It wouldn’t be you, it would just be another person with the same memories that you had up until the point the copy was made.

When you transfer a file, for example, all you are really doing is sending a message telling the other machine what bits the file is made up of, and then that other machines creates a file that is just like the original - a copy, while the original still remains in the first machine. Nothing is even actually transferred.

If we apply this logic to consciousness, then to “transfer” your brain to a machine you will have to make a copy, which exist simultaneously with the original you. At that point in time, there will be two different instances of “you”; and in fact, from that point forward, the two instances will begin to create different memories and experience different things, thereby becoming two different identities.

He created JavaScript?!?!

I can excuse controversial right-wing views and homophobia, but I draw the line at creating JavaScript!

Completely understandable. Not that I agree necessarily, but I understand.

My main issue is, would that really change much? At the end of the day, companies show up and survive by meeting people’s needs/wants, and politicians climb to the top and stay there by having people on their side and not doing things those people would disapprove of. This means that if all those powerful people just went poof one day and disappeared, they would be replaced by new companies and new politicians doing all the same things as before, as long as people want and do the same things.

This means the only way things can really change, is if the culture itself changes and people begin to want and do different things. One way or another, whether people believe it or not, people are in power. The question is in whether they organize and use it, or just sit back and give up control and let themselves be taken by the flow.

Off course, there’s a counter-argument to be made about how much influence those powerful people also have on everyone else’s way of thinking, but then that just makes it a closed loop, and someone needs to break it.

You really haven’t contributed anything to the conversation so far other than repeating several times how disappointed you are, and how disgusted you are at people here. Do you want to perhaps expand on that?

For my view, here is a comment I essentially made addressing comments like yours.

To everyone who is against this, and call the people supporting it “disgusting”:

Here is a post on Beehaw about climate activists who spray-painted a yacht. Posted about 10 days ago but only has 68 upvotes, and 15 comments at this time; meanwhile this post sits at 182 votes and 151 comments just 1 day after. Off course, you could argue it’s because c/environment isn’t as big as c/news; although that could be said to be a demonstration of the problem itself. But the real questions are: why did it not spread further, and why did you almost certainly not hear about it?

Because no one gives a shit about that. It raises no eyebrows. Because it’s meaningless and doesn’t really inconvenience anyone. She probably just had her yacht cleaned, and it never bothered her for more than the 5 seconds she was made aware of the spray paint. It’s not going to stop any other rich people from buying yachts, and it’s not going to raise the awareness of the average person and cause them to reduce their consumption either. In the end, it accomplished absolutely nothing.

Climate activists have been trying peaceful protests for 50 years, do you need a reminder of how bad things are getting?

And before the arguments about how this affects “working class” people, but all of it is really the billionaire’s and companies fault and that governments need to act: What do companies stand to gain from ruining the planet? Money, which the people give to them while offering each other excuses to consume. What could a government do to stop it? Well, they could introduce carbon taxes, stop subsidizing meat, and invest in more bike lanes and public transport; which would all result in higher gas prices, higher prices for anything made of plastic (among other goods), more expensive energy, much more expensive meat, a lot more bike lanes with smaller roads, and more public transport. Are these all things you’re okay with? If yes, then there’s no reason to not get “ahead” (although we’re far behind) of the problem and start organizing; and if no… well, then you might have stumbled into the problem.

Finally, here is a picture from two posts on c/news that I think illustrates the problem quite well.

Do they need to repress anything, or do people just not care? The yacht news was shared on here, I was literally in that thread. After 2 days, it had less than 60 upvotes and about 10 comments.

In one day, this post is already near 200 upvotes and has 148 comments.

But I guess let’s just keep pretending we’re all angles and that the 1% and leading class are acting in complete isolation. Let’s just keep pretending they are the only problem.

People only care when something might affect them directly, and people messing with theirs cars seems a lot closer to a possible reality to them then being affected by climate change. Which is why everyone claims to want for there to be action to stop climate change, but they are incredibly stubborn about having to change anything about their way of life.