Bro, just let XT-24 have a break.
Just give him a tramp stamp. Maybe a butterfly.
My question would be : are XT clones conditioned exactly the same? Because if so, XT-23 is lying. They do enjoy doing this shit and they’ve all been jerks since XT-1.
It was actually XT-15 that started drawing on the next clone, he had a bit of a rebellious phase in the vat he never quite grew out of.
He just told 16 that it was tradition and his just faded over time. It’s not like the guy fresh out of the jar knows tattoos are permanent… Yet.
Maybe XT-1 woke up with tattoos like this, but it said Dave the lab tech was here, and Dave was the only one to enjoy it.
Or a divergent xt started doing this shit and it seems like a tradition
We have to ask why a tattoo machine, ink, needles, and operating instructions were even put on the ship to begin with. My guess is that the progenitor of the clones is the biggest dick of all.
Depends on how souls actually work at a quantum level, some people, like NDGT, believe they don’t exist.
but if they do then there could be replicant drift from one generation to the next.
Hell honestly, you might not need something as profound as a soul to observe a replicant drift over time throughout a lineage. No matter how identical they are, 2 clones will have different life experiences ranging from things as minor as seeing events from 2 physically different locations in time or space up to something as major as experiencing important life events differently. I don’t believe it’s possible to stay the exact same when there’s so many differences in one life lived to another.
I bet xt prime wouldn’t even recognize himself in xt 24.
How do we know that XT models were the only models?
Who cares if they’re exactly the same out of the vat, their experiences after emerging won’t be, and they’ll mature into different individuals.
Just switch it to positive messages; you are loved, you are someone… A series of hearts. A nice pattern.
I <3 cock is a positive message.
Tradition is always the worst reason to do something.
If you had any other reason to do something, you would use that as an excuse.
I can come up with worse reasons than tradition.
Like, to satisfy a sadistic urge or to cause suffering.
Traditions can and often do serve some purpose even if we don’t see them in such a light.
Just as evolutionary traits, only beneficial ones tend to survive the test of time. (Not necessarily beneficial to the individual, but the group)
You’ve disconnected reason from the action and outcome. Killing someone will have bad outcome regardless of reason, but if your reason for the murder was some sort of tradition, it would imply that it’s justified in your eyes and you’d do it again, and also teach your children and community to do it, and normalise it, fight against legislation that would stop it etc. I believe it would be difficult, though probably not impossible, to formulate a reason worse than tradition without referencing tradition or custom in some way. And then there is also the frequency of how often traditions are used as reason or excuse to achieve a cruel outcome to consider. If baby pandas were no. 1 reason for human death in the world by few orders of magnitude, we would probably consider them “the worst” in some way.
What tradition are you talking about?
For example funeral rites help prevent disease from corpses. Without knowing anything about germs.
Or the taboo of incest can avoid genetic defects, without knowing anything about genes.
Traditions formed for a reason. And that reason is way more ancient and more natural than modern logic. It is simply survival.
The people with traditions that helped them survived more often.
Well seal clubbing is pretty bad for one. But the point isn’t whenever there are bad traditions, but whenever tradition is a good or bad reason to do something. Rites themselves do nothing, burying or burning the body does. Understanding why you’re doing something is vastly better than doing it because of some (possibly reasonable but unknown) ancient reason no one is able to point out. Taboo of incest is less related to traditions, and more to biology which causes people not to be attracted to their siblings in most cases. There is no ceremony or ritual to prohibition of incest, so I’d say it’s not a tradition. The tradition that have existed, however, was inbreeding of royal families, that wanted to keep their blood pure, which led to copious amount of incest and genetic defects. Many traditions rose from the dominance of one group over another and existed to legitimize this dominance further. Tradition of women being unable to vote, earn money or chose their spouse was born from the many generations of oppression. Tradition of black people being segregated away from white in USA was born out of dehumanization of slaves. There are many cases of traditional honor suicides (like seppuku) or honor killing (like stoning of women accused of adultery) in different traditions as well.
I could keep listing “bad traditions with bad reasons” but that’s not the point I’ve originally made, more of a reply to your point about traditions being born out of useful or natural/survival reasons, which I believe those examples should disprove. The point is still that doing something solely because of tradition is bad, you need knowledge to do that well and in current age there is absolutely no reason not to seek that knowledge. In the past, when people were illiterate an easily digestible oral tradition was useful thing, but we’re way past times when we have no good way to ensure the complicated reasons for doing things are preserved. What if some tradition results in oppression of some people and it’s source is unknown or so ancient it’s no longer applicable, should it be upkept? Conversely, should the ritual blood sacrifice be kept in the celebration of plentiful harvest to appease the gods, or should you only keep the parts like dancing around the bonfire and socializing, because those things are fun and healthy for the community?
