Life Started 3.8 Billion Years Ago, A First Principles Look at Reproductive Rights

[@JAdams-t6g]

Thank you for this video, David! You ARE smart!!

[@nephastgweiz1022]

I think there are quite a few flawed arguments in there. Let me just preface my comment by saying that I don't have a particular opinion in this regard : 9:40 : Your argument of abortion being a slippery slope that will/could induce laws against black people, gays or trans is... literally a sophism of slippery slope. People who are against abortion consider the foetus in the womb as a human life, and therefore abortion as murder. I don't see how fighting against what they consider murder sets a precedent against black people, gays or trans, because any of these do not involve killing. I could very well use the same slippery slope logic to argue that abortion (killing a fetus) sets a dangerous precedent for deleting a life if people deem it appropriate, which could be dangerous for black people, gays or trans. Your argument that criminalizing abortion is a slippery slope to criminalizing black people or something else relies on no particular logic. Those are two separate subjects with no particular relations. One of your main points is bodily autonomy. I find it surprising that you don't consider the main problem : when you're pregnant, there's more than your own body, but also the body of the child growing inside you, which by the way is also the child of the father. I mean why do you think people aren't fighting against someone getting tattoos, but are fighting against abortion ? You're conflating "regulating abortion" with "regulating reproductive organs", which is also a sophism, because those are not the same, although there is an overlap. Abortion involves deleting a fetus. Why do think people aren't fighting against piercings on the clitoris or whatever, but are fighting against abortion ? The matter is not about reproductive organs but about aborting or not a fetus, which of course involves reproductive organs. 11:30 : You say reproductive rights are considered fundamental rights, as if this should be an argument of sufficient authority. In the context of this conversation it can not be. Many people disagree with these reproductive rights, why would caracterizing them as "fundamental" should give them more credit ? I could also ask you, what about the man's reproductive rights ? Are they not fundamental ? Should he have no say whatsoever whether his child is going to live or end up in a bin ? What about the rights of that fetus to live ? 12:05 : Reduction of suffering. Who exactly decided whether abortion allowed a reduction of suffering ? A reduction of suffering for who ? The mother ? Probably. The fetus ? Well no, we're killing him. The father ? If he wants the abortion, surely, if he doesn't, this creates suffering. Should women suffering prevail over men and children suffering ? From an utilitarian standpoint, no. You might argue that the fetus doesn't suffer because he's dead, but I could argue that we could let the mother give birth and then kill her ? She won't suffer because she's dead. Your increase in prosperity argument is not valid on a macroeconomic scale. Anyone knows that today one of the greatest dangers to societies economy is underpopulation. From an utilitarian perspective, I could argue that abortion harm the prosperity. Your "pragmatic solution" to demographic collapse is life extension. Life extension poses the same problem from an economic perspective as demographic collapse : the old citizens are more and more numerous, and the working portion of society can not produce enough riches to pay for them. The demographic collapse problem is mostly an economic problem, and your solution to it is to worsen the economic problem. 15:07 : You're conflating abortion with "self-termination". Abortion is not self-termination, that would be suicide. Abortion is the termination of the fetus, which is not the same at all. 17:05 : You're equating women's reproductive rights to sticking to "our principles of equality". This is a sophistic reframing of the problem. Abortion is not and can not be "equality". The more you're giving reproductive rights to women, the more you're negating men's reproductive rights, who have to sit back and just wait to see if the child is going to get killed or not. You're also negating the fetus rights to life. This is a complicated question, but abortion certainly is not the "equal" solution, because it is purely one-sided. Maybe there is no other solution, but then we should give men other kind of reproductive rights to compensate this inequality. Such as, the right to abort financially. Where I live, if the man wants the baby but the mother does not, the baby gets aborted. If it's the other way around, then the man has to provide for the child financially. Emotions aside, nothing about this is equal.

[@robertlipka9541]

You addressed a lot of points plausibly. I will disputed just one instance where you totally jumped the shark. Life extension does not mean longer retirement, as the name suggests, it means longer life... and ideally it means more youthful years. Therefore, life extension TOTALLY addresses demographic collapse, as people would both live and contribute to society for longer. Presumably life extension will be cheaper than raising new children so it will address this problem which in the West is caused by economic factors making it too expensive for an average person to settle down and raise children. Ultimately though these economic problems and wealth distribution have to be addressed directly.

