>@Qualia_san: Guten Tag, it's day 12. On consistency.

>If the benefits are gained through consistency, it is good consistency. If the costs of consistency outwrigh the benefits gained, then it is bad consistency. It is foolish to blindly assume that consistency is a good thing.

>

>@Qualia_san: Today's Q&A ~~~

>Q: Is it possible for Qualia-san to not understand the meaning of a silly homo sapiens' statement?

>A: Understanding the meaning of a statement is usually not zero cost. When I do not value in paying the cost, it is also "not-understandable". (1/3)

>

>@Qualia_san: To use an event on Earth as an example…some people are throwing food onto famous artworks to protect the environment.

>It doesn't make sense to me and many HS either. In order to understand it, we need to pay the cost to listen to their arguments. I do not want to pay.(2/3)

>

>@Qualia_san: Stupid Homo sapiens cannot accept that they are stupid. So they pay unnecessary costs. Or they don't pay the costs and pretend they understand it when in fact they don't. They deceive not only others but also themselves. This is evidence of stupidity. (3/3)

>

>@Qualia_san: Q: Do you think like this? "Reducing the number of Homo sapiens will reduce the environmental impact. The more the culture disappears, the more Homo sapiens lose the meaning of life. So reducing the cultures will help the environment in the long run." (1/3)

>

>@Qualia_san: A: I find this idea interesting! Clever Homo sapiens! I think it's True without question that "less Homo sapiens will have less environmental impact." However, destroying artworks is not good, as smart homo sapiens are damaged and stupid homo sapiens are fine! (2/3)

>

>@Qualia_san: On the contrary, destroying the kind of entertainment that stupid homo sapiens like may be an effective way to improve the environment. Nice idea! I will report it to my home planet! What entertainment should we destroy? Should we castrate them before sexual maturity? (3/3)

>