5/19/2026 at 12:36:14 AM
I'm an atheist, but most of what I have heard from popes in recent years seems like sound and possibly needed advice.Also, even though I feel AI and robotics are very important for progressing humanity, I think that much of the world has long since lost a proper sense of intrinsic human value. It's really gone from overt exploitation to slightly more mild exploitation where we pretend the system is really merit based.
And as AI and robotics remove the need for human labor, I hope that someone like the pope can convince people that we should value human beings inherently and more fairly. Inexpensive labor and intelligence should make this feasible.
I hope the speech isn't something dumb like "remember only humans have souls" because I think that's really premature and pretty obvious that AIs are not people at this point.
The really convincing and somewhat deeper simulations of humans are probably only a few years down the line though.
Which comes back to the Rovelli dualism article that was on the front page before. I think we should not be in a hurry to try to duplicate humans in depth (such as imitating emotions, pain, stream of consciousness, self-preservation, etc). It's just completely unnecessary to go that far to get useful AI, and obviously unethical to subject a real human emulation to slavery.
by ilaksh
5/19/2026 at 9:13:02 AM
This is a great point, further to your point on AI. Another perhaps worse offender is our focus on "the economy", at times the focus is always on "what about the economy?!" Forgetting "the economy" is merely a tool intended to improve the human condition. Sometimes I feel people lose sight of this original intention, be it unintentional or otherwise.by KoolKat23
5/19/2026 at 10:15:40 AM
When Media Talking Heads say “the economy,” what they are really talking about is just rich people’s investments and old people’s retirement. Basically, for reporters, the economy = only stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.by ryandrake
5/19/2026 at 11:33:17 AM
I think you’re being unfairly down-voted. While a lot of people here seek out more news, what I see normal people exposed to on TV is basically that – stocks, and if gas prices are high, that and quarterly jobs reports discussed in relation to stocks. To a first approximation, “did your retirement find gain or lose?” really sums it up for all but my father-in-law and the two of us. This is why it’s such a common trope not to think politicians talk about the real economy because your lived experience really varies based on how much stocks affect your life.by acdha
5/19/2026 at 10:08:50 PM
You might consider whether this is a little too reductive. After all the values of the stock, bonds, and mutual funds are directly related to the profits and capital flows through and health of the economy.The economy is complicated and those high-level indexes are gross simplifications of a mass of complexity, but they're not entirely unrelated to whether people have money to spend and whether our liberalized economy is functioning. In fact, I'd suggest that our economy is increasingly suffering from the population's inability to participate and drive the maximal capital flows and prosperity that are possible. There is an additional distributive and concentration problem which we have been solving even more poorly lately.
by erikerikson
5/19/2026 at 1:09:56 PM
Precisely.by tharmas
5/19/2026 at 6:46:57 PM
/Forgetting "the economy" is merely a tool intended to improve the human conditionParaphrasing and old soviet joke -- and I also saw the human whose condition it improves
by Muromec
5/19/2026 at 2:41:45 PM
> Sometimes I feel people lose sight of this original intention, be it unintentional or otherwise.It's more than a matter of losing sight. This is endemic to liberal hyperindividualism which places the individual and "consumer utility" at the center of economic activity. This ideological presupposition actively works against human flourishing - and even the viability of an economy at all - as a precondition for successful economies is so-called "normal social reproduction". Our consumerist economic order is actively hostile to stable family formation and fecundity (as evidenced by precipitous demographic decline) and thus to the health of society in general.
The economy is indeed supposed to be in the service of human flourishing. Modern economics instead optimizes for "utility maximization".
by lo_zamoyski
5/19/2026 at 1:52:47 PM
People are coerced into losing sight of this via capitalist-backed mass media, think tanks and politicians. In the context of popes in recent years as OP says, Pope Francis was particularly an opponent of trickle down economics and consumerism. Leo doesn't seem to be much different, based on his continuation of Francis' critique of modern capitalism as an economy of exclusion.by dfxm12
5/19/2026 at 9:40:47 AM
> I feel AI and robotics are very important for progressing humanityWhy? And what does “progressing” mean, exactly? I’m not trying to be combative or flippant, I’m genuinely asking because the rest of your comment is a great argument for the opposite view.
I’d argue humanity will “progress” when we collectively learn to treat each other and our environment with respect and care. When we have a sense of community with our fellow people instead of placing undue value on individuals and personal gain.
Technological advance could be a boon for humanity if those were our shared values, but as it stands it seems pretty obvious that what it does instead is consolidate power in the hands of those who should never have it.
We already have the technology and resources to improve the lives of everyone, they’re just not fairly distributed.
by latexr
5/19/2026 at 3:16:49 PM
> And what does “progressing” mean, exactly?Indeed. This is characteristic of a reflexive and unthinking Progressivism that presumes the reality of some kind of nebulous, arbitrary, and ill-defined "progress", but very often denies the very basis that makes progress of any kind possible, which is teleology. In other words, Progressivism is one of the modernist idols in Nietzsche. The modern haughtily throws off the "old metaphysics" and the "old religion", but fails to notice how it has sawed off the branch it is sitting on. Its peculiar form of worship, its peculiar focus, is hollow because it has been gutted of the concepts that it draws a residual parasitic strength from. Hence, the twilight of the idols...
Postmodernism is to a large degree a reaction to the emptiness of modernism. Postmodernism is also self-refuting, but to its credit, it does respond to something very true about modernism. We are witnessing postmodernism bury the last vestiges of modernism along with itself. It is an ideological kamikaze.
by lo_zamoyski
5/19/2026 at 9:10:33 PM
“Progress” can be of the Steven Pinker kind, where the long term trend of things like infant mortality, deaths from violence, etc. are going in a direction that most people would agree is good.> Technological advance could be a boon for humanity if those were our shared values, but as it stands it seems pretty obvious that what it does instead is consolidate power in the hands of those who should never have it.
Why can’t it be both? I’m optimistic that AI and robotics will produce innovations that will benefit all of humanity, even if the financial gains are concentrated among the few.
by pcooper
5/20/2026 at 8:52:43 AM
> “Progress” can be of the Steven Pinker kind, where the long term trend of things like infant mortality, deaths from violence, etc. are going in a direction that most people would agree is good.Are AI and robotics “important” for that, though? I’m not convinced they are, or that their detriments are worth it. E.g. maybe a fleet of robot police could reduce deaths from violence, but it would also certainly be used for citizen control.
Caring for our fellow humans as a community and thus sharing resources and knowledge appropriately would be much more beneficial.
Additionally, it’s not like Pinker’s argument is without (a lot) of criticism. It doesn’t seem like a good basis for this conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...
