Tweet Disematkan
It took me 10 years of philosophy, politics, work, and study to decide; Good Farming is the only thing that will save us.
English
Good Farming with Adam Durey
4.6K posts
Good Farming with Adam Durey
@GoodFarmingAdam
Regenerative, Organic, Bio-Dynamic, Syntropic - Its all Good Farming.
Australia Bergabung Ekim 2021
249 Mengikuti334 Pengikut
@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly I believe the kingdom of heaven is real, and I think its highly likely the spiritual and material exists based on experience and probability.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly You're more materialistic because you believe that the material world is 100% real - that other people are 100% real and there is measurable value in *attempting* to save them regardless of outcome.
I say there is more measurable value in my actually real experience of existing.
English
Blues would literally jump in a woodchipper and there’s zero difference
English
@chaosbomdotcom @Jetskigrizzly Its pretty obvious you vote from a place of fear rather than truth or faith.
I can tell by this deluge of whataboutism.
What on earth does the save everyone button have to do with the kill Canadians who cant afford rent button?
English
This is a lot of meaningless slop which is typical of members of the woke commie death cult. I’m not responsible for anyone other than myself in this hypothetical exercise.
I know the people I care about and people who have basic critical thinking skills and survival instincts will also press red and choose to not play Russian roulette.
You can’t guilt me into putting my life on the line for strangers who are either retarded, mentally ill, in a death cult, or all of the above.
I know all your indoctrination tricks and do feel badly for those poor souls you’ve convinced suicidal empathy is somehow the righteous path, but it won’t work on me, anyone in my extended family, or anyone I care about. We will all live. I pray you don’t convince too many to commit suicide, but it’s not hard to see that people pushing the blue option or the same who are in favor of Canada’s MAID program.
Good luck 🍀
English
@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly That is the most hypermaterialist world view I have ever heard.
"My experience is all there is"
Its insane you would take offence to my pointing out the obvious
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly My personal experience in the present is all there is.
There is no 80 years, there is no future or past. All that is material is simply a product of the now.
Not only is there no guarantee I'll save anyone, there's no guarantee they're real. There is a guarantee I am real.
English
@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly There's a study on this also.
And also a common faith in humanity that you reject.
everybody knows people WILL vote blue, everybody wants those people to live.
Youre squirming dude.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly Social media panopticon polls only show about a 10% blue victory. That isn't anywhere near enough to convince me their real choice under pressure would be the same en masse.
It isn't a "choice to save" - its suicide. Who am I to stand between you and the abyss?
English
Your probability of effecting the outcome is actually substantial.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
Thesis: If everyone presses the red button, everyone lives, so you should press the red button.
Antithesis: Some people will inevitably press the blue button—by accident, ignorance, immaturity, etc.—so you should press the blue button to help save them.
Synthesis: Your probability of affecting the outcome by pressing the blue button is negligible, so you should press the red button.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly You are literally more materialistic, you said your personal experience extending for another 1-80 years is worth "infinitely more" than the chance to save every life on earth
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly I take mild offence at the suggestion that I'm more materialistic than you given that your faith demands no real spiritual practice whatsoever lmao.
English
Jews reject jesus and reject faith in Christ.
Jews undoubtedly pick red to save the chosen people at any cost.
You don't say that with certainty, you say it with anger and fear, you dont know people you love wont vote blue, and you dont care enough to risk yourself for their safety.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly My loved ones aren't doing retarded utilitarian math to figure this out. They're saying "I want to live" and pressing red. It's cute that you think your Jewish interpretation of Indra is what makes you compassionate/stupid enough to press blue.
Fàilte air diathan mo shluaigh.
English
PRESSING THE BLUE BUTTON IS NOT COOPERATING!!
Pressing the blue button is defecting in an attempt to a murder-suicide pact for half of humans!
Derek Pederson 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇻🇪@DerekPederson3
Honestly this survey is an enormously strong cutting point against both right-libertarian economic views and "offensive realist" foreign policy views. The world just does not correspond to their beliefs about how it "should" work from theory. People are too damn cooperative!
English
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @Jetskigrizzly That wasn’t the question. Are you as illiterate as the wood chipper voters? Or trying to pretend people who exercise sovereign agency to live are somehow bad. Why would anyone kill themselves for nothing? It’s illogical and flies in the face of basic human instincts.
English
Yeah but your argument assumes 100% of people have to be as self interested you.
