Ron Campbell

The Internet was a mistake

All of the arguments for euthanasia fail. Even if I agreed that people have some kind of moral right to kill themselves (which I don’t), euthanasia wouldn’t be needed to exercise that “right.” You can already kill yourself. The idea that people need some kind of state sponsored system just to commit suicide is totally incoherent, even on its own terms. And those term are totally deranged because in truth, again, there is no moral right to suicide. But that’s almost a separate question, or at least a question further downstream. When it comes to euthanasia, the first and most immediate question is not whether people have the right to kill themselves, but whether the STATE and the MEDICAL INDUSTRY have the right to kill people. Should doctors be in the business of deliberately killing human beings? Should we have a bureaucracy for suicide? These are the real questions. And even if you (wrongly) think that humans have a moral right to murder themselves, you should still be able to see why doctors and bureaucrats ought to have no role in it.

If suicide is “death with dignity” then how exactly is it more dignified to be put down like a dog in some sterile room after filling out paper work than to simply do it yourself completely on your own terms without dragging any accomplices into it and asking permission ahead of time? Again, I absolutely categorically unequivocally reject the idea that any form of suicide is dignified. I am anti-suicide in any iteration whatever. I’m just pointing out that even if you accept the extraordinary premise that suicide can be more dignified than a natural death, it still wouldn’t follow that euthanasia should be legalized. Societies across the world, even back in ancient times, have believed (wrongly) in committing suicide to preserve dignity and honor. But in all of those cases — seppuku in Japan, for example — the thing that supposedly made it honorable and dignified was that you were doing it by your own hand, often in a way that was deliberately MORE painful than a natural death would have been. Ours is the first society in history to suggest that being euthanized clinically in the exact way that stray dogs are put down — and by someone else’s hand, not your own — is the dignified way to go out. It’s totally incoherent. It fails even by its own logic.

I know that government can make people’s lives better because I’ve experienced it firsthand. That’s what we need to focus on, and that’s why I’m running to be your next governor.

Some of you aren’t ready for this. But the split-level or raised ranch is a really nice live. Bedrooms upstairs away from living/dining. That means you can entertain later without bothering kids.

Starting in 2027, all new passenger vehicles will be required to have Infrared cameras, eye‑tracking, head‑position monitoring, and behavioral impairment detection. A biometric babysitter in every car. No vote. No opt‑out. Just mandatory. It’s control tech, plain and simple.

Washington State Senate passed "HB 2320" which bans "unlicensed 3D printing, CNC milling and CAD which may aid in firearm production" Many Americans are about to get an unjust Class C Felony Bill is sponsored by Osman Salahuddin, his parents moved here from Pakistan

Here's a little ramble about my mission and purpose. First, an assumption based upon trends: human cognition will have zero marginal utility within 2 to 3 years. AI is already more intelligent than humans across most domains, but human intuition, autonomy, and some other characteristics are still superior. But this will not last. Second, I've codified my MTP (Massively Transformative Purpose) to "accelerate the transition to a post-labor economy" - the AI and robotics are coming automatically. There's nothing I need to do to help that along. What is NOT guaranteed is that society, business, and government will adapt to fact 1 correctly. I mean, reality will assert itself and, ready or not, civilization will have to come to terms with the fact that human labor's value is going to drop to zero very soon. All of my work on post-labor economics flows from these assumptions (which are very well supported by data, trends, and research, but I must concede; still assumptions). On the one hand, there's the first order reason I want this future: I want my youth back. I want a world of possibility and agency. I want to travel and go to festivals and raves and whatever else. But I can only do that if I get my youth and my health back, and that can only be done with advanced AI and a civilization that makes its mission to maximally automate and distribute the benefits. The underlying tech is coming. So that's really the hard part done. If you told someone even fifty years ago "invent a technology that can solve genetics, disease, computer science, physics, law, literature, and all that stuff, in one single technology" they would have rightfully declared you insane and said it was impossible. But here we are. We're on the cusp of the final invention of humanity. The true omnitool we've dreamt of. So what's the barrier, then? What's the holdup? There's a few things. First, plain old ignorance. "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance." Plain vanilla ignorance. People don't even know what's available *today* let alone *what's coming.* The next thing is a fetish for labor. Due to Calvinism and the Protestant work ethic, we've had several centuries of drudgery being elevated to holiness. The grind is sacrosanct. The hustle is a sign of virtue and righteousness, and anything else is sinful, lazy, and shameful. Third is a failure of imagination. It's difficult to fully wrap your head around the civilizational operating system that we're building. It started with computers, then the internet, and now AI and robotics. We're building the "fully automated luxury space communism" primitives as we speak. But due to normalcy bias and other cognitive failures rooted in our evolution, most people cannot read the writing on the wall. So that's my work. I'm focusing on getting us across that finish line, but here's the silver lining - I only need to get to about 10% of the population before beliefs change. Then about 25% of the population before social norms change. And, like I said, this wave is coming whether or not people or ready, and weather or not I do anything. I'm just helping prepare the way. But there will be much resistance. Myopic people are already viewing AI as a left-vs-right political problem, not humanity's most important project. Others are focused on slop and copyright, not the total liberation of humanity from drudgery. And yet others look at this technology and think it spells doom rather than abundance. Our species' emotional and epistemic immune systems are fully online. Now it's time to tone down the overreaction and move forward.