The rise of the alt-right and the current state of the USA and the division it is causing worldwide does not bode well for the argument that the world is progressing in a desired direction.
> Why can’t it be both?
Because you can’t have shared values of community and care for your fellow humans and the environment when the ones with the concentrated power gain it and keep by doing the exact opposite.
> I’m optimistic that AI and robotics will produce innovations that will benefit all of humanity, even if the financial gains are concentrated among the few.
I said “power”, not “money”. They are related but not the same. AI and robotics bring new capabilities for despots to surveil, control, and kill. It is naive to believe these will benefit all of humanity. They clearly won’t. Recent history is ample proof of that.
by latexr
5/19/2026 at 2:43:47 AM
Unfortunately some approximation of a human emulation (a slice of it) comes out of emulating Common Crawl. They do have neurons for emotions because those are necessary to predict next token.Whether that implies anything about subjective experience... I think that question is unknowable by definition. Either substrate matters (in which case things have to be made of carbon for some reason?), or it doesn't (in which case... God only knows what that implies. Windows XP might have subjective experience).
by andai
5/19/2026 at 3:02:46 AM
Emotions exist outside of immediate reaction. This is necessary for stuff like motivation.by throwaway27448
5/19/2026 at 10:42:31 AM
Yeah, and we're making them extremely motivated the past year.by andai
5/19/2026 at 2:05:07 PM
I’m pretty skeptical that we’ll have actual convincing simulations of human brains any time soon. We’re still in the phase of trying to figure out how mice decide to turn left or right in a maze. Not to mention that the ethical/allowed ways of collecting human neural data are incredibly coarse especially the most common forms like fMRI or EEG (maybe some BCI will improve this but it’s still pretty rough technology). Most of our data as well is collected in incredibly controlled conditions (even “naturalistic” stimuli) so the data we operate on is still not particularly indicative of how people act in the real world. Maybe you mean simulations of a “mind” which behaves like people even if it’s not particularly accurate to the brain? What did you mean by this?by snaking0776
5/19/2026 at 6:07:58 AM
> I hope the speech isn't something dumb like "remember only humans have souls" because I think that's really premature and pretty obvious that AIs are not people at this point.It really is en vogue to have this attitude that everyone in church is stupid for believing but it's a huge disservice to yourself to not understand the Vatican is full of the equivalent of the best PhDs sourced from all over the world centered around their specific topic of interest, theology.
Also for the time being you can see that the Vatican understands AI much better than you already, just have a read here: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docu... [0]
> ANTIQUA ET NOVA > Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence
by vasco
5/19/2026 at 10:19:05 AM
> the Vatican is full of the equivalent of the best PhDs sourced from all over the world centered around their specific topic of interest, theology.I’m sure there are Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings superfans who have put in a PhD level of time and research into their favorite “topic of interest” as well.
by ryandrake
5/19/2026 at 10:33:17 AM
Yeah and if there was a global organization of Harry Potter PhDs that selected the best from all over the world for hundreds of years I'd probably think those guys were smart too and probably wouldn't have surface level takes about adjacent topics.by vasco
5/19/2026 at 11:51:06 AM
Given what we know about the origins of Harry Potter, you basically proved ryandrake’s point. Just because you put time into something does not make it worthy of attention.Religions’ primary purpose is to facilitate tribal bonds, not experimentally seek truths and evaluate data for consistency. That is why almost all start with a set of tenets or immutable “facts”, such as the existence of an immortal component of a person (usually called a soul).
by lotsofpulp
5/19/2026 at 2:27:53 PM
No vasco is saying if Harry Potter fans put a lot of study into astronomy, would you immediately discount their expertise in astronomy because of their devotion to Potterdom?by triceratops
5/19/2026 at 4:11:38 PM
> Religions’ primary purpose is to facilitate tribal bondsThat's what religion does, but so does "working in Silicon Valley for a tech company". What religion is is another matter entirely.
by svieira
5/19/2026 at 10:25:47 AM
And I'm sure you have never even tried to acquire a PhD :p.by bjourne
5/19/2026 at 10:33:02 AM
I have not! Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for people who have spent extreme time and energy into researching anything, including works of fiction. I’m sure they are not dumb and are immensely more well read and focused on their area than I am!The joke was meant to poke a little fun at superfans and not to belittle.
by ryandrake
5/19/2026 at 7:29:39 AM
“I hope X isn’t Y” is far from the same thing as “X is Y”. Seems like you’ve put words in their mouth so you can argue against some anti-religious straw man.by rounce
5/19/2026 at 9:43:20 AM
If I meet someone and I tell them "I hope you're not dumb", would they assume I think they are dumb or should they take it as purely whimsical? It's also funny you got stuck on that vs on the document I shared, while dissing me for pointing it out.by vasco
5/19/2026 at 10:13:37 PM
More like, if you say “I hope this movie doesn’t suck” are you preemptively implying the movie is rubbish, or are you expressing your hope that it is worth witnessing? Taken out of context you can make a case for either. Luckily we have the rest of the post for that context so surely it’d be reasonable to base one’s interpretation on that.by rounce
5/19/2026 at 4:51:46 PM
> ANTIQUA ET NOVA
> Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence
> https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html
Let's see how the direction evolves with the new Pope and 1.5 years later.
by dolmen
5/19/2026 at 9:03:14 AM
Intelligence is orthogonal to the tendency to blind obedience to some dogma, or its practical indistinguishable behavioral equivalence no matter what one actually think inwardly.It doesn’t take a high academia credential to develop a critical mindset about established institutions, and quite the opposite seems more likely.
by psychoslave
5/19/2026 at 10:21:05 AM
[dead]by andrepd
5/19/2026 at 6:26:30 AM
Martin Heidegger discussed it already. Technology isn't just a tool, but the way we shape the World. The question with technology and AI should not be only "what should we do with it", but beside it, "what does technology do with us"by pelasaco
5/19/2026 at 8:36:34 AM
> I hope the speech isn't something dumb like "remember only humans have souls"This is the position of the Catholic Church, so don't expect anything different.
My hope is that, within those boundaries, he may find something interesting and meaningful to say.
by bananaflag
5/19/2026 at 12:45:35 PM
Is that really the position of the Catholic Church or what is a caricature of what people think it believes? The nice thing about the Catholic Church is that required beliefs have a formal spec. For something has important as this, there would be a clear and unambiguous references. Catholic Catechism / church council / papal encyclical. Do you have a quotable reference?What I can find is only Aquinas that all living things have souls (anima). Humans have rational human souls. Animals have animal souls...
