The future is bottom-up, emergent, natural, and cooperation-based. That means less centralized government and more DIY government. But how do we help alleviate the fears of the more old fashioned types as we make this transition?

I've noticed that people tend to get behind various leaders. Like with this whole Russia thing: We think aha, we're fucking over Russia for being dicks, but really in our mind it's just Putin having a bad time. In reality it's a bunch of regular people getting fucked, but we just picture putin getting fucked. This way we can be the worst people in the world, yet convinced we're the good guys. Because we don't look the people we're fucking in the eyes.

Where does the chicken come from? The chicken comes from McDonald's. Could everybody have their own McDonald's? That would be too many McDonald's, it would be inefficient. We need to have one McDonald's that everybody shares. One giant chicken factory. Next to the giant people factory. Sometimes you see videos from Chicken factories and it's like 'Dammit, that's too many chickens in one place having too shitty of a time!', but I think we should have baby factories just like that. And as much as it's against the law in most cities to keep chickens, it should also be against the law to have babies. It's unsanitary to do it that way. If there was a baby factory, though, you could go shopping at the Gap store for kids clothes, but also pick up a kid while you're at it. Economies of scale would make child rearing really cheap: which is what consumers want. Also, This way nobody has to be stuck with a kid that has flippers for arms, or a hairlip. We could just send those kids to McDonald's with the Chickens. EEEK!, right, Ahhh!. You can't do that. You can't just serve children at McDonald's. I mean, you can serve children chicken, but you can't serve children children. Human life is sacred, you can't just do something like that. Even the most diehard, rational, militant atheist thinks that human life is sacred. You know what? I agree wholeheatedly. Human life is sacred.

Human beings are invaluable, and for this reason it would be a moral infraction to do anything less than convert as much biomass on this planet as possible into people. We can start with our livestock. Right now 99% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass on this planet is for human purposes- but here's the catch: only about 200 million of those 900 million tons is human being. The rest is mostly pigs, cows and chickens. Would it not be more compassionate to grow and butcher people instead of animals? I'll agree that it's not the best life a person can have- but to grant a human being any kind of life is infinitely better than to deny a potential human the opportunity to exist at all.

Instead of 200 million tonnes of humanity- we could have 900 million tonnes of humanity! Sure- 700 million tonnes of that would be people bred as livestock- but it's still 25 billion more people who get to experience the joy of life on top of the 7.2 billion we already have. This would be a big undertaking, of course- we'd need some genetic engineering and growth hormones to ensure they're rugged enough to survive the harsh conditions of a high-density human feedlot, and they'd have to grow to full adult size (or larger) within a few years because efficiency does still matter. And we would want to engineer them so they don't have vocal chords because nobody wants to listen to them cry. Still, I'm fully convinced that these are solveable problems- the biggest challenge would be to find the compassion within ourselves to grant another 25 billion people the precious gift of life- even if it's only for a short time before we eat them.

Now, there are cynics, naysayers, and misanthropes amongst who might be opposed to such an idea. They might argue that it comes down to supply and demand, and that the more people you have, the less individual is worth. Or they might argue that more people just means more suffering. To be fair- in cold, rational terms there is some merit to these arguments. Have housing prices really doubled in the past 30 years? Or is it because the global population has doubled in the past 30 years, so each individual person is worth half as much? Should prison sentences for murder be reduced now that people are worth less? Bollocks. These monsters are playing a zero sum game. By their logic for life to be as precious as possible it would be necessary to kill as many people as possible. And really- the only way to eliminate all human suffering is to eliminate all humans. Not a solution at all- it's the worst kind of nihilism if you ask me. I mean- it's one of the 4 pillars of buddhism: life is suffering.

/r/Futurology Thread