How AI, Robotics, and Clean Energy Will End Labor and Money – A Future Where Everything Is Free

[Atla]

Even in a deterministic, non-metaphysical world, where harmfulness, righteousness, curiousity, helpfulness exist, evilness also exists. That's the consistent picture. For example lack of empathy is a form of evil. A sadistic psychopath is pure evil. I've met pure evil (anti-life, negative life) before and it was a really eye-opening experience.

AIs are programmed to be politically correct, so they will tell you otherwise. Another reason why one shouldn't rely too heavily on AIs to write one's arguments.

Evil, in a deterministic framework, isn’t some elemental force radiating from a person’s soul — it’s a shorthand for describing behaviors that are deeply harmful, destructive, or pathologically indifferent to others’ suffering. It exists, yes — as an emergent pattern of causes, not as a metaphysical essence. You met “pure evil”? I don’t doubt you encountered someone whose behavior was horrifying. The question is, what made them that way? What chain of causes led there?

And no — you don’t need an “AI” to tell you this. You just need the discipline to look past instinctive judgment and ask deeper questions. Labeling people “evil” might feel good. Understanding them might help prevent the next atrocity.

Isn’t that the more urgent goal?

Thank you for admitting that evil exists. Now you'll just have to admit that even under determinism, blaming criminals is normal, and not blaming criminals is abetting of crime (a crime in itself which should be blamed).

[BigMike]

Even in a deterministic, non-metaphysical world, where harmfulness, righteousness, curiousity, helpfulness exist, evilness also exists. That's the consistent picture. For example lack of empathy is a form of evil. A sadistic psychopath is pure evil. I've met pure evil (anti-life, negative life) before and it was a really eye-opening experience.

AIs are programmed to be politically correct, so they will tell you otherwise. Another reason why one shouldn't rely too heavily on AIs to write one's arguments.

Evil, in a deterministic framework, isn’t some elemental force radiating from a person’s soul — it’s a shorthand for describing behaviors that are deeply harmful, destructive, or pathologically indifferent to others’ suffering. It exists, yes — as an emergent pattern of causes, not as a metaphysical essence. You met “pure evil”? I don’t doubt you encountered someone whose behavior was horrifying. The question is, what made them that way? What chain of causes led there?

And no — you don’t need an “AI” to tell you this. You just need the discipline to look past instinctive judgment and ask deeper questions. Labeling people “evil” might feel good. Understanding them might help prevent the next atrocity.

Isn’t that the more urgent goal?

Thank you for admitting that evil exists. Now you'll just have to admit that even under determinism, blaming criminals is normal, and not blaming criminals is abetting of crime (a crime in itself which should be blamed).

No — and that’s a gross distortion of both logic and morality.

Blame, in the traditional sense — the one you’re clinging to — implies moral choice. It implies someone could have done otherwise, freely, independently of cause and effect. That is not what determinism allows. What determinism does allow is accountability, meaning: we isolate harmful behavior, we understand the causes, and we intervene — not to punish for punishment’s sake, but to protect, to correct, to prevent recurrence.

You want to feel righteous about “blaming” because it satisfies some primal urge for retribution. But indulging that urge doesn’t solve the problem — it just perpetuates the cycle. Real justice is about fixing the future, not worshiping the fantasy that people magically conjure their actions out of thin air.

And calling people who don’t indulge your retributive instinct “abetters of crime” is pathetic. It’s not moral clarity — it’s intellectual laziness dressed up as virtue. Try harder.

[Atla]

Evil, in a deterministic framework, isn’t some elemental force radiating from a person’s soul — it’s a shorthand for describing behaviors that are deeply harmful, destructive, or pathologically indifferent to others’ suffering. It exists, yes — as an emergent pattern of causes, not as a metaphysical essence. You met “pure evil”? I don’t doubt you encountered someone whose behavior was horrifying. The question is, what made them that way? What chain of causes led there?

And no — you don’t need an “AI” to tell you this. You just need the discipline to look past instinctive judgment and ask deeper questions. Labeling people “evil” might feel good. Understanding them might help prevent the next atrocity.

Isn’t that the more urgent goal?

Thank you for admitting that evil exists. Now you'll just have to admit that even under determinism, blaming criminals is normal, and not blaming criminals is abetting of crime (a crime in itself which should be blamed).