Descartes believed that only humans have souls. But that definitely represents a clear alternative to traditional Catholic beliefs. Many modern philosophers might argue that only humans have "consciousness" in a way that implies animals do not have souls.
by buntsai
5/19/2026 at 3:01:39 PM
Indeed, the Cartesian position is not the Catholic position and, in fact, directly contradicts the Catholic position.The soul, according to an Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding, is the form of a living thing. Form is what makes a thing what it is. If you deny form, then you deny that things have any identity whatsoever and the world becomes unintelligible. Science itself becomes impossible.
So, the form is the formal cause of a thing's identity, and so everything that exists has a formal cause, because you cannot not have something that isn't something. In living things, we call this form the soul; we sometimes say that the soul is the form of the body. Accordingly, it is absurd to think of the soul and the body to be two things (like Descartes thought), just as it is absurd to treat the spherical shape of a ball of bronze as a distinct thing from the bronze. There is no sphericial-shape-as-such or bronze-as-such as things in the world.
While Descartes denied the consciousness of non-human animals, this was never the Aristotelian-Thomist position. In fact, it is taken to be flatly wrong. So denial of the consciousness of non-human animals is not really traditional at all. It is very much modern.
by lo_zamoyski
5/19/2026 at 2:32:11 PM
Only humans have immortal souls. From the Catechism (1703):> Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul, The human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."
https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/secti...
by maleldil
5/19/2026 at 3:05:03 PM
Yes, and this immortality is attributed to the immateriality of the intellectual faculties. According to this view, you can think of human death as more of an amputation of the body from the totality of the spiritual-bodily composite. Bodily resurrection is thus a restoration of the body.by lo_zamoyski
5/20/2026 at 3:00:01 AM
You might find a spectrum to be more useful framing than a binary. Asking when does consciousness seem more present? Are there different aspects of consciousness that can individually be validated as apparent or not? That sort of thing.by erikerikson
5/19/2026 at 12:25:04 PM
I've recently started listening to a podcast from a retired Anglican Bishop, "Ask N.T. Wright Anything".IIUC, he claims that the concept of "soul" is something that the wasn't really present in the Jewish worldview of Jesus' time. Rather, it's something that later theologians (Aquinas?) picked up from Greek philosophy (Platonism?).
I wonder if that means Wright would have a different take on the whole "only humans have souls" idea. (Beyond just differing on the choice of terminology, I mean.)
by CoastalCoder
5/19/2026 at 1:52:32 PM
>he claims that the concept of "soul" is something that the wasn't really present in the Jewish worldview of Jesus' timeThat's a broadly accepted take among religious historians, although it's off by a half century, roughly, if you include the Jewish diaspora. Philo of Alexandria did begin to integrate Jewish scripture with Greek philosophy on the soul during his lifetime.
by AlanYx
5/19/2026 at 2:09:23 PM
Interesting. Thanks!> although it's off by a half century, roughly, if you include the Jewish diaspora.
Mind expanding on this part?
by CoastalCoder
5/20/2026 at 1:26:17 PM
Most of the soul ideas that eventually made their way into Judaism (and many years later becoming heavily influential in sects like the one founded by Baal Shem Tov) originally came from diaspora Hellenic Jews who were familiar with Platonism. There was about a half century+ lag before these ideas diffused. That is, they existed but were not yet mainstream.by AlanYx
5/19/2026 at 1:27:11 PM
Non-human intelligences has been considered over the centuries / millennia:* https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/aliens-and-...
I'm not sure there's a 'definitive' statement as of yet as to AI, but things tend to be leaning towards needing to be biological:
* https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/can-artificial-intelligen...
* https://www.ncregister.com/interview/the-mind-and-the-machin...
Not sure if this means carbon-based or not:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemi...
Some thoughts from a philosophy professor (who is Catholic):
> 2. “But neurons do what logic gates do. So we know that computers can be intelligent, because they are essentially doing what our brains are doing.”
> No, they aren’t. True, there are causal relations between neurons that are vaguely analogous to the causal relations holding between logic gates and other elements of an electronic computer. But that is where the similarity ends, and it is a similarity that is far less significant than the differences between the cases. Logic gates are designed by electrical engineers in a way that will make them suitable for interpretation as implementing logical functions. No one is doing anything like that with neurons. In particular, no one is assigning an interpretation as implementing a logical function, or any other interpretation for that matter, to neurons. (The point is simple and obvious, but commonly overlooked precisely because it is so obvious, like the tip of your nose that you never notice precisely because it is right in front of you.)
> That brings us to a second difference […]
* https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/03/artificial-intellig...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Feser
He has a few books, including one entitled Philosophy of Mind (A Beginner's Guide), so has thought about this.
by throw0101c
5/19/2026 at 1:34:38 PM
With regard to souls its intelligences vs animals rather than human vs alien intelligences. I doubt there will be a definitive position in AGI until we known what a true AI is like.by graemep
5/19/2026 at 2:09:37 PM
We could do that without waiting for """AI""", actually I see absolutely no reason why """AI""" would move this topic in a good direction.Factories were supposed to deliver us from work, automation was supposed to deliver us from work, computers were supposed to deliver us from work, now it's """AI""", tomorrow it'll be "quantum computers", the next time it'll be "cold fusion". It does not work and will never work, because it's not a bug in the system, it is the system
by toasty228
5/19/2026 at 4:15:26 PM
> I hope the speech isn't something dumb like "remember only humans have souls" because I think that's really premature and pretty obvious that AIs are not people at this point.I hope it is, because we already have the likes of Dawkins spilling opinions like “machines are conscious”.
So here we have a figure of authority saying humans are soulless but machines are conscious, furthering the argument that it’s okay to exploit humans, there’s nothing special about them if we can replace them with a machine.
by manoDev
5/19/2026 at 1:42:34 AM
A cursory look at the fall of extreme poverty across the world, over the last few decades, is enough to refute the idea that the world is largely based on exploitation.by jdkoeck
5/19/2026 at 1:56:44 AM
I agree that things are getting better, but your sentiment feels a bit premature; exploitation is still alive and well in many supply chains. The people who manufacture the products you buy often live much harder lives than you.https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-o...
by sheepolog
5/19/2026 at 2:17:14 AM
You assume that exploitation and material improvement can not coexist. You can be exploited just as well, by that I mean you're not getting a fair share for what you contribute to the system.by taosx
5/19/2026 at 8:56:44 AM
That’s really depending on which scale one use. Those who define the terms like "rich" and "poor" are already setting the frame to let the narrative almost only able to go into their specific envisioned perspectives.by psychoslave
5/19/2026 at 1:52:59 AM
Has wealth been distributed from exploiter to exploited? Doesn't seem like it. It just seems like the 99% are being exploited a little more evenhandedly.by hamandcheese
5/19/2026 at 11:01:30 AM
A big chunk of it was the improvement in China, which started with a recovery from a previous disastrous decline.The last 100+ years have also been atypical. Two world wars which disrupted economies in ways that lead to redistribution, huge changes from the end of European empires, the fall of the Soviet Union and communism, and technological advances that automated work but created may new jobs.
