zurew

I like these two. I think the only "problem" with dividing and creating more and more sections is that it needs unique guidelines and more and more moderators. So if that can be balanced out i think those two are great ideas.

It could bring this community more together and closer, by understanding and getting to know other people's interest and humour and styles. For some people some regulations may limit how far they can express themselves, so i think it could be a cool experiment to have.

@Leo Gura I would be interested too, why you are so optimistic about it. I know you know more about these catastrophic risks than we do, and still you are optimistic. Do you have reasoning for that or you have a deep intuition that tells you that most humans will survive? Btw, i don't think either that humanity will cease to exist, but at the same time i think that there are a lot of possibilities for viping out hundrends of millions or a few billions of humans. Especially, if not just one, but more than one catastrophic risks are taking place at the same time.

Exactly. Also, there are so many different kind of global extinction factors that we can be aware of and if any from those become true, we can say goodbye for most humans. water scarcity, global war potential, dying of the ecosystem, AI takes over the world, soil degradation, species extinction deadly infectious diseases, biowarfare ocean acidification, coral die off Planetary natural disasters (Volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, earthquakes) Distributed exponential technology (as times goes on its more and more easier for anyone to reach for really deadly weapons and tools) etc etc etc. This is not fear-mongering. This is about being realistic and being aware of global problems. Ignoring all these is somewhat part of the problem why these are really hard to solve.

Whats your opinion about people who talk about "psychedelics can only do , what you brain is capable of doing. Chemical compounds go and activate already existing brain machinery." (These people are mostly either psychiatrists or gurus like sadghuru) Suggesting that you can achieve it naturally too in theory. Also suggesting that if we would be capable of using our body to produce chemical compounds willingly, then it would be insanity (we do it willingly when we meditate or when we do yoga, but thats of course nothing close to psychedelics).

If we are talking about maintaining or trying to continue with the constant economic growth, then this is not true. Maybe if we had the knowledge to transform energy any way we like it instantly, then we can say that we won't run out of resources. We are in the dark ages when it comes to energy using. We are "wasting" so much energy because when it transforms into certain states we can't do shit with it or we can't utilize it, because we don't have the knowledge or the tech for it. But we are getting exponentially more effective at burning energy though. But thats not very good , when it comes to mainiting resources. Even when we try to create energy sources, we probably burn more energy creating them, compared to how much energy they produce.

The usefulness of conversations and language can only go so far when it comes to existential questions. Language can be effective and deceptive at the same time. You can only grasp really deep insights and experiences if you have had some similar or identical experiences to the person who is sharing his insights with you. You can ask the same question for yourself ,that you asked Leo. After that, you can investigate it yourself, thats the only way (using direct experience) to make sense of existential questions. Even if he gives the perfect answer for you, it won't be anything else, just a belief that you can hold onto. Investigate, then come back with your own exp and insights.

How is liberalism a failed ideology? Its just getting started. Yeah its much better to live in a country, where you have no say at all, you have to obey. You are being held as a little servant and nothing more, you hold no more value for your country than a machine that can work. That being said, liberalism have a lot of limits and problems if its being done in an extreme way. No political ideology should be extreme, there have to be some kind of a balance. I don't think that any one of these would be only exclusive to liberalism. These things can occur in countries that are nationalistic as well. If you or your blogger want to argue that these problems are bigger and much more likely under a liberalist political ideology, than we should get deep into statistics and see and compare how things are.

To a certain level yes, but there is a treshold where more material abundance won't change anything. If we use maslow's hierarchy of needs, its obvious that there are needs that can't be handwaved away with meditation or by anything else. Those 'basic needs' are always changing and adapting to society's development and structure. But at the same time having 10 houses and jets and cars etc etc there is a number there ,where it won't affect you anymore. Same with money, you are constantly adapting to your success. Leo's video about survival is really good, and shows how survival is not just about basic needs like food and water and shelter.

Little update on the most recent, famous ufo case.

Yeah this is a good suggestion imo. Also i would add that there could be more transparency and honesty. For example, if you didn't do much research on that particular topic, or if you are not sure that the information that you are sharing is 100% true, then you should mention it. That way people can be more sure, and do their own research and there would be less misleading topics. Also this way the emotionally charged topics can be reduced and more intellectual conversations can be achieved imo.

100% agree.

Okay, so how do you explain gay people, and trans people in society, if it mostly or only comes from culture, and society and not from biology? Btw just to mention your argument will hurt gay people here. Most stage blue people use the same argument that gayness is just comes from society and thats why they need to be banned, beacuse they will destroy culture and society and people will stop procreating. If you use the biology argument, that it comes from biology, then you are arguing in favor of gay people.

Maybe it can be transcended, but i haven't seen any people that could do that, that does not mean it isn't possible. You don't need to feel sad for those people because there are solutions to this problem even if we assume that it can't be fully transcended.

I think mostly yes, but i can only talk about myself. I don't know what other people are attracted to, i am obviously assuming here and projecting my own situation out.