If there is wisdom hidden in the tradition, then you want to figure it out, but if it’s kept cryptic, unknown and attempts to research it are met with disdain because someone tries to compromise your tradition, then it’s probably better to fuck around and find out what would happen if you didn’t perform the tradition. And if something bad happens, then at least you can write it down and pass to the next generation as the actual reason for doing things. I seriously doubt there is anything left in human traditions that was figured out in the past, and is currently impossible to decipher or comprehend just by analysis, without even doing empirical tests. And if for some reason something isn’t, then do those tests and find out. If you’re worried about some arcane knowledge of the ancients that is too enigmatic for us to understand just by looking, you can try doing something differently in isolated environment, with various precautions and on limited sample. No reason to keep it as “tradition” instead of “reason”, especially since the underlying reason could have been good, but due to no one knowing what it was, the method could have degenerated over the generations to the point of being ineffective.
Knowledge comes from practice. Humans always did things first before they gained the knowledge. Think of apprenticeship and the natural sciences for example.
What I have a big issue with is today’s notion that application follows knowledge. A top down approach where academia is isolated from the feedback of the real world. What the hell do I mean by that?
A business or an artist goes bust if they do not perform well, they have direct risks attached to their work. While we can produce ‘knowledge’ (institutional knowledge), new (made up) economic theories, new (un-replicable) psychological explanations and so on, without any apparent problem. The natural selective feedback is missing. Academia is gamified, most researchers know they could be doing more useful research, yet their grants and prospects of publications don’t let them.
So when I hear reason and understanding casually thrown around, I smell scientism (the marketing of science, science bullshit if you will) and not actual science. Because no peer review will be able to overrule what time has proven in the real world. And traditions are such things that endured. Usually someone realizes and writes another paper, disproving the previous one, advancing science.
Don’t get me wrong, there are and were many unambiguously bad traditions by modern standards, and I’m sure there will be more. But we, the people are the evolutionary filter of traditions. We decide which ones are the fit ones, which ones of the ones we inherited will we pass down and which to banish into history.
Traditions also make it harder to change problematic practices despite sufficient knowledge.
Who the fuck downvoted this.
Go back to the dark ages ya dumb fuck.
But we, the people are the evolutionary filter of traditions. We decide which ones are the fit ones, which ones of the ones we inherited will we pass down and which to banish into history.
Tradition is the lowest common denominator, and relying on our collective filter for social evolution is the least efficient metric by which to evaluate productive change; tradition is the worst reason.
Just give me one example where tradition is not the worst reason for doing anything (I know you did already but I am convinced tradition is still a worse reason that sadistic pleasure, both as a valid justification and in terms of net-negative suffering outcomes).
“Because I can”
Your unreasonable bias against any attempts to understand the world instead of relying on traditions of unknown origin does not substitute an argument against it. Neither empirical or analitical method of scientific research is limited to some sort of elitist and corrupt academia, so your view of academia being elitist and corrupt doesn’t disprove the efficiency of those methods. And no, the knowledge doesn’t come from practice at all, if it did then ritually practiced traditions would lead to understanding of their roots and their purpose, and humans didn’t learn about spreading of diseases from burial rites, but rather from events when those rites weren’t practiced. Furthermore, we didn’t learn how to deal with those diseases from the traditions, but rather from breaking away from them and studying bodies instead of getting rid of them - which faced much backlash from the church, which wanted to uphold tradition no matter what.
The knowledge comes not from practice, but from study, from testing different approaches and writing down what worked, until you get testing sample high enough to figure out why it worked. And then, people who figured it out probably taught others what to do without sharing in enough details why it works, and puff you have a tradition. And if people do share why stuff works and publish their research data and methodology, then we have knowledge, based on which other researchers can conduct their own research, check if they get similar results and whatnot. Peer review is a rather robust standard for truth, as far as human capabilities go.
Academia being gamified in a way that only approved research gets funding or spotlight has nothing to do with traditions themselves being any good either. Most often power is legitimized via tradition, and many scientific institutes were muzzled because power following tradition found their pursuit of knowledge undesireable. The fact that many research topics are taboo is direct result of that.
Lastly, your idea that the academia is isolated from the “feedback” of the “real world” is completely nonsensical. Nothing that’s not peer reviewed isn’t treated as particulary valuable, and you peer review the research by repeating the tests with the same methodology. That’s specifically the feedback from the real world. Any sort of feedback that shows some parts of tradition should be changed is commonly met with resistance however, so it stands to reason that the opposite of what you claimed is actually the truth, and it’s tradition that suffers from lack of the “feedback from the real world”.