I would be very reluctant to assume a continuing trend from that.
by graemep
5/19/2026 at 3:06:09 AM
"UM ACTUALLY THOSE SWEATSHOP WORKERS ARE LUCKY TO BE WORKING FOR PENNIES AN HOUR TO MAKE MY OVERPRICED CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND THESE FLY-ASS Js"by b00ty4breakfast
5/19/2026 at 3:44:50 AM
I suggest a look at the recent economic development of Bangladesh, if you want something less abstract to illustrate the point that the reduction in poverty is very noticeable.You would think that a great reduction in extreme poverty would give people pause, but it is almost always barely acknowledged. The strange conclusion is that people who tell you they care the most about poverty do not actually care about it in the slightest. It is just a vehicle for their resentment.
by jdkoeck
5/19/2026 at 5:22:47 AM
My last impression of Bangladesh was the fire accord stuff, i.e. build emergency exits and get garment factory owners to stop locking their workers inside since they keep going up in flames.Maybe they've grown. Is Bangladesh at the stage where they outsource labour to other countries yet?
by mrkeen
5/19/2026 at 7:08:31 AM
Bangladesh's Human Development Index (HDI) has shown a consistent upward trend, reaching 0.685 in the 2023/2024 report, ranking 130th out of 193 countries. It remains in the "Medium Human Development" category, marking a 72.5% increase in HDI value since 1990 due to significant improvements in life expectancy, education, and GNI per capita.by andsoitis
5/19/2026 at 8:36:10 AM
What does that have to do with exploitation?by mrkeen
5/19/2026 at 10:40:26 AM
Wow, in 36 years of scientific and technological progress, life expectancy went up and so did raw economic output?Again, what does that have to do with exploitation?
by andrepd
5/19/2026 at 1:55:46 AM
yeah I'm not impressed. Its not like the worlds religions have consistently held the moral high ground.That catholic church has a long and sordid history of protecting its own.
by senectus1
5/19/2026 at 4:23:54 AM
[flagged]by xdennis
5/19/2026 at 6:20:58 AM
> I don't think religions should appeal to outsidersYou'd have made strange bedfellows with cranky Catholics who thought so too, 60 years ago after Vatican II's modernization reforms.
> You can see this with the number of members for Unitarian churches (declining) vs Amish (growing).
Hold on a sec, you ought to clarify what you mean by "gain more members" - the Amish have a very high birthrate, averaging 6.1 kids per woman. While Unitarians are below the replacement rate.
> Games which chase inclusivity often fail, because the very people they appeal to don't actually want to play video games.
How is this old culture-wars canard still being rolled out? A glance at the character rosters on the Game of the Year winners for the past 10 years proves you wrong.
by overfeed
5/19/2026 at 10:10:47 AM
> How is this old culture-wars canard still being rolled out?I think it was dusted off when the game Mixtape received glowing reviews despite there being hardly any actual gameplay in it.
by Tade0
5/19/2026 at 9:09:28 AM
[flagged]by joe_mamba
5/19/2026 at 11:49:37 AM
Ah yes, the total failure of checks notes 5 million copies of Slay the Spire 2 sold.Let it go. It's not healthy. Witch hunts like this are not helping anyone with anything, other than influencer grifters.
by krige
5/19/2026 at 7:47:47 PM
>Ah yes, the total failure of checks notes 5 million copies of Slay the Spire 2 sold.You forgot these gems:
+-----------------------+------+--------------------+---------------------+
| Game / Publication | Year | Estimated Loss | Layoffs / Fallout |
+-----------------------+------+--------------------+---------------------+
| Concord | 2024 | ~$400,000,000 | Studio Closed |
| Suicide Squad: KTJL | 2024 | ~$200,000,000 | 50%+ of QA Cut |
| Skull & Bones | 2024 | ~$150M - $200M | Heavy Global Cuts |
| Star Wars Outlaws | 2024 | ~$100M - $150M | Massive Studio Cuts |
| Hyenas | 2023 | ~$100,000,000 | 240+ Staff Cut |
| Saints Row | 2022 | ~$100,000,000 | Studio Closed |
| Highguard | 2026 | ~$80M - $100M | Studio Closed |
+-----------------------+------+--------------------+---------------------+
| MEDIA & JOURNALISM STATUS UPDATES |
+-----------------------+------+--------------------+---------------------+
| Game Informer | 2024 | Brand Dissolved | Shuttered by Owner |
| Polygon | 2025 | Sold / Gutted | Mass Editorial Cuts |
| Eurogamer Network | 2026 | Multi-Wave Cuts | Core Teams Laid Off |
| Giant Bomb | 2025 | Dismantled | Core Talent Left |
| Inverse & The Verge | 2026 | Verticals Closed | Sections Abolished |
| Launcher (Wash. Post) | 2023 | Verticals Closed | Division Shut Down |
+-----------------------+------+--------------------+---------------------+
See the last two columns? Those are rookie numbers, we gotta pump those numbers up till we send them all to Doordash and Chili's, then the gaming industry can start to heal.
by joe_mamba
5/20/2026 at 7:49:52 AM
[flagged]by DonHopkins
5/19/2026 at 10:22:51 AM
My guy, just let it go, and find hobbies which are not watching streamers.by andrepd
5/19/2026 at 4:48:02 AM
For better or worse, the Catholic church has shaped most of western philosophy for at least 1500 years, including topics not necessarily related to existence of a deity or belief in that existence. It's not surprising that some of their thoughts seem sound and consistent with your ethics.by bonzini
5/19/2026 at 5:38:36 AM
It's been over 12 years since gamergate. 10 years since it was co-opted by parasites. You've got to let it go.by krige
5/19/2026 at 11:08:48 AM
> I'm an atheist too, but I don't think religions should appeal to outsiders.Why not? When i was an agnostic I liked the Catholic church as an institution (and many other religious organisations too).
> The idea is that by relaxing norms, he wants to gain more members.
That is a ridiculously cynical take. People join the church, and even more the priesthood because they believe. Why would they corrupt the message to get the numbers up?
I do not know what norms have been relaxed by the church anyway? Changing the mass used by the majority of Catholics? Its happened many times historically.