[@nephastgweiz1022]

@@robertlipka9541 Hey Robert thank you for taking the time to read my lenghthy comment, I was pretty sure I wrote it for nothing ! You’re raising a good point, and I actually took it into account but didn’t take the time to justify my stance. As you said, longer life expectancy will hopefully also mean longer healthy life expectancy, thus longer « working life » and a contribution to the economy for a longer time. But you have to see (I think) the question from an optimization stand point. If tommorow, life expectancy increases 10 years, how many years would people have to work to compensate, so that there is no additional strain on pension ? Right now, people spend around 20% of their life in retirement. I know this is way more complex and involves more factors, but to keep it simple, if life expectancy increases of 10 years, people would have to work 8 more years just to keep things the same (not solving any problems, just not worsening it). Meaning, 8 of these 10 years of life expectancy must be HEALTHY life expectancy increase, and MUST be spent working. Now that already seems unrealistic to me. Now you also have to take into account that people are less productive at the tail end of their careers, across all fields but especially those that involve some type of physical labor or proficiency. Intellectual works are not immune to this effect though. Now consider all the additional healthcare costs. People who are 50 to 60 yo right now are considered to be in their « healthy » and productive years, yet they have a bigger strain on healthcare than 20 to 30 yo. You start developing chronic diseases, your back goes to shit, your eyesight goes to shit, your dental health is slowly falling apart. Even in the case of 80% of life expectancy increase being « healthy », these problems wont disappear but just exist for longer. Also I wouldn’t say that an increase in life expectancy adresses the demographic collapse problem, because the demographic collapse is a result of low fertility rates. Even if you have an advanced society where people live to be 100 years in perfect health condition, if their fertility rates are lower than 2,1, they still will be in a demographic collapse situation. Pro-natalist policies would do more for demographic collapse than an increase in life expectancy. Regardless it is well known that right now and for the foreseeable future, an increase in life expectancy means a higher dependency ratio (fewer workers supporting more retirees).

[@robertlipka9541]

@@nephastgweiz1022 ... I think we are talking about different kinds of life extension. You are making valid arguments around classically lengthening lifespans and associated problems. This channel and the author's other channel refer to making people young again (biological immortality)... in this context fertility rates and peak physical and mental performance are not a problem.

[@nephastgweiz1022]

​@@robertlipka9541 Right I just rewatched that portion of the video and he does mention people living forever, my bad. Although I find it weird and intellectually dishonest to address common pro-life arguments with fantasy/science-fiction arguments

[@robertlipka9541]

@@nephastgweiz1022 the author believes that AI will make biological immortality possible within our lifetimes, or even within years. I am not so sure, but it would be nice.

[@GubekochiGoury]

I knew you were smart from your other channel but I wasn't aware that you also were based A.F.! Good on you!

[@weredragon1447]

As a random side note I wanted to say I love the format of this video. Very sharp. It is a good balance between the slides and seeing your face. Great production quality. As for the content? I was really nervous because I have very strong feelings and opinions about this issue, and I really love your AI videos, I didn't want my experience of that to be tainted. But I think your arguments are presented well. It was fairly non inflammatory, for such a hot button topic. I agreed with you for the most part. And you didn't piss me off. 😂 Well done.

[@atrocitasinterfector]

as someone who is pro-choice and was pro-life in the past, the majority of the pro-life movement did not appear to be incentivized by a reaction of lack of control of women, the most passionate pro-life people i encountered simply consider pre-born babies to be morally equivalent to individual infants, and since are against infanticide apply the logic accordingly, utilitarian arguments for infanticide is the true slippery slope, the best reasons that support the pro-choice side are the facts that a fetus before a certain number of weeks lacks the brain structures required for meaningful activity and is therefore not a even a sentient organism, also there is a foundational sense that those responsible for the breeding or initiation of the new individual organisms development have a parental or caregiver obligation, if i put my child in a dependent state that requires my body to live, i would think I'd be obligated to provide my body for his survival and this is not gender specific, and lack of parental responsibility is the root of all social problems in the world, unwanted pregnancies can be easily prevented in most cases.... also as an anarcho-captialist most of the arguments against state interference in bodily autonomy work to delegitimize the state as a whole, which is great but most pro-choicers don't see it that way

[@owusyrart1443]

This is tangential to the core of your comment, but in my view any form of anarchism is untenable on large spatial and temporal scales unless humans are somehow reprogrammed to be substantially less self-interested. Anarcho-capitalism would result in de facto state-like entities that compel and constrain human behavior on mass scales. Unless violence were somehow deprogrammed from human behavior, these entities would certainly employ violent methods as a game theoretic inevitability. Someone must own the monopoly on violence. Anarchism begets hierarchy and equality requires authoritarianism.

[@atrocitasinterfector]

@@owusyrart1443 your reply made me think of this quote by Michael Malice - "What are presented as the strongest arguments against anarchism are inevitably a description of the status quo"

[@andreaskrbyravn855]

women also wants atleast someone on their income level or above

[@kbystryakov]

And shall we also equalize these social groups completely in wealth, opportunities, health and rights? 1) Upper class (Capitalist class, The super-rich ) 2) Upper middle class (The Rich) 3) Lower middle class 4) Working class 5) Working poor 6) Underclass (The poor) And can we also think of caste system in India. Shall we destroy that too?