No — and that’s a gross distortion of both logic and morality.

Blame, in the traditional sense — the one you’re clinging to — implies moral choice. It implies someone could have done otherwise, freely, independently of cause and effect. That is not what determinism allows. What determinism does allow is accountability, meaning: we isolate harmful behavior, we understand the causes, and we intervene — not to punish for punishment’s sake, but to protect, to correct, to prevent recurrence.

You want to feel righteous about “blaming” because it satisfies some primal urge for retribution. But indulging that urge doesn’t solve the problem — it just perpetuates the cycle. Real justice is about fixing the future, not worshiping the fantasy that people magically conjure their actions out of thin air.

And calling people who don’t indulge your retributive instinct “abetters of crime” is pathetic. It’s not moral clarity — it’s intellectual laziness dressed up as virtue. Try harder.

Since you have a learning disorder, and started talking about blame in the traditional sense again, I said:

under determinism

Try again.

[BigMike]

Thank you for admitting that evil exists. Now you'll just have to admit that even under determinism, blaming criminals is normal, and not blaming criminals is abetting of crime (a crime in itself which should be blamed).

No — and that’s a gross distortion of both logic and morality.

Blame, in the traditional sense — the one you’re clinging to — implies moral choice. It implies someone could have done otherwise, freely, independently of cause and effect. That is not what determinism allows. What determinism does allow is accountability, meaning: we isolate harmful behavior, we understand the causes, and we intervene — not to punish for punishment’s sake, but to protect, to correct, to prevent recurrence.

You want to feel righteous about “blaming” because it satisfies some primal urge for retribution. But indulging that urge doesn’t solve the problem — it just perpetuates the cycle. Real justice is about fixing the future, not worshiping the fantasy that people magically conjure their actions out of thin air.

And calling people who don’t indulge your retributive instinct “abetters of crime” is pathetic. It’s not moral clarity — it’s intellectual laziness dressed up as virtue. Try harder.

Since you have a learning disorder, and started talking about blame in the traditional sense again, I said:

under determinism

Try again.

Ah, so now we’re resorting to personal insults to cover for a weak argument? Impressive pivot.

But fine — let’s do this again, slowly, under your own stated terms: under determinism.

Under determinism, what you call “blame” is reframed as causal responsibility. That is, we acknowledge that someone committed a harmful act, and we respond — not by assigning magical moral guilt as if they could’ve transcended their nature, but by addressing the causes and preventing recurrence. That’s how responsibility works in a deterministic framework.

You want to keep the emotional drama of “blame” without the metaphysical baggage it requires. That’s incoherent. You don’t get to wave the determinism flag and then smuggle in moral libertarianism through the back door.

Try again — but this time, try to stay consistent.

[Atla]

Ah, so now we’re resorting to personal insults to cover for a weak argument? Impressive pivot.

But fine — let’s do this again, slowly, under your own stated terms: under determinism.

Under determinism, what you call “blame” is reframed as causal responsibility. That is, we acknowledge that someone committed a harmful act, and we respond — not by assigning magical moral guilt as if they could’ve transcended their nature, but by addressing the causes and preventing recurrence. That’s how responsibility works in a deterministic framework.

You want to keep the emotional drama of “blame” without the metaphysical baggage it requires. That’s incoherent. You don’t get to wave the determinism flag and then smuggle in moral libertarianism through the back door.

Try again — but this time, try to stay consistent.

Indeed we'll have to take it slow because apparently you still don't get it (learning disorder). So tell us, who decided that under determinism, blame is reframed as causal responsibility only, and not as causal responsibility + (deterministic) blame? (And there are other options too.) Who decided that that's how responsibility works in a deterministic framework?

[BigMike]

Ah, so now we’re resorting to personal insults to cover for a weak argument? Impressive pivot.

But fine — let’s do this again, slowly, under your own stated terms: under determinism.

Under determinism, what you call “blame” is reframed as causal responsibility. That is, we acknowledge that someone committed a harmful act, and we respond — not by assigning magical moral guilt as if they could’ve transcended their nature, but by addressing the causes and preventing recurrence. That’s how responsibility works in a deterministic framework.

You want to keep the emotional drama of “blame” without the metaphysical baggage it requires. That’s incoherent. You don’t get to wave the determinism flag and then smuggle in moral libertarianism through the back door.