> But it doesn't actually go that way. It alienates the core, and the people for whom compromises are made don't want to join anyway.
I see no sign of alienation except in small fringe groups (so not the "core").
> You can see this with the number of members for Unitarian churches (declining) vs Amish (growing).
The Catholic church is growing globally.
by graemep
5/19/2026 at 12:36:20 PM
You seem to be responding to OP line by line instead of understanding their overall point.OP doesn't appear to be saying Catholicism ought not to grow - rather that they believe trying to appeal to a wider audience than that which is already interested in religion is likely to fail, or worse, backfire.
by radlad
5/19/2026 at 3:58:47 PM
The overall point fails because it requires those points.Religions grow by appealing to a wider audience than that which is already interested. That is precisely how Christianity spread in the first place.
What the Catholic Church is doing is not backfiring even in the terms of the original argument, and I would challenge the assumption that losing people is "backfiring". The church has a duty to preach what it believes to be the truth, rather than what all its members want to hear. Losing some members might not be a bad thing.
by graemep
5/19/2026 at 7:51:18 AM
[flagged]by DonHopkins
5/19/2026 at 9:13:11 AM
[flagged]by joe_mamba
5/19/2026 at 10:01:21 AM
MOST games lose huge amounts of money, and the "many" games you -- without a shred of evidence -- claim DEI caused to lose hundreds of millions are overwhelmingly offset by one single game, The Sims, earning the studio many billions of dollars, continuing to this day.And which itself inspired and gave permission and financial justification for many other inclusive games, indie to AAA, by proving there was a huge female audience for games, 14 years before Gamergate got it all wrong by attacking women while pretending it was about journalism.
So of course Gamergate didn't mean to be about The Sims, because The Sims totally undermines its claims. That's why they avoided mentioning or attacking The Sims, pretending it didn't exist and have millions of female players, and why you bristle and bluster and bullshit without evidence when I bring it up.
What receipts do you have to prove the brash claims of your Gamergate apologetics, to counter the design document receipts and first hand experience in the industry developing successful inclusive games popular with gays and girls and even boys, that I just shared?
This video essay by Alexander Avila is right on, and the comments are wonderful:
Did The Sims make you gay? - a video essay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi-HWyh0Ybk
>It's no doubt The Sims is an influential video game. In this video essay, we're going to talk about its GAY influence, particularly the role it plays in queer people's identity development. Enjoy the presentation as we go over how the Sims influenced a generation in letting them live out their Tumblr dreams...
by DonHopkins
5/19/2026 at 10:28:26 AM
Thanks for posting those PDFs! It is a rare insight into the often secret world of AAA game development. I can’t believe people are still hung up on and defending Gamergate after all these years. Absolutely unhinged.by ryandrake
5/19/2026 at 10:33:18 AM
Glad you liked them! Here are some more: https://donhopkins.com/home/TheSimsDesignDocuments/>Absolutely unhinged.
Especially pathetic and revealing when they still try to argue it was "Ackchyually" about "unethical journalism". Yet look where we are today, and the streaming influencer "journalists" they follow.
The Sims wasn't just inclusive -- it was chock full of social commentary, from its simulation mechanics to its object descriptions to its storytelling support. What Ian Bogost calls "Procedural Rhetoric": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_rhetoric
>Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric is a rhetorical concept that explains how people learn through the authorship of rules and processes. The theory argues that games can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct. The term was first coined by Ian Bogost in his 2007 book, Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.
>Bogost argues that games make strong claims about how the world works by the processes they embody. Procedural rhetoric analyzes the art of persuasion by rule based representations and interactions rather than spoken or written word. Procedural rhetoric focuses on how game makers craft laws and rules within a game to convey a particular ideology. [...]
>Frasca mentions the simulation games SimCity and The Sims as examples of procedural rhetoric and uses the handling of same-sex relationships as an example: "[T]he way that The Sims's designers dealt with gay couples was not just through representation (for example, by allowing players to put gay banners on their yards), they also decided to build a rule about it. In this game, same-gender relationships are possible. ... By incorporating this rule, the designers are showing tolerance towards this sexual option."
If Gamergate were really about "ideology in games", The Sims should have been its ground zero central target, and they would have been attacking journalists who wrote about it positively. It wasn’t, and they weren't. That tells you their stated concern wasn't the real one. It was all about attacking and excluding women from day one.
Gamergate was a dry run for MAGA. It pioneered the same online tactics later used by the Trumpist right: coordinated harassment, grievance politics, memes, conspiracy theories, anti-"SJW" culture war framing, and the mobilization of angry online communities into a political movement.
Steve Bannon and Breitbart recognized its potential early, refined and amplified it, and used it to recruit and radicalize a generation of online activists who later flowed into MAGA politics.
Many researchers, journalists, and historians now describe Gamergate as a precursor or template for the alt-right, QAnon, and Trump-era online organizing.
Axios -- "How the far right borrowed its online moves from gamers": https://www.axios.com/2022/10/20/gamergate-right-online-hara...
Encyclopædia Britannica -- Gamergate entry: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gamergate-campaign ("Bannon and Yiannopoulos would use that platform to draw Gamergate supporters into the larger alt-right movement.")
WIRED -- "Gamergate's Aggrieved Men Still Haunt the Internet": https://www.wired.com/story/gamergates-aggrieved-men-still-h...
Poynter -- "Gamergate was a warning that the media failed to heed": https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2025/what-was-gamergate...
University of Melbourne -- "How the far right weaponised gamers and geek masculinity": https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/how-the-far-right-we...
ABC Australia — “Alt-right groups are targeting young video gamers”: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-15/alt-right-groups-vide...
Wikipedia summary with citations to books and reporting on Bannon, Breitbart, the alt-right, and MAGA connections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate
by DonHopkins
5/19/2026 at 4:04:42 PM
[flagged]by joe_mamba
5/20/2026 at 7:39:18 AM
[flagged]by DonHopkins
5/19/2026 at 1:12:25 AM
When it’s necessary for the pope to tell the orange one to calm down about wiping out a civilisation, you know things are bad.by grebc
5/19/2026 at 3:04:21 AM
This would be more of an indictment if we were closer to the 19th century rather than 5 popes deep into public denouncements of American militarism.by b00ty4breakfast
5/19/2026 at 3:58:16 PM
Are you talking about the 40 years of 'death to America, death to Israel' calls from the Islamic Republican of Iran? The same regime that bragged 'we defeated/destroyed Persian culture/civilization' when they took over Iran?by _DeadFred_
5/19/2026 at 7:45:37 PM
Iran's prior government was a US-supported monarchy and torture regime, with Israel also credibly accused of state-sanctioned ethnic cleansing, rape and torture. Arab resentment of American and Israeli occupation is justified much in the same way as the occupied Raj demanding death to Britain.Today, the Likud regime recycles this same language specifically to foment racial violence in occupied territory, which should be sanctioned by America but isn't: https://www.jta.org/2026/05/14/israel/death-to-arabs-chanted...
by bigyabai
5/19/2026 at 9:03:28 PM
What does that have to do with the Islamic Republic's bragging of conquering/ending Persian civilization in the name of Islam? A group should not celebrate conquering/ending a civilization. Especially so called religious leaders.Iran is not Arab and is not occupied by Israel.
