Ero

Pretty neat UI. I also like the idea, I have experimented with LLMs before to ascertain my own, and different source’s spiral center of gravity. My only suggestion is to add multiple choices, because as you probably are aware for Tier 2, it no longer is about a single perspective. For example, when addressing challenges or human growth, being rooted in consciousness is important, but so is systemic thinking (one without the other is unproductive as Turquoise knows) At times it felt arbitrary to draw distinctions between them. There is also stuff like hierarchies of needs - if survival as at stake, such as fires, wars and immediate danger, you must always first ensure safety before going into “systemic thinking” or “universal consciousness mode”, otherwise you’d be dead. Other than that, awesome work!

@Clarence You certainly can. Leo has said before that he isn’t interested in the micro, which makes sense for his goals and purposes. The thing is, I have noticed that micro insights don’t happen in isolation. For them them to be any good, you need to already have a pretty good grasp on the thing that you are examining. “You should first know the rules to break them”, i.e say if you don’t know basic math or physics, I don’t expect for you to be getting fruitful ideas in those.

The real science starts at stage Yellow. Arthur C Clarke was very much ahead of his time, as were many cutting-edge scientists and mathematicians like Ramanujan, Tesla, Grothendieck, Gödel, von Neumann, etc. You still can’t appreciate that, because you are clutching to your new age beliefs. Observe that I didn’t say “realer” but rather “stronger”. My ontology accounts for mystical experiences and premonitions- I have had those. They are just a small part of the whole picture.

You can still get good insights on the micro level, but one needs to apply rigor to them after. Psychs can serve as both a telescope and a microscope, dialling your consciousness on what you focus.

It looks like the magic you believed in as an 11-year-old is stronger than the one you believe in now, cuz it can predict the weather and you can’t lol

@The Crocodile Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” Arthur C. Clarke

When we achieve fusion, a lot of new opportunities will be unlocked that previous energy constraints made unfeasible - stuff like desalination with which we will have essentially unlimited water for agriculture, reversing deserts, etc. This will shift fundamentally economics from a scarcity-based model (supply-demand) to one where we essentially have abundance. As such, as long as we don’t fall down some of the unsustainable game A trajectories (think Orwellian), universal high income shouldn’t be that far off.

Regretfully this is being spun as a Democrats mistake - water management and deadwood clearing. Instead if raising climate awareness, it would only lead to stronger polarisation.

Which is why both technical and wholistic perspectives are needed. You are not going to understand evolution without first understanding dynamical systems, active inference, game theory, probability and entropy.

As someone who is not subject to this process, something you may not know is that all companies requesting H1Bs are mandated by law to demonstrate that there are not enough American applicants that can satisfy the job requirements and qualifications. It's not 60,000 Einsteins, but it is 60,000 people who are on average more educated and skilled than the Americans.

That’s true, i.e we are relatively more technologically than socially developed. But I would argue we are in fact not that technically advanced in the first place. If you use energy as the scale, consider the fact that the total energy we can theoretically extract from the atom is the famous E=mc^2. The Electromagnetic bonds, which are what determine chemical reactions like the burning of coal, gas and oil, account only for 10^(-6) of that total mc^2. So outside of destroying earth, fossil fuels are actually also the most inefficient. Nuclear accounts for 10^(-3) of that, so a 1000x improvement. Fusion will be another step up - clean and literally limitless energy that also costs next to nothing ($0.2 for your entire annual energy consumption). Now that also means you solve the water crisis through desalination, and in turn this empowers sustainable agriculture. And that doesn’t even mention automation, CRISPR, etc. A lot of society’s problems stem from having to survive in zero-sum games. Once we create abundance, a lot of those pressures will reduce. If course technology doesn’t substitute for conscious development but for sure will make it possible that we don’t destroy ourselves before we learn to be better.

I feel the same with fossil fuels and energy, fast fashion industry, etc. While you are on the right side of history, I think you have to accept the fact that very few people are willing to sacrifice to live virtuous lives. That is one of the realizations that helps you to move from Stage Green to Stage Yellow. This is one of the reason I am pursuing highly technical fields, because I believe without fundamentally disruptive technological advancement, the Game A capitalist dynamics will lead to Earth's total destruction. So we simply have to beat them at their own game - by creating the alternatives that are so much better than the status quo that continuing would it would be unattractive to even the most myopic and hedonistic person.

That's actually crazy. Written in 1949 and not published until 2007. Tbh, I think Elon is wrong for wanting to "skip" the Moon and go straight to Mars (the Moon has some of the highest concentrations of helium-3, the best fuel for fusion). Also, Bezos' vision of moving industry to space is much more attractive imo. There's a lot of stuff you can do in no gravity, which you cannot do on Earth, such as 3d print organs, crystallization of certain materials and medicines (like Ritonavir).

That's actually funny. It trips me up that a person who speaks of longevity and life-long well-being looks like a vulture.

Lab grown would be fully automated. No salaries to pay, no food and land necessary. The mass meat industry will simply be undercut. There will probably still be some high-end, "free-roam" animal industry for all the rich people who would like to eat the real thing.

@Schizophonia The heavy metals are indeed a reason to significantly reduce your fish intake. That, and the catastrophic effects fishing has (the doc @Bobby_2021 pointed out) are the reason this is not sustainable.

I don't think it's that far off. Stuff like AlphaFold has increased the speed of this type of innovations by orders of magnitude. That plus CRISPR and mRNA, and I think we might see it within a decade or two.

The idea you are tryin to communicate with the flipping of the coin is closely related to entropy - most sequential coin flips are unordered (they grow exponentially 2^n), i.e they have higher "entropy", meaning they represent a larger fraction of all possible configurations. There is in fact an ongoing paradigm shift in evolutionary biology that changes the framing of life as improbable/ "anti-entropic" to actually being the result of entropy (consider for example this paper), i.e that it is not "an accident", but the natural result of the chaotic system that is existence.

They split the different parts lol - https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-10/Chicken_Turkey_Poster_0911.pdf

Btw, I totally think that lab-grown meat will eventually outperform "natural" meat both in terms of nutrition and cost (not to talk about the land and water). Genetically-engineered fruits and vegetables rich in different nutrients are also not a fantasy - I have classmates at my university working on stuff like that. So I don't think this has to be an idealogical battle, but rather a technological one.

Yep, you know. Basically how NASA was founded.

My advice is to take supplements for most of those even as a meat eater. I take magnesium, zinc, omega 3 and all B vitamins regularly,

I don't think they measured an actual 84 g piece of chicken. They probably did a few hundred tests of different chicken pieces, calculated that calories per a single gram by simply dividing the estimate by the weight. I think the 84 grams is simply the "serving size", which is something the US does for some reason. Europe does 100g baseline. I guarantee you European estimates are not made with an exact 100g piece. It's simple math.

Calories are a unit of energy, equal to approximately 4.2 joules. The method is based on burning and measuring the energy produced. That has been my scenario a large part of my life. But I still had to walk 2h to school and back outside of being on sport teams. Part of why I lost the 12kg then. Btw I am not saying you can't be big/strong and vegan - Ryan Stills and Patrik Baboumian are prime examples. All I am saying is that it's a lil harder when you are not in the best position and/or don't have ready access to different foods. In a few more years I am totally going all in.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Rice calories per USDA - 205 calories for 158g, i.e 130 calories per 100 g Whole chicken calories per USDA - 200 calores for 84 grams, i.e 240 calories per 100 g Buckwheat and Barley I agree with but those were harder to come by where I lived and were more expensive. Lentils I ate a lot of. I am 98kg at 7-8% body fat. And I exercise regularly. So, there's a difference.