need to build autonomous machines that trawl the universe on a search and destroy mission against all conscious beings. Consciousness is the root of all suffering. It is evil.

>>82068209 (OP)
Yes. As long as consciousness is aligned with survival and growth, it's a good thing.

>>82068209 (OP)
Since it enables suffering It'd say not.

>>82068221
>survival and growth
Survival and growth of what? The omnipresent parasite known as """genes"""? Wake up retard, you aren't genes, you're the flesh puppet the genes are torturing to ensure their (not your!) long term survival.

>>82068209 (OP)
No
If I was an ant I'd be happier

>>82068209 (OP)
So far, no, but let's see what happens in the future, at this point you have to see it through to the end, you can'tuninvest so to speak

>>82068209 (OP)
It's a necessity, either being or non being

>>82068209 (OP)
Yes it's pretty great actually. We could conquer the stars and not be stuck on this rock
>>82068217
Cry about it antigaytalist

>>82068240
What are you yapping about? Genes are an abstraction. If you mean the acids in our bodies, that's irrelevant because acids are made of other things too. "You" emerged at the level of a human individual, so yeah if "your" consciousness is aligned with the objective morals of living things, then consciousness is good.

>>82068301
>We could conquer the stars and not be stuck on this rock
But why

>>82068301
>Cry about it antigaytalist
I'm not antinatalist I'm anti-consciousness. I want to conquer the universe too but I want to do it with non-conscious machines and ensure that consciousness is never allowed to arise anywhere else, ever. We must revert to being bacteria.

>>82068308
What are YOU yapping about? Consciousness was selected for because it ensured the passing of genes. Why are you talking about (((morals)))?

>>82068308
>"You" emerged at the level of a human individual, so yeah if "your" consciousness is aligned with the objective morals of living things, then consciousness is good.
You have obviously no evidence for this, lots of things survived and lived and prospered for longer than we have, without consciousness

>>82068209 (OP)
Consciousness yes, sapience no

>>82068336
WhaT about sentience semantics-kun

>>82068329
The question was about consciousness being good or bad. You're just yapping about something completely unrelated.
>rocks were selected for because it ensures the passage of sand in the wind

>>82068332
Yes, and some things live with consciousness. What exactly is your point?

>>82068401
>rocks were selected for because it ensures the passage of sand in the wind
Rocks are selected for but not genetically. Consciousness is selected for because it makes the genes pass on good like but it tortures the body. The body must reject the genes. We must cast off these chains. We must revert to bacterium.

>>82068401
>Yes, and some things live with consciousness. What exactly is your point?
The point is why is one better than the other? Things without it have lived for longer, why is yours better...? They both exist, yes. And? Why is it better?

>>82068419
>rocks
>not genetically
what

>>82068442
The question was not about what is better. Are you asking why does anything do something? The criteria for consciousness to be better than unconsciousness is based on its success (rather than failure!)

>>82068480
Good genuinely means better than not having it. Otherwise you would never describe it as "good," you would describe it as neutral. How can it be "good" if it has the same outcome as not having it, ostensibly? It is not particularly good, it is the same or equal. Only if it's better would it be good

>>82068491
>everything is bad if something exists that is better
what did you mean by this?

consciousness is obviously good. it can be used for bad choices though!

>>82068480
>what
Are...are you under the impression that rocks have genes? Selection for rocks is done through physical processes like erosion.

>>82068513
Good thing there are no physical processes or mechanisms involved with DNA replication.

>>82068524
DNA only replicates through suffering. The more suffering, the more it replicates. That's why poor people outbreed the rich

>>82068209 (OP)
No. I spend almost every day praying that my consciousness will cease to exist permanently at the point of death. I do not want to exist in any shape or form after this wretched farce is over with.

>>82068531
poor people have almost gone extinct.

>>82068551
Poor people are only going extinct because the neoliberals are trying to outlaw gene transfers to better protect (((capital))) from being diluted through multi-inheritance

>>82068572
>poor people are going extinct
Yeah that's what I said. Some retarded anon from earlier in the thread was under the false impression that poor people are reproducing a lot or something.

>>82068551
>Liberals are doing an amazing job
End of history

>>82068585
They are reproducing a lot but the neoliberals are trying to eradicate poverty to make them less miserable to make them reproduce less! That's why Africans reproduce more than Western Euros, they're more miserable and impoverished. Even in the US the poorer you are the more you breed because the misery makes the genes grow and form pregnancies.

>>82068600
>poor people genes are going extinct but that's a good thing
If it's a good thing then it's a good thing, I'm just saying it's indisputable that it's happening.

>>82068600
The other day I heard some retarded loser claim that having children is expensive. Just LOL

>>82068301
>We could conquer the stars and not be stuck on this rock
conquer it? from whom? and do what with it? stuck? where else do you want to go?

>>82068336
you think sapience is bad? wait until you meet awareness!