Good Farming with Adam Durey

It took me 10 years of philosophy, politics, work, and study to decide; Good Farming is the only thing that will save us.

@DeusDeadened @FuciMiNaKule @Jetskigrizzly Yeah well thats true, the hardest challange in life is to still have faith. Thats how they get ya.

@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

Blues would literally jump in a woodchipper and there’s zero difference

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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?

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 🍀

@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

@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.

@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.

@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?

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.

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.

@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

@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.

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.

@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.

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!

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.

@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.

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.

But everyone also survives if we all push red. Everyone acting in their own selfish interests actually gets you the optimal outcome.

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.

@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.

@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

@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.

"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

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.

@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.

@lymanstoneky Objectively more self serving - shows how far from christ the 'Christian Right' have fallen

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!

@HeritageUSA69 @NCyotee Funny way to admit you're a coward

@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

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.

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.

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.