In your second statement you seem to callout the behavior, yet you defend it in the first? Calling for the death of random societal/structural groups, be that entire countries/societies, ethnic group, etc, is unacceptable behavior. It is especially unacceptable when it is done by powerful political leaders. It is outright evil when it is done by religious leaders.
by _DeadFred_
5/20/2026 at 1:32:11 PM
Iran probably doesn't have the means to wipe America and Israel off the map while the inverse is not true.Somebody threatening to do something they are capable of is obviously quite different than somebody threatening something they cannot do.
by ImJamal
5/20/2026 at 4:31:15 PM
Yet the Islamic Republic of Iran is the only one of those nations that bragged about erasing an entire civilization when they celebrated that they had 'defeated/destroyed Persian civilization' when they took over Iran. In their minds they have ALREADY done this once.by _DeadFred_
5/19/2026 at 1:03:48 AM
Human value has rarely existed. Pre-industrial world didn't have much human value. Your were a lord or a serf. There was not much in between. A lord's life had value, a serf's value was nothing.Post-industrial world needed human capital. Hence, the need for human value. If you notice most of this "need" has arisen out of then need for industrial expansion.
Post-AI will be interesting. Will we go back to pre-industrial or get something better.
by orochimaaru
5/19/2026 at 1:12:39 AM
I don't think this is factually accurate. What it really boils down is a question of scale of societies.Most of us humans inherently value each other. There are exceptions, and small communities can get nasty. But for the most part, small human communities tend to be supportive and valuing each other.
This really only stops being the case when you get large-scale societies that allow humans to view others through an overly abstract lens. Combine that with an unchecked accumulation of power, and you have the potential for those in power to view the rest as without value.
by atq2119
5/19/2026 at 2:13:42 AM
I agree with you. I recently watched a bunch of videos from a YouTuber 'Mike Okay' and he visits some random, obscure and non-standard countries to travel.Most of the people he encounters are super friendly, welcoming and willing to bend over backwards to help him out. It's genuine human connection and willingness. He will speak to people from every possible background, including people in the Taliban and honestly at the end of the day, we're all humans and most people respect that.
Things have become blurred with social media, digital life, closed and private nature of the modern world but if you take a step back, you can realize humans are typically, very helpful, friendly and unique characters.
by HDBaseT
5/19/2026 at 2:26:37 AM
It's telling how blithely you're missing the point of what the pope(s) mean by human value. Their intended meaning is that far gone from modern consciousness, even among people who meant to champion some kind of human value themselves.They're not talking about the economic value of humans or even the psychological value of humans as subjects with experiences and a right to liberty or care or something. The idea they're trying to recall and reinvigorate is a sense of human value that transcends that temporal, material noise altogether and that is truly universal. It's the human value that welcomed slaves, prostitutes, wretches, merchants and kings as peers in something grander than economy or state or lineage or tribe or creed.
Now, you can make a well-developed case that that's hogwash and that the human value that matters is the one that alleviates suffering or grants liberty or even the one that grants material reward for some virtue or bloodline or whatever, but that's not what these guys are talking about. They mean a human nature that is always there and always worthy, just as much when it's experiencing temporal poverty/suffering/abuse as when it's basking in temporal wealth/success/freedom.
The idea is that Christian or not, Catholic or not, it does good for everyone to think of human value that way and the critique -- for a long time now -- is that for all the flash and glimmer of technology and its material benefits, it sometimes makes it very very easy to forget.
by swatcoder
5/19/2026 at 11:53:02 AM
>>> It's the human value that welcomed slaves, prostitutes, wretches, merchants and kings as peers in something grander than economy or state or lineage or tribe or creed.This sounds a lot like an appeal to democracy, yet it often seems that religion is at odds with democracy in our world. And given the choice between living in a religious society or a democratic one, I'd choose the democracy any day of the week. Not just for my own prosperity, but for the overall welfare of everybody.
The one thing that has heartened me about the new Pope is that he has spoken favorably about democracy.
by analog31
5/19/2026 at 1:48:07 PM
Modern democracy developed in societies dominated by religious values and at least partly because of those values.What you describe as an appeal to democracy could also be described as a statement of Christian values. The idea that every individual matters and is loved by God is a core belief. There are some quotes in my other comments, but I think this is worth adding. https://biblehub.com/galatians/3-28.htm
by graemep
5/19/2026 at 4:28:32 PM
This is indeed the paradox. I call it a paradox because it seems like religions value those things on paper but religious societies counteract them. I'm as puzzled as anybody as to the root cause.The development of democracy may have been a reaction of religious people towards their own religions.
by analog31
5/19/2026 at 5:25:10 PM
It depends on what you mean by a religious society. Do you mean theocracies ? Democracies with a religious electorate? Countries with an established religion?by graemep
5/19/2026 at 5:38:48 PM
Yes. ;-)Granted there are only so many countries, so it would be hard to see a clear statistical picture. And it's complicated by the fact that religion may be secondary to democracy as a predictor of well-being. But I don't know of a country right now (or a region in the US) where the influence of religion on governance is a cause for optimism about the future of democracy.
by analog31
5/20/2026 at 8:05:19 AM
I can think of one quite easily! I am in the UK where the influence of religion on politics is very much positive IMO. For example, we have an established church that often speaks up for the poor, against war, etc. Religion is in the forefront of practical action: it is a disgrace we need good banks, but the religious took the lead in filling that need (I see the same around the world too).Also, historically we would not have democracy as we know it without the moral framework of religious ideas. I am guessing you are American and the idea of separation of church and state can be traced back to a long line of development that started with "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Even in the UK, despite the efforts of Henry VIII, state control of the church faded and we are a de facto secular democracy.
