But you weren't talking about other people, you said why you don't want dogs and you can choose.
I thought I elaborated that in my long posts enough to be understood.
Which, in a nutshell, is the reason we are doomed as a species.
When we give up we are doomed. Our species will survive, but society and civilisation as we know will collapse.
Some say: "We're doomed anyway, so what the heck, buy a larger car, eat more meat, buy more stuff, get more dogs...let's go down binging!"
This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And it's selfish. Such people don't even think of their own kids.
According to this logic: while doctors save lives, a bomb will kill a dozen people in Ukraine or Gaza.. so doctors should stop saving lives!
This is an example for getting a point out of a general context, put it into a picked single extreme situation, and then push it fatal. The opposite way around works as good: Draw something only valid for a certain situation into the general where it's not valid anymore to "prove" it's wrong. It's like to prove your conversation partner's equation wrong by changing its definition.
That's no way to talk to each other when a discussion shall have a claim to be for exchanging information, see and understand each others points of view, to find together compromises, or even solutions. That's not discussing, that's taking the hard line. That's making fun of other's by presenting the conversational partner as some lunatic to win the crowd. Which is a cheap trick to refuse points others made before there was a chance to consider them, just to protect own opinions by avoiding reconsidering them. Which can also be named as ignorance.
Since we are not in the Middle Ages anymore, in science not the one with the better entertainment value who wins the crowd is right, but who proves things, delivers verifiable facts.
This exactly is the fundamental core reason why our society is doomed:
We have lots of very extremely powerful methods, techniques, materials, and devices derived from science at our hands. But at the same time our way to deal with each other, to talk to each other still lingers in the Middle Ages. We accelerate the creation of even more powerful things, but at the same time develop our society, and ways to talk to each other into the opposite direction. We are immature to deal with the things we already have, create even more of those, even more powerful, even more complicated, more challenging things while at the same time we become more and more immature, developing ways how to refuse responsibility, and blame others, instead to take responsibility, or at least slow down on creating even more responsibility.
It's like kids playing with real ninja swords, working on how to get those things even sharper, but refuse to grow up.
That's not good.
Example:
Imagine this AI thing may really work as business people paint us a pink future of all work will be done by machines.
Do we then all become stinking filthy rich, and live happily in luxury without doing any work at all?
Not only our society but also the value of our money is not based on gold, but on work done and things sold.
So, what will happen when there is massively less work? When the majority will not work anymore, because they can't, because machines do all the work? So they don't have no money anymore to buy things, which drops the turnover, which causes the value of money to drop massively. Which already is a problem today, since all those dragon hoards our billionaires snatch up is money withdrawn from the circle thus lowering its value. And what we do? We protect them, help them to increase their hoards, and think of ways how to stop money's value loss in other ways, for example by lowering people's wages, and removing people from work.
We cannot push the development and the progress of machines getting humans out of work fast enough. While at the same time we not only don't even think about how the real consequences will look like, how to deal with them, how our society shall work without jobs, but we think of ways how to make people depend on work even more.
All we have at the moment is:"Get a job you lazy bum!" This only is right if there were enough jobs. Just think of only all driver jobs getting lost when self driving cars become reality: taxis, busses, coaches, trucks, trains.
And there are many other large areas providing hundred thousands of jobs suffer the same fate. What job all those people shall do?
"You better had a better education!" This is a concept of competition for getting better pay, and also is only valid if there are enough jobs.
So what? We all become top qualified CEOs and the industry will employ 2 billion CEOs?
We already passed the line where there simply are not enough jobs anymore. Just because we developed ways of avoiding to look at this reality doesn't mean it's not true. This new technology at our hands will bring numbers of unemployment and missing jobs that cannot be disguised with some hundred years old catchphrases anymore.
"With every technical revolution there always have been new areas bringing new jobs!"
That's also an obsolete concept of the former millenium. Any new business area bringing new work brings new jobs for people only for what cannot yet be done by machines. With AI based robots machines can also do the new jobs created. So a new business field will not bring new jobs for people anymore.
So, what to do? How we deal with that?
The situation is already at our gates. Even if the new technology will not take over all jobs, a lot many will, maybe even more as we've lost with the last automation revolutions. Thirty years after we experienced the last larger automation spate our society still have no idea how to deal with it.
Urgent questions neither asked, nor discussed, not even remotely the slightest useful answer in sight. Still relying on concepts that were already obsolete fourty years ago.
But everybody is looking forward to and working frentically on those new technology may come even faster. We still push progress in automation, but in society progress lacks behind.
What people do when dammed up massive social progress is to breach uncontrollably? They turn the opposite way: regress - stagnation at best. Back to the Middle Ages!
Some say:"That's evolution! That's natural."
Evolution is the adaption of a species to changes of the environment. When a species cannot adapt to the changes fast enough it will be extinct. While we already have caused changes faster than any species can adapt to, we accelerate the changes of the environment even faster, and at the same time refuse to adapt to that changes.
"Natural" is not the proper word.
Many say:"Others will find a solution for that." And when those present their ideas for solutions, they are accused to be communists or anything. So those and the solutions are ignored, not delivering anything else useful instead. Just pick partially aspects of something, refusing to look at the whole picture, ignoring issues, procrastinating solutions, lay the responsibility for solutions on others, and then ignore those, is...paradox.
And that was my point I was trying to make in my former post:
Humans act paradox.
Another example:
In the 80s and 90s car's engines made large progress. They became way more efficient. So the motors needed way less fuel for the same power. Was the result the car's fuel consumption dropped? No. The consumption even rose! Because cars became larger, and got more features. All savings at one end are at least compensated, often overcompensated at another.
That's why I pointed out to be careful with hopes by creating savings. Not necessarily they actually produce real savings in the long term.
As long as the idea of having a happy life without even more consumer's junk is unthinkable, because it counteracts the capitalistic world of infinite growth, it cannot work. So long all savings are just a letter of indulgance for exuberance at another place. So long "green" is just a marketing stunt for to not feel bad about buying even more junk.
We need to reduce energy consumption,
and switch to renewable energy. What we do? We switch
partially to renewable energy. As the result we increase our energy consumption even faster, like we already had unlimited green energy at our hands. Now seeing our need for energy explodes, we don't talk about how to live, being satisfied with controllable, limited amounts of energy - at least until the transformation is done. No, we are having this tedious talk about nuclear energy, again, apart from it was proven several times in the last seventy years it ain't no solution to that problem at all.
There are dozens, hundreds, thousands of examples like that anybody can tell, be found quickly on the interent, or, if you are self-observing and self-critical, see in some points you're acting yourself this way.
Including myself. I give you that point.
Humans are no logical computers. Even if they claim they were modern, enlighted, educated, civilized, and acting based on science. Just to laugh about the people in the Middle Ages believed earth was the center of the universe doesn't make anybody more educated about centers seen today.
Humans are controlled by emotions, and social constraints, like greed, selfishness, refuse to take responsibility, so to refuse to admit errors.
Every programmer knows: Not the absence of errors brings progress. Only solving them does.
Avoiding to look at problems won't solve anything, no matter how clever ignorance is disguised. So become more creative in disguising ignorance only make things worse.
So, bottom line:
Facts and logical reasons alone are by far not enough to convince people.
That's why not seldom points appear logically right at the first glance are not always the right way to deal with things correctly. So sometimes solutions may look weird at the first glance.
I hope this was enough to understand
I did not say:"Throw bombs on people, and doctors refuse to help them."