I guess you are unfamiliar with iatrogenics. A good example is the case of Semmelweis, who discovered that pregnant women were dying at higher rates IN THE HOSPOTAL compared to births at home.
The reason wasn’t known before. But turned out the doctors didn’t wash their hands between autopsy and delivering babies.
Oops!
So in the cases where I burn corpses, and wear a condom while fucking my sister, wouldn’t it be better if my reasons were to stop disease and genetic defect?
If someone asked why I was wearing a condom I could say “so she doesn’t get pregnant, also, you want in on this Dad?”, and that’s better than “because”
Reasons are a human invention to help make sense of the world. If you want to base everything on logical grounds you will run into two things mainly:
-
Limits of knowledge. Knowledge is always incomplete, as more of it opens up more questions. There are things you intuitively know are good, but can’t prove why they are.
-
Systemic limits of logical reasoning. A sufficiently powerful and consistent formal system (such as formal logic) is incomplete, it cannot prove its own correctness. (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems)
Yeah, but it is better to give a valid reason, as opposed to “because”, right?
Can you give a reason though? I guess a child haven’t asked you an endless chain of whys yet. By the end of which you can’t say ‘why’ just that ‘that’s how it is’, you’ve reached the limit of knowledge.
Of course when available knowledge is preferable.
-
Satisfying a sadistic urge will generally have a bad outcome (unless your target is a masochist), but as a reason, it is actually better than tradition.
If murdering people and rearranging their body parts was just “tradition”, it would be infinitely worse than someone doing it out of self satisfaction.
Traditions do often serve purpose, take for instance the birthday song. We say we do it for “tradition”, but the real reason is because it’s a familiar song everyone can participate in singing, to direct cheer at the birthday-twat. It’s generally fun.
The effect of a tradition is usually not apparent. They aren’t created consiously or in a goal oriented way.
They usually emerge naturally as a social behavior.
There are also a lot of vestigial traditions that once served an important purpose. (Eg dowry)
I wouldn’t go that far. Some traditions can be a positive that help give people a sense of shared community: christmas trees, presents and gluhwein for christmas, turkey for thanksgiving, etc
Found the German :p
There are better reasons for all those things.
“Because the decorating the Christmas tree is fun and it looks pretty”
“Because it’s nice for me to give and receive gifts”
“Because Turkey tastes good”
Those are also all the reasons those things became traditional in the first place.
Sure, and I’m not claiming otherwise.
690 years in case anyone was wondering lol
690 years since the XT line began. If they started at AA-00, we’re looking at 1,851,690 years.
Nice! I wouldn’t have noticed that.
Ever see the movie “Moon”?
Is that the one starring Sam Rockwell? Duncan Jones’ first outing?
Yep
He just wanted to go home :(
The sheer number of penises starring in that film
This is fantastic. Was not expecting the punchline.
Young me would have missed the personal interaction. Older, less hormonally-motivated me would be fine if the accommodations were nice, reasonably large, and contained a good, Linux-based, powerful computer, a copy of the entire Library of Congress archives, and deep clones of Github and Sourcehut. A decent, fast, current generation AI setup would go a long way to filling any gaps. I think I could probably live for several decades - maybe centuries - left to my own devices. Until the literature and media ran out.
I’d like to be able to work with AI systems to generate movies from my favorite sci-fi books. Just, throw literature at it, give it some direction, tweak the output, have a ton of dedicated processing power and a lot of free time, and no copyrights to worry about.
Until the literature and media ran out.
Man, I easily completely forget shit from 10 or 20 years ago, I bet if you just keep creating you could entertain yourself for a lot longer!
Give me all the Toy Story Films, plus a 2 week amnesiac pill every 2 weeks. I’ll be fine
I would love you and others to find and watch this classic episode of the Twilight Zone: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_at_Last My guts tell me there’d always be something missing like that.
I had thoughts of landing in a solitary confinement. Having media, tools, manuals and even internet at hand would make it pretty bearable, but I’d still probe the question of waking up another clone to have a company. Being there with their asses in a cryogenic sleep for decades would make me think about it thousands of times and it’d be really hard not to question the guidelines and test this opportunity.
For my trip I’ll take this fine list above, plus a copy of all of the legal ethically made pornography.
Ten lines of text would cover all your AI-generated porn needs
Traditions = Generational Trauma
They all mean “courage” in some archaic language.
Or “Small charcoal grill.”
Classic XT-22
What a vicious circle. 😉
He only has himself to blame ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
my 30-year* life cycle