Thats a deep question, and i think none of us knows the answer for that one, but we can make arguments and assumptions on both sides. I write you down my argument about pedohiles, which is about why i don't think attraction mostly comes from culture, but more from biology: But at the end of the day none of us knows how attraction works and where it comes from. My belief is that it mostly comes from biology

Yes,i do. I wanted to talk about pedohiles too, to bring up a point about this discussion. Think about it, if pedophilia would be mostly or only influenced by culture, conditioning .. Then why there are pedohiles at all, especially nowadays, where pedohiles considered the worst of the worst in society. All pedophiles are fearing for their lifes when they are caught because of societal pressure, and because what will come towards them when they go to jail. All society coding into everyone do not be pedohiles, and pedhilia is gross and wrong and evil. So why would there be then so many pedohiles then if it is only or mostly comes from culture and society?

Also you have this assumption baked into your argument that people the reason why people are attracted to certain traits and things is because of societal and cultural examples. I don't agree with that. I think that attraction comes from the combination of societal things and also from biology. I would put more weight on the biology part. Thats why i don't think you can change what you are attracted to.

I don't think its discriminatory if i am not attracted towards certain people. If i am straight is it discriminatory that i am not attracted to men? If we want to use the word 'discriminatory' that vague then it will lose its meaning. Again you are conflating being attracted to gender and being attracted to biological traits. For me if there was a man who had a vagina and big female boobs and no facial hair no dick etc but a female body i would be attracted to it. I don't care about the gender part in this case, because i am attracted to biological traits. And also to be clear, just because you are a woman, that does not mean that i will be attracted towards you. Everyone has their own biases, kinks, traits that are attracted to

Or you are not attracted to gender But biological traits. I think its fair to assume, that most people are attracted to biological traits and to personality and not towards gender. If you have a dick, and i am attracted to vagina, then i am not discriminating you or hating you, i am just not attracted to you.

I know, that was my point. Imagine you are in the same situation you have 2 companies you have 100 mill, if you split your 100mill the probablity that your companies will fail is very high. So if he would have been only focused on the wealth aspect, it would have been a really dumb and risky move on his part. A lot of people are saying to not follow his example, because it is really risky and the probability that you suceed this way is really low. Is he making an idol of himself or media and other people making an idol about him? I agree with you, but having economical incentives are not inherently bad or necessarily related to only stage orange. Taxes are essential in todays world for sure. My question would be how is he avoiding his taxes?

What is 'saving the world' has anything to do with paying taxes? Do you think that he made Tesla because he knew beforehand, that he can create a market for electric cars and earn a lot of money (without thinking about the implications how well it can affect humanity in general)? Because it was a really big risks imo, not to mention that he had to run not just 1 company but two. Why wouldn't he put more money into SpaceX if its just for the money and fame? I think that if we would be to do a risk analysis on that, almost no one would suggest to do such a big risk. Of course big risk --> potential big reward, but still he could have just invested all his 100million dollars into SpaceX. His companies are so far helping humanity and not destroying it imo. Is it a coincidence, or he was intentionally planning and thinking about the impilcations of his actions? If he would be that hardly just stage orange, he would just go for the lowest hanging fruit without thinking about the implications, how it can effect people and humanity. I am not saying that he is purely for saving the world and he doesn't care about fame and money. That would be really naive to assume. But i don't think either that he is that hardly stage orange as you try to paint him to be.

But it wasn't designed to be a platform for long meaningful complex conversations. It was designed for popular people , so they can inform and reach most people quickly about situations and about themselves. Also there is this thing existing "tweetlonger" and also you could basically just share some links in your tweets that can direct people to sources that are longer. Also i think that trying to have really deep and meaningful convos via writing is seriously limited and difficult. Also it could be argued, that by limiting the tweets its forceing people to be more exact , to ramble a lot less, and to have messages that are high in signal and a lot less in noise (At least it would be if people would be well developed). So i don't necessarily think that limiting tweets is that big of a problem, but the people that are on there are just toxic. If tweets were not limited toxic people, maybe they could express their toxicity even more and in a longer format. I think Leo is right about the moderation. Twitter can become a good quality platform if the necessary regulations are implemented. Of course no one knows exactly how those regualtions should look like in practice, but we will see. We can only figure this out by experience and fail and try.

This is a really funny and good way to put it. Yeah totally, the only thing i would add more is that we tend to build this big picture so large and so forward in the future, that most normal people can't really relate to it, because it is so unnecessarily future-forward built. So putting much more emphasis putting your ideas in a way where people can relate to you and to your ideas is one of the most important things imo one can do. Also we could say that these models and systems and thinking is much more focusing on the top and on the end rather than on the base and the beginning. For instance: Going forward 50 years in vision is great, but going forward 500 years into the future with ideas is just entertainment and mostly mental masturbation. We could spend that mental masturbatory time on thinking about the baby steps that needs to be taken. Daniel Schmachtenberger said in one video, that im paraphrasing: "Can we find an example of a society who didn't hurt bugs? Yes we can (Buddhism and Jainism). " This is great, because he found a real world example of an idea, but we still lack how that can be put into a larger system where society don't have the same structure as the buddhists did. So we have a concrete idea from a larger system and we want to put that little part into a different larger system and just assume that it will work fine. Also i don't want to take it too much out of context, because he said that example to show that it is possible, but regardless that example with the buddhists in an of itself is way too unrealistic. In my opinion, after we can find a very extreme example the next step should be cooling it down and putting that cooled down example into our larger system. Knowing the structure and our values and where we want to go is super important, but once we have our solid meta vision where we want to go,we need to find concrete, real world examples and think about how those examples can be put into our larger system, and how well those examples will work once they are part of that larger system. So: Find a concrete applicable example or create one Think how that will correlate with other pieces of the large picture and the whole