We are going into a what if terirory here and I don't think there is any good argument to be had there.
So I'm gonna end on this:
A copy is not an original. I am me, nothing more nothing less. There is no consent I can give prior to my existence. Going further into the analogy is pointless, life is not a surgery.
But no belief system I'm aware of that has endorsed a similar model has also endorsed an omnipotent creator,
Umm, Christianity? Just to name at least one major religion.
If I'm happy being me in the present, why rush being a happier me in the future if there is no time limit?
Same question but inverse, why not? There is nothing to loose and something to gain. So why would anyone bother building life now when there is guaranteed happiness with simple and easy path.
Saying I'm content with my situation and don't want to change isn't really an argument for either position. What existential gains are there for continuing? That would be an argument for your position.
If one's only concern is maximizing one's own happiness in the short term regardless of impacts on loved ones, then yes, those people probably would be better off accelerating paradise.
But that's the thing, there is no impact. Why shouldn't everyone else just go into eternal paradise? The whole issue with this hypothetical scenario is that it removes any need to live. At least Christianity has hell and sins to ballance it out. But in your case there are no existencial consequences, I can be as evil (which I have no desire for) or as good as I can and end up just the same.
And yes, that does come close to a question Why not be evil then and eat babies or something? The difference here is that we are social creatures among other social creatures (except some outliers), we feel empathy and generally don't want others to suffer. However even this argument breaks down somewhat when I keep unconditional paradise for everyone in the afterlife.
What if the afterlife was universally accessible like a participation prize and relative to each individual such that there wasn't a single idealized version of happiness?
Ok, if afterlife is universally accessible and is perfect for me and my concept of happiness, then it would make the most sense to seek this afterlife as much as I possibly can. Because we are talking about afterlife the only way to get there is to die. The most reasonable conclusion then is that there's no point in living and it's much more beneficial to just die and go to infinine paradise.
That's why afterlife with no rules makes no sense to me.
That's true. Unless you are the copy of an original, in which case the copy is you.
In which case I'm not the original, my point exactly.
Is it just to perform a painful surgery on a sick child in order to save their life?
The analogy breaks down rather quickly when you start to expand the definition of a surgery. Dying because of war is not surgery and if it is who and how decides on the goal of the surgery?
What if I don't want the surgery and want to live out the rest of my days in comfort?
Agree to disagree. The notion of cosmic justice for souls whose behavior in life is significantly dictated by the terms of their embodiment and environment is, to me, insane.
I actually agree with you. However my point is about a subjective morality rather than a cosmic one. Any definition of morality and meaning of life will ultimately break if this life is not the one and only. As soon as you try to fit afterlife into this you have to have some omnipotent power to define the rules of it. Otherwise none of your actions matter, you'll still get afterlife, be it heaven or hell.
Having life be finite and bound to physical conditions: being a social creature in an imperfect world. Is enough to have a robust and consistent moral rules and meaning. That's where my Occam's razor kicks.
In the end no matter what framework of thought you choose there is gonna be good and bad things and people doing them, hence not everyone will deserve happiness.
Maybe the point of life isn't absolute and is up to each person to find and define individually.
If there is any degree of intelligence in the design of the universe, the fact that there's no absolute frame of reference for macro observations and relative measurements of micro details might just be relevant.
And that's where my anger would stem from. If there is no knowable and proovable absolute truth. Than the simplest subjective frame of reference that makes sense is that there is no meaning or reason. Life is finite, make the best of it and enjoy it to the fullest because that's all there is.
I'm not going into the aspects of life that are not individual and affect others. There are law based, moral and social-utalitarian reasons why I would want to live in a society and bring as little suffering as I possibly can.
A couple of problems: a copy of me is not me, no amount of post-life paradise justifies injustice in life, not everyone deserve hapiness (no matter what moral framework you use), what is the point of life if there is an eternal paradice for everyone.
From the moment I introduce afterlife some sort of God becomes necessary for any morality to work.
Having no God works if I assume that life is finite. If life is finite then I must make myself as happy as possible. Living around and with people I can't just be as selfish as possible, I must conform to society if I want to be in society, otherwise I will make my life so much more difficult.
I don't want it. I have invested all of myself to the existence that I am. Why would I need to bother with it if there is afterlife.
Life is only as meaningful as it is fleeting. As soon afterlife comes into the equation it nulifies all of that. Then you must invent God as an arbiter that gives meaning to your life.
Assuming other implications (existence of an afterlife and God) with this scenario I would have but one question. Why? Why everything? Honestly I would be mad furious if there was an afterlife. More so if there was a God.
I doubt it. The moka pot in general is finicky. Unless you put milk or something into the coffee I find it rather harsh and I don't like milk in coffee.
This is 100 % a matter of technique, I can make a good cup of coffee with it. I just need to dial in grind and ratios right, but even then it's hard to control the temperature. By the time I go to that sputering hissy phase it becomes harsh and very bitter.
In general it's hard for me to find the sweet spot between battery acid and coal juice with a moka pot. Pourover is much more forgiving and consistent.
The only issue I see is the integer one. I highly doubt that the machine uses integers for handling data. It's a common practice to use decimals for anything money related. Other than that, there's no way in hell a casino is paying that amount of money and there must be safe guards that limit how often and how much can be won on a slot machine.
I've been running ubuntu and then pop_os for a couple of years now and honestly, I'm surprized how much stuff just works out of the box.
There are times when I need to tinker with the OS to make one thing or another work properly, but proton DB is quite a good resource for that. And I like it so it's not a big deal if I need to spend an hour messing around with the configurations.
Chromium has a mirror on GitHub and it's fine. While it feels a little strange to have just one mirror (on GitHub), after moving to git entirely, nobody is stopping to them from hosting a GitLab mirror.
O that's my pet peeve, I hate integrated git GUI's in IDE's. The only useful thing is file and code highlight for changes, other than that I disable that stuff as fast as possible.
There are things that my GUI of choice lack, so I occasionally type out a command, although I did also bind a couple of commands to GUI buttons, so there's that.
In my, rather short (5ish years profesionally), career I needed to rebase once. And it was due to some releasing fuck up, a branch had to be released earlier and hence needed to be rebased on another feature branch scheduled for release.
Otherwise, fetch ยป pull ยป merge, all day, every day.
We are going into a what if terirory here and I don't think there is any good argument to be had there.
So I'm gonna end on this:
A copy is not an original. I am me, nothing more nothing less. There is no consent I can give prior to my existence. Going further into the analogy is pointless, life is not a surgery.
Umm, Christianity? Just to name at least one major religion.I misread that so ignore it.