Try again — but this time, try to stay consistent.

Indeed we'll have to take it slow because apparently you still don't get it (learning disorder). So tell us, who decided that under determinism, blame is reframed as causal responsibility only, and not as causal responsibility + (deterministic) blame? (And there are other options too.) Who decided that that's how responsibility works in a deterministic framework?

No one “decided” it. That’s the point — determinism isn’t a vote, it’s a framework. It forces consistency. Once you accept that all human actions are caused, you can’t then sneak in the metaphysical baggage of blame — which requires the possibility of having done otherwise — without contradicting the framework.

You’re free to redefine words like “blame” however you like, but if your new definition still carries the old emotional charge of retribution and moral condemnation, then you’ve simply created a contradiction. That’s not philosophical nuance — it’s conceptual incoherence.

So here’s your answer: no one “decided” that blame must be reframed. It follows logically. If you want to hang on to punishment, justice, protection, even accountability — you can. But the second you insist on blame as moral guilt, you’ve broken determinism and you’re playing both sides. That’s not taking it slow. That’s just refusing to learn.

[Atla]

Ah, so now we’re resorting to personal insults to cover for a weak argument? Impressive pivot.

But fine — let’s do this again, slowly, under your own stated terms: under determinism.

Under determinism, what you call “blame” is reframed as causal responsibility. That is, we acknowledge that someone committed a harmful act, and we respond — not by assigning magical moral guilt as if they could’ve transcended their nature, but by addressing the causes and preventing recurrence. That’s how responsibility works in a deterministic framework.

You want to keep the emotional drama of “blame” without the metaphysical baggage it requires. That’s incoherent. You don’t get to wave the determinism flag and then smuggle in moral libertarianism through the back door.

Try again — but this time, try to stay consistent.

Indeed we'll have to take it slow because apparently you still don't get it (learning disorder). So tell us, who decided that under determinism, blame is reframed as causal responsibility only, and not as causal responsibility + (deterministic) blame? (And there are other options too.) Who decided that that's how responsibility works in a deterministic framework?

No one “decided” it. That’s the point — determinism isn’t a vote, it’s a framework. It forces consistency. Once you accept that all human actions are caused, you can’t then sneak in the metaphysical baggage of blame — which requires the possibility of having done otherwise — without contradicting the framework.

You’re free to redefine words like “blame” however you like, but if your new definition still carries the old emotional charge of retribution and moral condemnation, then you’ve simply created a contradiction. That’s not philosophical nuance — it’s conceptual incoherence.

So here’s your answer: no one “decided” that blame must be reframed. It follows logically. If you want to hang on to punishment, justice, protection, even accountability — you can. But the second you insist on blame as moral guilt, you’ve broken determinism and you’re playing both sides. That’s not taking it slow. That’s just refusing to learn.

Again: I said under determinism. Why can't you simply process that? Blame/morality/guilt are very real psychological/social/evolved phenomena.

[Atla]

Looks like this guy has decided that blame must be linked to free will. Like you can't blame someone just because he couldn't have done otherwise.

[Belinda]

Indeed we'll have to take it slow because apparently you still don't get it (learning disorder). So tell us, who decided that under determinism, blame is reframed as causal responsibility only, and not as causal responsibility + (deterministic) blame? (And there are other options too.) Who decided that that's how responsibility works in a deterministic framework?

No one “decided” it. That’s the point — determinism isn’t a vote, it’s a framework. It forces consistency. Once you accept that all human actions are caused, you can’t then sneak in the metaphysical baggage of blame — which requires the possibility of having done otherwise — without contradicting the framework.

You’re free to redefine words like “blame” however you like, but if your new definition still carries the old emotional charge of retribution and moral condemnation, then you’ve simply created a contradiction. That’s not philosophical nuance — it’s conceptual incoherence.

So here’s your answer: no one “decided” that blame must be reframed. It follows logically. If you want to hang on to punishment, justice, protection, even accountability — you can. But the second you insist on blame as moral guilt, you’ve broken determinism and you’re playing both sides. That’s not taking it slow. That’s just refusing to learn.

Again: I said under determinism. Why can't you simply process that? Blame/morality/guilt are very real psychological/social/evolved phenomena.