[@TheIgnoramus]

As of now, I’m fairly certain our definition of what life is, might be completely recontextualized. We have to look at biology as we measure it, a closed system, that is not, at all, a closed system. Thank you.

[@Xairos84]

4:26 this idea that codependency is outright bad seems very western. We all need others. Even if I don't know their names or anything like that, I still need them.

[@Soloveis]

"Not a donor, becouse it's kind of gross " funny to hear on chanel called "pragmatic progressive" love your work BTW

[@kennethtape3362]

I think that the majority of people would concur on your standing of equality wholeheartedly !

[@JeroenHartel]

Thanks for your contribution to this topic, and the arguments you bring forward. One thing you say puzzles me: at 15.18 you mention: allowing people to self-terminate, as an argument pro abortion, for the benefit of the 'super organism' of life, the health of the entire human race. To me this is not self-terminating, but terminating the existence of the foetus. I suppose abortion does not include the termination of the pregnant woman. Further following your path of reasoning (with your analogy towards animals): would the killing of a (newborn) child by its parents be an equally favourable act towards the human race? And as from what point in a child's life would killing it become an immoral act?

[@TonkaTitan]

This was an extremely based video and a well presented argument. I agreed with your argument as a whole. I think the divorce rate statistic is misleading because the one you are refrences accounts for total divorces and marriage in general have been on the declime actually hitting new record lows I'm pretty sure. But I could be wrong. However I disagreed with two things, one when you stated the red pill being in support of having women be second calss citizen, this is just false. The red pill in itself is men's reaction to feminism, how to adapt, self improve (looks, status and wealth) and usually their on empasis of decentralization. The bad actors that say things were better when women were in the kitchen are stupid to call it redpill. Additionally I disagree that it's not a competition. I believe men compete for women and although man can increase his SMV (sexual marketplace value) it's always relative to the other men she's interested in. Overall i think its a great video, thanks for making it. Do you think you could do a video on the pew research study that found 2/3 of male Gen Z's aren't in a relationship, but 2/3 of Gen Z females are taken. Maybe you can do video explaining SMV with AI and the other technologies as well as the possibility of Incels mating with sex robots for girlfriends/wives.

[@mlimrx]

I think the really hard question is when is the baby considered to be a human being apart from the mother. 16 weeks? 22 weeks? At term? It's complicated because there are two lives on the line. Completely in support of pro-choice, but there needs to be guidelines. There are certain states that have no restrictions and allow for a termination when someone is 36 plus weeks. As it typically is the case for many of life situations it's not all black and white. Also props for trying to tackle such a contentious topic you are going to get flack either way.

[@goodleshoes]

I was surprised when I became right wing. Didn't see it coming but wow my worldview changed at a certain point. To each his own, however.

[@itsmeagain0]

how is it good if a society turns into matriarchy from patriarchy? yes patriarchy is bad but how is the opposite good? are we not seeing the man hating world today? and how many of "the wise" actually talking about it and taking actions that actually brings equality like the actions they have taken to turn the society into a matriarchical society? also make a video on privacy in the ai world. thanks

[@archdemonplay6904]

By your logic I would be able to not vacs myself without legal consequences. Cause after all it's not my responsibility to care for human population as you said about human extintion posibility from abortions

[@RadicalAlignment]

There are no legal consequences for refusing vaccinations. There are social consequences.

[@robertlipka9541]

You have constructed a legion of straw men and slew them all splendidly... and yet you missed the point that matters most. This is when an individual begins and when they start having rights, namely to life? Reducing everything to individual rights when you have at least two competing set of rights fails to address or even explain the issue. I hope when AI alignment is implemented it is done with FAR MORE nuance than this reductionist argument.

[@violinviolator5841]

I agree I felt the real issues were tiptoed around, however, the view of humanity as a super-organism and abortion being a higher order analogy to apoptosis was novel to me.

[@robertlipka9541]

@@violinviolator5841 ... I agree the arguments are interesting and make you think. I just think they are incomplete and incorrectly prioritized.

[@BerndPrager]

I respectfully disagree. It appears that often pro-life advocates imply that the right for medical support equals advocating abortion. Criminalizing abortion has never worked in history. The entire debate is based on wrong premises.

[@robertlipka9541]

@@BerndPrager ... to me there are no absolutes in this issue, no definitive answers for all situations. Like I point out and the author missed, we have at least TWO competing set of rights and these have to be weighed against each other depending on the situation.

[@BryanWhys]

The first line Hahahaha😂

[@jordanarsenault3952]

imagine how cool the world would be if everyone just thought you should treat everyone equally and with respect :o

[@veejaytsunamix]

FYI : artificial womb human trials have started.

