Tweet fixado
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 Entrou em Ekim 2021
249 Seguindo334 Seguidores
All the reds arguments seem to imply blues have to something, they have to self immolate, they have to get in the blender, get in the wood chipper.
But they don't have do materially do anything more than pick a button, a button has to be pushed, that is all.
Implying material action actually changes the conditions of the thought exercise and is intellectually dishonest.
Can i ask, all things being equal, what do you truly believe the actualy voting distribution would be? 50/50?
English
The entire essence of being a red voter is that you’re not swayed by group consensus lmao
just matt@questionableway
last thing i’ll say about the button is that it’s pretty strange how few red voters change their position upon learning there is a substantial contingent of blue voters
English
@Jayseki The more i talk about it, the more i feel like 40/60 could still have me vote blue - but the line is definitely somewhere, maybe 70 or 80.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam so what you are saying here is that, if the threshold for blue success rose to 60%, you would switch to red?
English
here's the thing about this thought experiment: the % threshold where everyone is saved (50% here) is *crucial* to the decision, yet very few people focus on it at all!
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
Yes I think if it took 60% blue to save everyone then most would switch, it would be a hard decision, it would hurt me to do it, but no, the more blues it takes to save, the less you can rely on pure altruism and faith to protect the common good.
Conversely, if it took 60% Red to kill the Blues, alot of reds would progressively have more faith they could come over to blue.
But the self preservation and universal mistrust of reds is deep, it could be 99% red to kill blues and many would still not budge.
Sadly, it could be 1% reds to kill, and many honest hearts would still die.
Such is the way of the world.
English
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @gfodor no it isnt. if you had to vote for someone ELSE, would you vote blue?
if you had to vote for your parent or child or lover, are you going to have that same faith in the collective goodwill of humanity or will you acknowledge that red is the better choice for them
English
“I would vote blue to save people who voted blue because they don’t understand the question but those who voted red because they don’t understand the question are horrible people”
Put it in the louvre, this is pure crystal-distilled tribalism
PoliticalAndy@AndyPolitical
@gfodor it was, you're just a horrible person that didn't pay attention to the question and would've killed a bunch of children
English
@Jayseki The world is mostly made of perfect equals, anything less that 50/50 is exponentially weighted against the common good.
English
@Jayseki At 40% Red to kill I switch, and I think most people would - the odds are clearly stacked against the honest - its intuitively a harder sell and no longer down to the common natural deviation of thought.
English
@FelineEntity Why is the logical answer red? Logic is mechanical, red is self preservation, there is no intrinsic link between the 2.
English
This is a wonderful question btw.
The logical answer is red.
However, humans aren't perfectly logical creatures.
So the empathetic answer is blue, because red WILL kill people.
Will you stay logical and kill? Or will you stay empathetic and risk your life?
It's a great conundrum.
vittorio@IterIntellectus
why would anyone even press blue?!?
English
@DrDoolittle412 @redtachyon Ok now you're just in denial, flailing around reason, making accusations.
Ill pray for you man.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @redtachyon Nobody wants EVERYBODY to live. You say you do, but you don't live that way. Bet you're pro-choice.
English
Why do people treat this as some kind of a dunk?
If I vote red, and then blue wins, why should I be coping about anything? I don't give a shit. Buttons are pressed, everyone lives, cool. I'm not making a prescription of "everyone should press red", I'm just choosing for myself.
Danielle Fong 🔆@DanielleFong
get game theory mogged once again, game theory advocates. everybody lives, and now you're in copeaganda about how you're not mean and wrong
English
@breakingbaht @waitbutwhy My IQ is 187 and I voted blue
English
@breakingbaht @waitbutwhy Bro you literally tried to kill everyone and are upset that they all lived so they're not as smart as you
English
@aresteanu @waitbutwhy The self immolation is remarkable, even in your fantasy you think blues are better than you
English
@waitbutwhy But I do really want to live amongst people that will shame me for having pressed the red button?
x.com/aresteanu/stat…
The Artist Formerly Known@aresteanu
once again. midwits are the problem
English
@robertgraham Most people chose blue and your only argument is no if i put them in real danger and made them more scared they'd vote like me.
Funny way to admit your a coward.
English
I keep seeing this in my feed.
No.
If it's a hypothetical question, when your life isn't actually on the line, most people choose "blue". More would choose "red" if their life were actually at stake.
Economists experience this all the time, where surveys asking people what they WOULD buy for a price differ strongly from what they actually DO buy when the price changes.
If we cut movie ticket prices in half, how many times more often would you go to the movies? What people answer on such a survey differs a lot from how they actually respond to changes in movie ticket prices.
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
@dannycantalk Its crazy because you can even see most people hit blue and youre still stuck in this self-preserving denial
English
Most people will press red in this scenario. You pressing blue will not change this.
In reality the scenario is: "If you press the blue button, you will die. If you press the red button, you will live. There are no other effects."
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 That is the reason I settled on faith, I have not found a harder challange.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly Maybe you're right and in some way my spirit and hope for humanity has been broken by what I have seen.
Most events are beyond our control. Including what button we press.
We're just along for the ride.
English
Blues would literally jump in a woodchipper and there’s zero difference
English
@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly Well you dont get to value judgements from experience alone, so theres something else you think is real that you're not disclosing.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly I perceive. I experience. This is valuable. This is all there is. I am deeply passionate about this.
Whether it is real or not doesn't matter - what matters is that I cannot deny that I exist and cannot deny that I perceive. I cannot be sure of aught else.
English
@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly Yeah well thats true, the hardest challange in life is to still have faith.
Thats how they get ya.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly I reject common faith in humanity, yes. Unlike most participating in this conversation, I have witnessed events which would make your stomach turn and head roll. In which there was no humanity. The idea that people are cooperative and caring has been disproven before my very eyes
English
@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly Bro if you dont think the world is even real, how is your live more inherently valuable than people who are deeply passionate about the world.
You dont care at all, let them enjoy it.
If nothing's real then dont come.
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
@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