aurum

This chart dropped my IQ.

What do you think all technology is? Here's a potential example you might like: Imagine you could engineer a forest that changed colors based on air pollution or soil health, with the goal of providing visceral biofeedback to humans. It might dim in color the worse things got.

Of course.

I don't disagree. I'm just reflecting how it can come off. It may not seem like a big deal if you're a woman, but it's going to matter for a lot of men.

Funny enough, a lot of guys do idolize Tyler Durden. I don't know if you've seen Fight Club, but the line from the movie is "All the ways you wish you could be? That's me. I look like you want to look, I fuck like you want to fuck... I am smart, capable, and, most importantly I am free in all the ways you are not." It cannot be understated how many young guys got into bodybuilding exactly because they wanted to look like Tyler Durden with his shirt off. And of course guys idolize Tyler Durden and King Leonidas not just because of how they look, but because they're STRONG. Most men want to be strong. A lot of the conflict you have with your teachings is that it comes off as telling guys to be weak, soft soy boys. And of course many don't want that or aren't ready for that level of integration. Especially when they're already insecure about feeling weak.

I'd say that's actually debatable. The top woman is more classically beautiful. She looks elegant, very feminine and like a woman you might want to marry. The bottom woman comes off a bit trashy because of the tattoos and maybe her lips. Guys might be turned off for that reason. But I think it'd still be a close race on OnlyFans who would get more followers.

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"?