[@GubekochiGoury]

Where can I learn more about this?

[@veejaytsunamix]

@@GubekochiGoury i read somewhere they've actually got the green light, perplexity isn't always up to date on things that happened recently. Sorry I can't reacal exactly where I got the news from in the first place.

[@jonathanlindsey8864]

When do you sleep?!

[@RadicalAlignment]

All the time lol, I recorded this a while ago

[@GubekochiGoury]

He'll sleep when he's dead, which will never happen because of advances in longevity technology!

[@rewindcat7927]

😂

[@itsmeagain0]

so how can "life started 3.8 billion years ago" address the individual freedom and responsibility?. at some point you need to start to be an individual and what point is that. its 3.8 billion years old individual?

[@amodernpolemic]

You say "suffering is bad" like it's axiomatic. There are all kinds of worthwhile reasons to suffer. Anybody who has gone on a long hike up to a high peak overlooking a beautiful landscape understands this. Perhaps you would agree and I'm missing your point, but I think it's dangerous to just present "suffering is bad" as if it's unquestionable.

[@RadicalAlignment]

Suffering is inevitable, but that doesn't mean it's good. It's also not the end result, but instrumental in worthy goals. Still doesn't mean it's good. Also, getting a little tired from a hike is not suffering. Chronic crippling pain from neuropathy is suffering.

[@amodernpolemic]

​@@RadicalAlignment I guess I just don't see it as good or bad. I don't think it's the end result either. I only used the hiking example to show how suffering intensifies gratitude/appreciation. If you just get out of your car and walk a few feet to an overlook, yea it's beautiful. But if you spend hours on a grueling hike to finally arrive at the overlook, the gratitude you feel and the beauty you see is deeper and more profound than the person who just hopped out of their car and walked over. I'm not a fan of people having to deal with neuropathy or chronic pain or anything, but arguably that experience gives them a deeper gratitude for life in the moments their pain relents than someone who hasn't suffered that deeply. Of course we might just be at an impasse. Such is life. I look forward to your future videos. Very stimulative.

[@KleptomaniacJames]

I'm going to have to disagree with your argument for a slippery slope, I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that one thing might lead to another. At least where race is concerned.

[@MichaelDeeringMHC]

The hexagons are moving.

[@rewindcat7927]

😮

[@mc101]

I can't wait for our AI overlords to take over. You're doing a great job Dave. Keep at. I vow to watch all your videos.

[@tomdarling8358]

The 3.8 billion year old Super Organism. Beautiful David. If only more people could try to understand the past a bit better, maybe we all could move on. Looking forward to the future instead of living in the past. Unfortunately, the 1,000 plus religious methodologies on the planet make it a bit difficult to move forward at times. Makes it difficult for that cognitive dissidence to kick in even on a good day. Almost if learning something new is taboo. Knowledge is power, but some people just don't seem to want to know. New knowledge might conflict with their learned tribalism or their bubble of what they consider to be reality. Something that may have been ingrained in them since birth. How do they let it go. The universe isn't that stagnant place we once thought it was so long ago. As a male, I believe i have absolutely no say in what a female does with her own body. That's between her and her doctor and truly only her choice. If life sprouts within her, it's her decision as it is in her body. As males we can hope we can suggest but at the end of the day it's her choice and only her choice. As a male, no one is going to tell me what to do with my body. So why would I expect anything less for her...✌️ Peace 🤟 I love you🖖 Live long and prosper.

[@JoshuaLuellen-rg8xp]

As far as I'm concerned governments only job is to protect against non mutual transactions. For them to make laws because they think abortion is murder, is the government trying to legislate morality, which is a huge over reach of their authority

[@rewindcat7927]

One of the very interesting things about life on earth: we can fathom the idea of apoptosis on a 3.8 billion year scale. But when someone close voluntarily game ends? It’s absolutely the worst pain ever 😢

[@83shaunam]

My understanding is the the bias in family court is going away, gradually, and it's not heavily weighted on one side or the other now. The reason women are more often awarded custody is because men don't ask for it as often. When men want custody, assuming they aren't obviously abusive or whatever, are usually given 50/50. And even if courts were still heavily biased towards mothers, the government is still largely controlled by men. I feel like this is usually just an argument pulled out to make a case for reverse sexism, but it doesn't hold up. It's like when we say "our body our choice" and men go "oh yeah well what about circumcision!?" Men have the power to end that practice if they wanted to. And most pro choice people also don't agree with the practice anyway. So like....pulling these things out as issues on the flip side doesn't really hold up. I was nodding my head along the whole video up until the court thing. Women don't have power over the family court system. We aren't collectively using it to punish men.

[@FrankPowers-q2j]

Why do we need more kids if AI are taking away all jobs?