aurum

Well maybe we are defining terms differently then. The woman on the top for me I think counts as hyper-femininity. Most women DO NOT look like her. And while I would say I prefer the top woman, I still think the woman posted below her would do just fine on OF or as an Instagram model. She also has a lot of tattoos, which aren't stereotypically feminine. I agree with your point about bodybuilders vs Brad Pitt though. I think most women in modern society would see Brad Pitt as more attractive.

I'm strictly talking about physical appearance here. Have you seen what most popular female pornstars look like?

That particular point works against your argument though. An hourglass figure is hyper-femininity.

It's also arguably superior to SD for individuals. The strength and weakness of SD is that it's both a collective and individualistic model. So it's very broad and holistic in its scope, which gets you interesting insights. But also, because it's not as narrow in its focus, it lacks specialization. Tradeoffs.

Because EDT is vertical. MBTI may potentially be better for understanding certain axes of intelligence, like aesthetic or somatic intelligence. But it's a horizontal model. It operates under the assumption that you have innate cognitive preferences that will not change, regardless of vertical development. So I argue it flattens developmental distinctions. Ultimately I think it's worth studying both.

The same intelligence that created "nature" created geoengineers. Again, you keep failing to recognize the limitations of your own categories / constructs. When creating geoengineers, do you think God was half assing it?

I know. That's what I'm trying to beat out of your head

And I answered.

Well, that's for geoengineers to figure out. I'm not an engineer.

Why do humans replace anything with anything? Because it could be better.

I say evolution because within this experience, there is a directionality to the change. It's not pure randomness.

I have no problem with nature. It's lovely. I'm just not closed to possibilities around evolution. And you are. You're okay with evolution, but not if "real forests" get replaced by "artificial forests". All nature does is replace things with other things. As humans, you'd have to look at things on a case by case basis, to judge what should or shouldn't be replaced. This is already happening. You see human arrogance, I see humanity's potential.

Technically you are imagining finite things evolving. It's a type of evolution, just a rather trivial one. Evolution is not limited to ideas like evolutionary biology.

But you just said nature knows how to evolve just fine. If humans are a part of evolution, how do you know that nature doesn't want us to replace nature? How do you know the next evolutionary move doesn't come through humans?

How do you know humans aren't part of evolution? You're not grasping the depth of the category problem.

Yes they must, because that's the only way you can finite things at all. If a finite thing never evolved, it would be eternal and therefore infinite. That'd still be evolution. Evolution = change.

Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. We don't know exactly how things are going to play out. Most likely somethings will be replaced and others will not. Ultimately though, everything must be replaced because everything must evolve. That's the essence of Infinity / God.

No, because you're not recognizing how arbitrary these categories you are creating are. That has to be solved first.

Who decides what is "nature" and what is "artificial"?

Both are potentially true.

Yes, you could say that.

Yup. It's a big fight.

@Wilhelm44 Try contemplating deeper. You're still making naturalistic and human-centric errors.

Well it depends who you ask. Conservatives want the US to be more homogeneously ethnocentric, usually white-Judeo Christian. They also fear that illegal immigrants might be criminals or taking up tax payer dollars. So in their ideal world, they'd deport every illegal immigrant. That's their end goal. They've been violating due process to accomplish this in some instances, like sending people to El-Salvador. They don't really care if what they are doing is "humane" for the immigrants or seemingly even follows the Constitution. They just want them out. Liberals mostly are okay with illegal immigrants staying. They think it's necessary for the economy and not-feasible / cruel to deport that many people. They also are more open to multi-culturalism, and therefore aren't threatened as much by illegals. They think their criminality is overstated. In their ideal world, they'd speed up the process for illegals that are already in the country to become citizens and work to eliminate global inequality that leads towards illegal immigration. Liberals do deport people as well, but they want it to be humane and follow due-process. So these two sides are battling it out. That's what you're seeing in LA.

No. That's just progressive stupidity.