My argument only needs 50% of people to be atleast vaguely selfless.
And the research already shows i still save your life regardless.
And blue is objectively correct anyway.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
But everyone also survives if we all push red. Everyone acting in their own selfish interests actually gets you the optimal outcome.
David Shor@davidshor
We asked this to a large sample of nationally representative Americans - blue wins by a 3:1 margin!
English
Yeah but if your a sad self-interested cunt just say it, dont make out that is the logical or rational choice - rationality isnt inherently self-interested - just you are.
You dont care if your loved ones die, your idols, people in your community, kids.
You'd dont care - intuitively - thats your nature.
You can find jesus and overcome that, or you can be selfish and materialistic forever.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly 1. My life is infinity times more valuable to me than a strangers.
2. The people that chose to press blue have nothing to do with me pressing red. If everyone maximised their self interest, 0 people would risk a death not explicitly desired.
3. Utility as morality is dumb.
English
@Snack_0verflow Yeah but people vote Blue
Its not really an argument to say if they voted Red, alot of people vote blue and I'm on team people
The meme abides
English
@GoodFarmingAdam "But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives."
Blue gives the *chance* of everybody living, even the ones who don't want to (because they picked blue).
Red *guarantees* that everybody *who wants to live* does.
English
"Those selfish red button pressers wanna murder all of us blue button pressers!!! >:c"
You're literally free to not press the "russian roulette for me pls" button; no benefit whatsoever to partaking in this pointless gamble
Red: 42.1%
Blue: 57.9%
You can't make this shit up
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
Blue is objectively and morally the correct answer.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly We already know who the blues are to be fair, they're the people with massive indents in their heads where the frontal lobe usually is.
English
@lymanstoneky Objectively more self serving - shows how far from christ the 'Christian Right' have fallen
English
This seems like strong proof that right wing voters are actually smarter.
If you just stay at the status quo, everything is fine! Blue button pushers are insane! It’s pointless suicide! We can just all pretend buttons don’t exist (ie push the red button) and be fine!
David Shor@davidshor
We asked this to a large sample of nationally representative Americans - blue wins by a 3:1 margin!
English
@HeritageUSA69 @NCyotee Funny way to admit you're a coward
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @NCyotee We’ve run this scenario precisely zero times. You’re talking about people VOTING blue where there is a 0% chance of actually dying
English
Yes, not committing suicide means you can't cooperate.
MFer, this isn't he prisoner's dilemma.
There's no reason for anyone to vote blue. So there's no reason to vote blue to try to "save" anyone. There's nothing to "save" them from because they can just not take the risk.
CuteAndFunny💢ᵃˡᵗ@CuteAndFunnyAlt
Groups where RED wins, most probably aren't able to cooperate to do anything productive They probably can't return the shopping cart to it's place either
English
The rational choice is blue
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
The rational choice is red, as it wins in both scenarios.
The reason blue even exists and currently leads is the social signaling value of empathy (and the recursion, signaling an assumption of empathy).
A subjective vs intersubjective choice. Tells you a lot about a person.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@TheAhmadOsman 5.5 chews usage man, its a hungry hippo
English
To celebrate GPT-5.5, OpenAI should reset the limits
If you agree with this message, mention your favorite OpenAI person to let them know
Ahmad@TheAhmadOsman
GPT-5.5 just dropped TL;DR: This is another o1 / o3 moment - Shorter, more human, actual personality - Clearly pushing into personal agents (OpenClaw) - Higher info / Token density → Cheaper to reach GPT-5.4-level intelligence It codes different: - Less bloat - Cleaner, readable output Codex: - Frontier agentic coding - Backend > Claude Opus 4.6 - Give it specs and it will build it - Handles large codebases, long runs, visual iteration loops GPT-5.5 Pro: - Does 30-90 min runs cohesively like it’s nothing - Writes full docs, uses tools well - Can solve basically anything Tradeoffs: - Slower than Opus - More expensive per token - (but more efficient overall) GPT-5.5 is the new bar
English
Its both morally and objectively wrong.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
It's reaaaaally hard to switch to blue button, because most blue arguments boil down to stupid moral grandstanding like this.
Dr Kareem Carr@kareem_carr
If you press blue, the worst case is you die. If you press red, the worst case is you took part in an action that killed just under half of humanity. Clicking blue minimizes the worst-case moral injury. It says you’d rather die than risk contributing to the death of another.
English