aurum

This is an overly romantic take of Earth history. There was no dynamic, harmonic equilibrium. Earth has always been chaotic, with mass extinctions and huge climate shifts. Additionally, you are framing humans as outside this process. You're talking about learning. You don't need perfect knowledge, you need the ability to continue growing your understanding. If we took the attitude you are proposing, humanity might as well never practiced medicine, or agriculture. We were profoundly ignornant in these areas, and now we are much less so. But only because we practiced and we learned. Yes, geoengineering will require more geoengineering. The same way you having a heart requires you to maintain having a heart. This is the tradeoff of advanced civilizational complexity. All systems require dependency. Ideally, these dependencies are resilient and intelligent, but they will still exist. Consider: Earth is using humans to engineer a new organ. And ultimately, humanity ALREADY is geoengineering. That's what roads, housing, farms, cities and just about anything else is. Our existence is a geoengineering project. I suggest we lean into it.

Musk validated impeaching Trump. Not as many people talking about this: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/05/musk-trump-impeachment

That's very diplomatic and safe.

Thinking of yourself as the prize as a man is kind of cringe. You do need self-confidence though.

Highly dubious claim. Are harems “natural”, or are they a specific, contextual survival strategy?

Hard to say. Answering that would require serious research. I’m not an expert in that area. I hold geoengineering as a long-term project. Long-term, assuming humanity doesn’t annihilate ourselves, I think we will work out the most essential challenges. But it will take time. If you’re a leader and visionary, this kind of ambiguity is where you thrive.

Maybe. The point of this video is not that any of these specific projects are viable. It's mostly just to inspire and open people's minds to other possibilities. Glad you liked it!

The actual answer you're looking for is: God created / IS nature, humans, mechanical forests and anything else you can think of. From God's POV, that actually is true. Everything is equally Good. But at a more human level, you will find things more magical than others. A forest could be magical, or it could be ugly. There are some ugly things in what you're calling "nature". It's not all pristine mountaintops and flowing rivers. So the actual answer is that a mechanical forest could be ugly and soulless, or it could be beautiful. But the potential exists.

Who do you think would be the artist of the mechanical forrest? There's only one.

I did give you an answer. Think about it. Why can electronic music be just as magical as natural music? Or a painting of a face be just as magical as a face? All art is imitation. When you look at a mechanical forrest, you are looking at mother nature. It is its own creation, with potential for beauty and magic the same way an "actual" forest does.

Ultimately, I don't make a distinction between machines and mother nature Machines are mother nature.

Why do you think it couldn't be as magical? These are the kind of questions this thread is meant to bring up.

This is exactly the kind of thinking I want to challenge. Yes, we often create externalities. I agree with Consilience that we need to understand those betters. But we are in our infancy around geoengineering. Mistakes will get made, and that is how we will collectively learn. Imagine if humanity stopped practicing medicine the first time we created some externalities in the body. That's what "blackpilled" on progress leads too. Even Consilience in this article is not strictly against progress, they just are calling for more holistic accounting. Which is fair.

What don't you like about mechanical trees?

Yeah but you can't wait for that to happen. You need a developed minority to generate solutions for everyone else.

Omg. I can't even listen to people like this anymore.

Very cool! If you want to share, where are you working that's involved with engineers?

@Raze there's way too much in your last response for me to address and untangle everything. So I'm just going to make general comments. Have you approached women? Because most of your objections could be answered if you did instead of engaging with incel ragebait. You would see that the vast majority of women have no problem at all with you approaching them if it's done in socially calibrated way. You would see that "rejection", to extent it even happens, is not a big deal. You would see that game is mostly just about going out, having a fun time, vibing with people and following up with women that seem interested. You need no invitation to approach at all as long as you're EMPATHETIC to her situation and know when you've crossed a line. And if you really have a problem with cold approach, there are other ways to meet women. Cold approach is hardcore, but you can do something more indirect like building a social circle. This tends to a safer option. Final point: you have a misunderstanding of what women are testing / filtering for. Women are NOT just testing to see if you're some player. They are testing for your investment, engagement in the relationship and leadership. Most women want long-term relationships, and you can sure they are looking to see if you are a good fit for that.

Thanks, I appreciate that

What traits? What standards? Nothing is failing. Society is adjusting and we will get through this. It's not women's empowerment is irrelevant, it's that fallout from feminism is not about women doing whatever they can to sabotage men's dating prospects. I'm taking issue with how you exaggerate and frame the situation as excessively confrontational. It exacerbates a victim mentality around dating and the gender wars, beyond just being bad sense-making. Also, women's empowerment has significantly improved your ability as a man to have casual sex because it brought us sexual liberation. Don't forget what it was really like pre-feminism. People couldn't even masturbate without it being a crime against God.

My guess is you want to believe that because you think women shouldn't be attracted to the men they are. But maybe you're the one that is wrong. Maybe they should be attracted to exactly who they are attracted to. The standards they set are mostly very reasonable. That's not the debate. Of course women's empowerment has affected dating. Overall, it has been a net-positive.

The filtering is survival genius. Neither men or even women generally recognize it, because few people are conscious of how survival plays their mind. You think it's malfunctioning or maladaptive, but it's not. Which is not to say women don't still have problems in relationship. Obviously they do, and they can be extremely serious. You can start with a wide view, but ultimately that doesn't tell you what you should do personally. You have to narrow it down to what you can be responsible for. 1) The average man has almost always gotten beaten down throughout history 2) We are not debating whether men are struggling. That much is obvious 3) You are talking about complex societal problems with many factors. These things are effecting everyone, it's not something women are doing to men.

If you are getting security called on you, either you are doing something very wrong or you just had crazy bad luck. That is not normal.