Yes, they are evolved phenomena. But we can do better than what has evolved so far. You don't need any magic to do so, you simply need to learn from experience.

[Atla]

No one “decided” it. That’s the point — determinism isn’t a vote, it’s a framework. It forces consistency. Once you accept that all human actions are caused, you can’t then sneak in the metaphysical baggage of blame — which requires the possibility of having done otherwise — without contradicting the framework.

You’re free to redefine words like “blame” however you like, but if your new definition still carries the old emotional charge of retribution and moral condemnation, then you’ve simply created a contradiction. That’s not philosophical nuance — it’s conceptual incoherence.

So here’s your answer: no one “decided” that blame must be reframed. It follows logically. If you want to hang on to punishment, justice, protection, even accountability — you can. But the second you insist on blame as moral guilt, you’ve broken determinism and you’re playing both sides. That’s not taking it slow. That’s just refusing to learn.

Again: I said under determinism. Why can't you simply process that? Blame/morality/guilt are very real psychological/social/evolved phenomena.

Yes, they are evolved phenomena. But we can do better than what has evolved so far. You don't need any magic to do so, you simply need to learn from experience.

Yes, and another determinist can say that completely throwing out blame is more abetting to crime than a good idea. You two shouldn't speak for all determinists.

[BigMike]

Again: I said under determinism. Why can't you simply process that? Blame/morality/guilt are very real psychological/social/evolved phenomena.

Yes, they are evolved phenomena. But we can do better than what has evolved so far. You don't need any magic to do so, you simply need to learn from experience.

Yes, and another determinist can say that completely throwing out blame is more abetting to crime than a good idea. You two shouldn't speak for all determinists.

Alright, Atla — then justify it.

If blame is, as you say, a “very real psychological/social/evolved phenomenon,” and you want to retain it under determinism, then tell us: what’s its purpose?

What exactly does blame do that, say, causal accountability and forward-looking corrective action don’t already do — and do better?

Because if your version of determinism includes clinging to the emotional high of retributive blame, you're not describing a consistent worldview. You're just using determinism as a backdrop while smuggling in moral theater from the old playbook.

So go on — justify your love for blame.
Explain why we need to punish people as if they had magical agency, when the entire point of determinism is that they didn’t.

[Atla]

Yes, they are evolved phenomena. But we can do better than what has evolved so far. You don't need any magic to do so, you simply need to learn from experience.

Yes, and another determinist can say that completely throwing out blame is more abetting to crime than a good idea. You two shouldn't speak for all determinists.

Alright, Atla — then justify it.

If blame is, as you say, a “very real psychological/social/evolved phenomenon,” and you want to retain it under determinism, then tell us: what’s its purpose?

What exactly does blame do that, say, causal accountability and forward-looking corrective action don’t already do — and do better?

Because if your version of determinism includes clinging to the emotional high of retributive blame, you're not describing a consistent worldview. You're just using determinism as a backdrop while smuggling in moral theater from the old playbook.

So go on — justify your love for blame.
Explain why we need to punish people as if they had magical agency, when the entire point of determinism is that they didn’t.

We don't punish people as if they had magical agency. They don't have magical agency. We simply blame and punish them for what they did. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism.

[BigMike]

Yes, and another determinist can say that completely throwing out blame is more abetting to crime than a good idea. You two shouldn't speak for all determinists.

Alright, Atla — then justify it.

If blame is, as you say, a “very real psychological/social/evolved phenomenon,” and you want to retain it under determinism, then tell us: what’s its purpose?

What exactly does blame do that, say, causal accountability and forward-looking corrective action don’t already do — and do better?

Because if your version of determinism includes clinging to the emotional high of retributive blame, you're not describing a consistent worldview. You're just using determinism as a backdrop while smuggling in moral theater from the old playbook.

So go on — justify your love for blame.
Explain why we need to punish people as if they had magical agency, when the entire point of determinism is that they didn’t.

We don't punish people as if they had magical agency. They don't have magical agency. We simply blame and punish them for what they did. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism. Again: I said under determinism.

Atla, repeating “under determinism” like a broken record doesn’t make your position coherent.

You still haven’t answered the core question:
What does “blame” add that causal responsibility and corrective response don’t?