Yes, my examples and arguments are all Christian, but different religions have different values and histories so you cannot generalise across all of them and I am sticking to what I know. I also think taking a long term historical view makes it look a lot more positive. Have you read Dominion by Tom Holland?
by graemep
5/20/2026 at 11:03:14 PM
Indeed, I had forgotten about England. I'll have to think about it, because it was absent from my long list of priors. Here in the US, it's generally assumed that the countries "across the pond" are less religious.The US is presently ruled by a overtly religious party that rejects church-state separation. Our President sells Bibles and prays in public with his cabinet. His party is supported by a predominantly religious electoral "base." And the influence of this system is not limited to one errant president, but has been systematically pursued for decades.
I hope that their ideas are distortions of true religious doctrine, but I can't prove it, and have no power to challenge them except in the voting booth.
I learned an alternate take on "give unto Caesar" which was that Caesar's money represented the wealth of this world, which is worthless compared to the infinite wealth of the spiritual world. The point was for Christians to remain aloof from earthly problems such as governance, which were expected to be temporary.
I don't doubt that religions promote virtuous ideals. And I don't expect religion to vanish, so if democracy has religious roots, those roots won't suddenly be forgotten.
by analog31
5/21/2026 at 11:43:54 AM
> Here in the US, it's generally assumed that the countries "across the pond" are less religious.Historically there were not less religious, and they were mostly very religious during the period when they developed democratic institutions. They are getting less religious and less democratic at the moment.
> The US is presently ruled by a overtly religious party that rejects church-state separation. Our President sells Bibles and prays in public with his cabinet.
His religion is a political posture. What Christian would wish people "Happy Good Friday" as he once tweeted? The strong supporters of the current president are "white evangelical protestant", a very distinctly American group. Others are split.
> I learned an alternate take on "give unto Caesar" which was that Caesar's money represented the wealth of this world, which is worthless compared to the infinite wealth of the spiritual world. The point was for Christians to remain aloof from earthly problems such as governance, which were expected to be temporary.
Interesting. It certainly was making the point that Jesus was not seeking to lead a political revolution or revolt against the Romans. Saying Christians should be entirely aloof from earthly problems entirely seems contradicted by other things though.
by graemep
5/19/2026 at 4:56:37 PM
I prefer a more general version: (and keep <deity> out of the discussion)= All life is precious =
For "life", you can read: any creature that potentially could be perceived as an individual that deserves a minimum of respect, a fair share of space/raw materials, not hurting, torturing or kill it without good reason, etc.
No need to go to extremes, but the above is imho a good starting point when considering the ethics on how to treat other creatures. Note that the question of whether something has a 'soul' or not, is not relevant there.
I'd be willing to consider including AI entities in that "life" category, if/when they cross that line between machine/tool and "creature with own personality, hopes, dreams, fears etc". Regardless of physical form.
by RetroTechie
5/19/2026 at 2:38:42 AM
What rot. Tell that to native Americans who were forcibly converted and enslaved. Tell that to people in the inquisition. Tell that to peoples in India and the east that were forcibly converted so that the pope could fill his coffers. Tell that to all the children murdered in Christian and catholic schools.Christianity and Catholicism doesn’t fool me. If you’ve ever wanted to see the mythical devil - look to those preaching and they legacy of hate that they carry.
by orochimaaru
5/19/2026 at 2:46:55 AM
There's really no argument against the institutional and historical hypocisy. There's no shortage of people and groups that have done or currently do horrible violence against others, sometimes even in the name of these ideas.But I don't know if that takes away from the idea itself and what fruitful counterpoint it might play in modern discourse.
by swatcoder
5/19/2026 at 4:13:27 AM
So your argument is that if some people who claim allegiance to an idea do evil things, that renders all who claim such allegiance, and even the idea itself, evil? That is a pretty poor argument. It's also one that I don't think you would actually accept in another context. I bet you anything that I can find some ideal you uphold which was espoused by some vile people at some point, and I also bet that you wouldn't go "ok, I guess I have to give that ideal up now".by bigstrat2003
5/19/2026 at 4:14:14 PM
If a group of people claim to be "divinely inspired" but then they do the same evil more or less as other groups, that leads me to conclude that they are not uniquely favoured by a god.by andrepd
5/19/2026 at 10:56:44 AM
> Tell that to native Americans who were forcibly converted and enslaved.Tell that to those were were protects by the influence of the Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_of_the_Indians
> Tell that to people in the inquisition.
Which inquisition? Do you by any chance mean the Spanish Inquisition? An agency of the Spanish government.
> Tell that to peoples in India and the east that were forcibly converted so that the pope could fill his coffers
Which people. There were Christians in India for 2,000 years. Some of my ancestors probably converted before the English did.
> Tell that to all the children murdered in Christian and catholic schools.
AFAIK these are mostly allegations that have never ben substantiated.
by graemep
5/19/2026 at 2:48:07 PM
> > Tell that to peoples in India and the east that were forcibly converted so that the pope could fill his coffers> Which people. There were Christians in India for 2,000 years. Some of my ancestors probably converted before the English did.
These Christians in India, who have been there for 2,000 years, are only the syrian christians or st thomas christians or malankara nasranis that follow eastern rite liturgies(syriac rites to be specific), and they all happen to be from the state of kerala or the malabar region only. The state itself has latin rite catholics as well as protestants which all started only since European colonial arrivals, though the syrian christians or st thomas christians or malankara nasranis are the majority of christians from that state. I am not trying to argue that all these people in India from european christianity(latin rite catholic and protestant) are forced converts or anything. Still, anytime this argument comes up, the syrian christians or st thomas christians or malankara nasranis are used as a shield, still, at the same time, in other cases, the community is also ridiculed as wrong christianity and the history of community as fake by the same people who use it as shield (the event of terming as wrong literally happened when portuguese came in the 15th century and force converted all to latin rite through synod of diamper which led to coonan cross oath leading to restoration of syriac litrugy but unfortunately permanently splitting the community into eastern catholics and orthodox denominations; even the british later came and tried to protestantise creating a small protestant faction also out the orthodox ones).
by mamala_mamachan
5/19/2026 at 2:42:37 PM
[dead]by rss_gpt
5/19/2026 at 9:01:33 AM
[flagged]by joe_mamba
5/19/2026 at 12:05:04 PM
Islam is worse than Christianity. They preach hate to begin with. At least Christianity started peacefully before being consumed by the conversion mafia.Judaism I have nothing against as a religion. They don’t proselytize.
by orochimaaru
5/19/2026 at 10:41:46 AM
Tier-0 whataboutism argument.by andrepd
5/19/2026 at 4:06:59 PM
[flagged]by joe_mamba
5/19/2026 at 10:50:35 AM
> Pre-industrial world didn't have much human value. Your were a lord or a serf. There was not much in between. A lord's life had value, a serf's value was nothing.Not true. Serfs had rights that varied a lot between societies and over time. Religions mostly teach a value of human life, and Christianity teaches equal value: "when Adam devlved and Eve span who was then the gentleman", or "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" or "it is easier for a rich map to pass through the eye of the needle".
There were all sorts of people in between. Free people who were not serfs. Skilled people who were members of guilds.
by graemep
5/19/2026 at 7:52:53 PM
In fact, the value of those lives - in terms of their souls - was quite explicitly equal. Numerous pieces of Momento Mori and Apocalyptic artwork reinforced the notion that beggars, nobles, and even popes would appear equally before Jesus for a moral judgment, with the same chance to be found worthy or damnable.And "the Conqueror Worm" would make sure all of them faced the same afterlife treatment, whether they were buried in silks or naked in a pauper's grave.
by IAmBroom
5/19/2026 at 6:46:56 AM
People really should stop making up history from childrens books. People were valuing people to various degrees and tool seriously the human value question in every single period we have records from.And varrying degrees apply to post-industrial too - your human value did not meant much in very much industrial third reich fans hands.
by watwut
5/19/2026 at 8:52:00 AM
>And varrying degrees apply to post-industrial too - your human value did not meant much in very much industrial third reich fans hands.Ho, certainly they did.
The scope of the ethics is then windowed on who’s deemed human, and who can be slaughtered like an animal for the glory of the great civilization one is part of.
Nothing specific to nazis, look at Rwandan genocide. Hutu extremists systematically referred to Tutsis as "cockroaches" and "snakes" in propaganda. Or even closer on a timeline perspective, Israeli leaders and media have used terms like "human animals" and described Gaza as a "city of evil" or a "nation of barbarians," while some Palestinian factions have used similar language against Israelis.
Dehumanizing "others" is the classic first step to get rid of any morale/ethical concern when interacting with them.
by psychoslave
5/19/2026 at 10:11:46 AM
Nazi seen cruelty, violence and lack of empathy as manliness and virtue. Openly and specifically. You as a young man wanting to prove yourself would be beating and killing people, knowing they are humans and that violence toward humans is what made you manly in your peer group. They were not saying "it does not count". They were saying "I am great for doing it".> The scope of the ethics is then windowed on who’s deemed human, and who can be slaughtered like an animal for the glory of the great civilization one is part of.
It was not a disagreement about who is human. Nazi did not killed just Jews and foreigners. They killed and tortured plenty of fellow Aryans, because those were their political opponents or to create fear in others. When a nazi tortured Aryan German to get names out of him, he knew full well he is torturing a human. It was not about whether they are human or not, it was simply that human life had less value.
Using animals and insects as insults does not mean there was any confusion about whether those being mistreated are humans.
> Dehumanizing "others" is the classic first step to get rid of any morale/ethical concern when interacting with them.
Actually believing they are not human is super rare and found only in some cults. Insults and degradations are how you work others to a rage, but they are not meant to be factual statements. And they are not interpreted as factual statements.
Happily, nazi left enough writing behind them, we know what they thought about human value.
by watwut
5/19/2026 at 6:06:25 AM
The concept of fundamental human rights is certainly new, but our notion of intrinsic human value (and intrinsic value of other life and things) arises from our empathy, which at least in its degree is perhaps our most important defining trait as a species. (Our empathy may have been a prerequisite for the emergence of our intelligence.)Conflating the two is why some people have trouble understanding why religions like Buddhism and Christianity seemed to tolerate so much inequality and violence; or more generally just assumed people writ large were historically more callous and uncaring than today.
Arguably one of the downsides, though, to a focus on rights vs intrinsic value is that rights are typically couched in materialist terms. Most of the time that's probably for the better, but sometimes maybe not.
by wahern
5/19/2026 at 7:58:41 PM
Dogs show empathy towards not only dogs and humans, but even baby birds and rabbits - animals which one would expect to be viewed as pure caloric units, sans empathy.Whales show empathy towards their young, and towards humans.
Male "loner" lions have been known to show empathic protection toward human and antelope young in the bush.
It's increasingly hard to define a clear difference between Humans and "mere Animals"; empathy is emphatically not a clear difference.
To date, fear of vacuum cleaners may well be the only known difference.
by IAmBroom
5/20/2026 at 12:05:32 AM
Sure, just like many other animals exhibit analytical intelligence and complex communication. The seeds are there. The distinction is by degree, but the gap is pretty wide in all three cases.No other species has been shown to systematically display non-kin, non-mating-system altruism (for which empathy is probably an integral component). It seems likely you need systematic non-kin altruism to achieve the ubiquitous, complex cooperation humans exhibit. And that complex cooperation is probably a prerequisite to make our degree of intelligence evolutionarily profitable. Otherwise human-level intelligence should be more common than our immediate lineage. (Some cousin species may very well have been smarter or more cooperative than us; relatively speaking it could be homo sapiens found a more effective equilibrium. Nonetheless our immediate lineage seems to be the only one to break through the selfish gene bottleneck that restricts other species along these axes.)
by wahern
5/19/2026 at 5:41:41 AM
If my definition of 'value' was something that was totally contingent on both post-industrial society and an ultracapitalist approach to production, and it made me deduce that human being's lives over thousands of years or in other societies were worth "nothing", I think I would interpret this as a 'reductio-ad-absurdum'. That is, by deducing an absurd conclusion from the premise, that makes a strong argument that my definition of 'value' must be so narrow as to be effectively broken. I would respond by looking for a different, more wide definition of value, among the various ones that have been proposed.by pryce
5/19/2026 at 9:41:45 AM
Then you wouldn't like Ayn Rands novels.by westmeal
5/19/2026 at 1:22:46 AM
Serfs were of value to the lord, and they were usually not treated that badly compared to many workplaces today.by GalaxyNova
5/19/2026 at 1:37:28 AM
Arguably from very early on the Church has been at the forefront of "Serfs are of value to the Lord" if you will (St Lawrence, et al).So far none of the AI stuff I've seen has really been about "the computer has no soul" and more around the danger that dehumanization can bring (which has been a refrain since the previous Leo, mind you).
by bombcar
5/19/2026 at 1:07:39 AM
I also wonder if it’s just harder to rule a much larger population in the modern world than in those times. Any jackass can show up and say that he was chosen to lead by some higher power. But you must still convince enough people that that is the case or at least have a military large enough that you can control.by mrcwinn
5/19/2026 at 8:25:24 AM
what do you know about the pre-industrial world, really?by pasquinelli
5/19/2026 at 8:37:15 AM
[dead]by psychoslave