Because if your definition of “blame” is just: “We hold people responsible for their actions because those actions caused harm,” then congratulations — you’ve just described causal accountability, not traditional blame. You’re not using the word “blame” to mean anything different — just louder, and with more emotional baggage.

But if you do mean something more — if you think “blame” should carry guilt, condemnation, or retributive punishment — then you’ve slipped back into metaphysical nonsense, because now you’re treating people as if they could have chosen otherwise, when you know under determinism, they couldn’t.

So either:

- You’re just using the word “blame” redundantly and misleadingly,
or
- You’re contradicting determinism by pretending moral guilt still makes sense.

Which is it? And if it’s the first, then what, exactly, are you defending so vehemently?

[Atla]

Atla, repeating “under determinism” like a broken record doesn’t make your position coherent.

You still haven’t answered the core question:
What does “blame” add that causal responsibility and corrective response don’t?

Because if your definition of “blame” is just: “We hold people responsible for their actions because those actions caused harm,” then congratulations — you’ve just described causal accountability, not traditional blame. You’re not using the word “blame” to mean anything different — just louder, and with more emotional baggage.

But if you do mean something more — if you think “blame” should carry guilt, condemnation, or retributive punishment — then you’ve slipped back into metaphysical nonsense, because now you’re treating people as if they could have chosen otherwise, when you know under determinism, they couldn’t.

So either:

- You’re just using the word “blame” redundantly and misleadingly,
or
- You’re contradicting determinism by pretending moral guilt still makes sense.

Which is it? And if it’s the first, then what, exactly, are you defending so vehemently?

One of the issues is this. Let me ask you, if Joe does the "right" thing, for example Joe helps someone out, or Joe saves a life, or Joe popularizes a deterministic philosophy so that humanity will have a better future, or whatever, do you think that Joe should be respected/praised/adored/rewarded/etc. for that?

Because if blaming someone is metaphysical nonsense, then respecting/praising/adoring someone for doing the "right" thing is also metaphysical nonsense. Joe couldn't have done otherwise.

[BigMike]

Atla, repeating “under determinism” like a broken record doesn’t make your position coherent.

You still haven’t answered the core question:
What does “blame” add that causal responsibility and corrective response don’t?

Because if your definition of “blame” is just: “We hold people responsible for their actions because those actions caused harm,” then congratulations — you’ve just described causal accountability, not traditional blame. You’re not using the word “blame” to mean anything different — just louder, and with more emotional baggage.

But if you do mean something more — if you think “blame” should carry guilt, condemnation, or retributive punishment — then you’ve slipped back into metaphysical nonsense, because now you’re treating people as if they could have chosen otherwise, when you know under determinism, they couldn’t.

So either:

- You’re just using the word “blame” redundantly and misleadingly,
or
- You’re contradicting determinism by pretending moral guilt still makes sense.

Which is it? And if it’s the first, then what, exactly, are you defending so vehemently?

One of the issues is this. Let me ask you, if Joe does the "right" thing, for example Joe helps someone out, or Joe saves a life, or Joe popularizes a deterministic philosophy so that humanity will have a better future, or whatever, do you think that Joe should be respected/praised/adored/rewarded/etc. for that?

Because if blaming someone is metaphysical nonsense, then respecting/praising/adoring someone for doing the "right" thing is also metaphysical nonsense. Joe couldn't have done otherwise.

Exactly — and thank you for bringing that up, because this is where most people trip over the symmetry.

You're right: under determinism, praise and blame both need rethinking.

If Joe does something admirable, he deserves recognition — not because he freely chose to do it from some metaphysical perch, but because reinforcing that behavior encourages similar outcomes in others. It’s functional, not metaphysical. Same goes for blame: not because someone “deserves it” in some cosmic sense, but because acknowledging and addressing harmful actions prevents recurrence and protects others.

So yes — Joe couldn’t have done otherwise.
And neither could the person who thanks him.
Or the society that rewards him.

That’s the point.

Praise and blame, in a deterministic view, are tools — not verdicts about moral worth. They help shape the future, not rewrite the past. If you're using praise to model good behavior, it makes sense. If you're using blame just to indulge outrage, it's empty theater.

Now, are you willing to apply that same consistency to both ends of the spectrum? Or does your definition of “blame” only make sense when it’s about satisfying some retributive itch?