StephenK

@Key Elements Could that no be a sign of hidden Xenophobia in many cases, rather than straight up racism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia

@Aakash I've thought about it a bit and have a question for you: If members of your community knew a white women that was completely Hindu in her culture, would they see her as 'marriage material'? If yes, then I think your culture may be slightly Xenophobic rather than Racist.

@Aakash I need time to reflect on what this all means ?.

As a white man, I did not know that. Is this true for black men too??.

@Aakash wait, are you not physically attracted to white women, or do you just not see them as 'wife material'?

@Aakash Oh, I thought you were talking about yourself in particular, with regards to your sexual affinity for particular women.

@Aakash I mean sick as in unhealthy. 'Preference' and 'hate' of often conflated. Preferences can have millions of causes, one of which can be hate. Perhaps you are attracted to women from your culture because those are the women you saw growing up, were the ones you fell in love with in your teenage years. Hell, there can be a million reasons. You don't have to think that the worst one (disgust/hate) is driving your preferences. Unless it is? ?

@Aakash You should try not let other people pathologize all your preferences. "Racist" is a loaded word, and to describe, for example an Indian man's preference for an Indian women as "Racist" is actually rather sick in my opinion.

lol. No. You're just fine.

@Leo Gura ? I hope you know this one of the talking points racists use ?

There has been a lot of xenophobic murders in south africa recently (against Nigerians, Malawians etc) A good example of very troubling popular politician spreading anti-white rhetoric from my home Country South Africa: An anti-indian rhetoric: I find it interesting that all racism (regardless of the race pushing it) fundamentally boils down to control over economic resources. Fundamentally, I suppose what they want is power over the system, which ultimately gives them more access to resources -- this pattern seems to be prevalent in nature as well ?.

@happysad By witnessing the true scale of my self induced suffering.

...

It's interesting that we collectively debate over which political or economic systems are the best, without first defining what paradigms we're using to define 'best'. Without addressing this, I think having abstract debates about politics/economics is pretty much pointless, as the fundamental forces that drive our opinions are different. So when it comes to these complex social systems, are you interested in 'fairness' as an end goal? Do you define fairness to be 'equal opportunity' or 'equal outcome'? Is there a point at which 'equal opportunity' will neglect those that need an extra helping hand? Is there a point at which 'equal outcome' can result in disproportionately high investment in certain individuals to the detriment of the collective? Or, are you interested in minimizing suffering? If so, how do we quantify suffering? Also, rather than focusing on how to redistribute resources, shouldn't we be more focused on how to make people happy with less? Isn't the addiction to finding meaning in material resources merely a pointer to our innate obsession with materialism? How much do we really need? Who is richer, the happy street sweeper or the neurotic, anxious multimillionaire on the verge of suicide? Who needs help? Unless the debate around these issues is sorted out, meaningful debates around higher order issues like economics and politics becomes a clash of definitions and obfuscated assumptions.

@AlphaAbundance A thought, albeit a persistent one.

@Leo Gura ?. You know, wars have been started over comments like that?? @tsuki I agree. Being kind to those around us, including ourselves seems like a good heuristic/rule to follow.

@Leo Gura Well, if we can't quantify the simple difference between a chicken and a human being in terms of love/consciousness, then speaking abstract political/economic theory becomes a game of devilry does it not? Lets get our foundations sorted before we start running. @RobertZ Yes, when we look at a forest, it is self-organizing and polycentric/decentralized in nature -- same goes the design of the body. I think any functional government will have to be both intelligent and polycentric/decentralized to a large degree, as polycentrism seems to be an innate feature of reality. I think the aversion to a global centralized government is healthy, as we see it as something that goes against the patterns observed in nature.

@Leo Gura Maximizing 'love/consciousness' has the epistemic pitfalls that 'maximizing wellbeing' or 'minimizing suffering' has. That is, how do we quantify 'love/wellbeing/suffering'? To take action on distributing resources (physical as well as social) is to quantify these things in actionable terms. If Tim has a 'love/wellbeing' quotient of 75%, and Mark has a 'love/wellbeing' quotient of '40%', how do we go about deciding who defines these numbers, and who then needs to be elevated, and to what degree? Do we put a weight to all people equally? What if someone is near death? Do all conscious beings get granted equal weights in the equation, or is does it form a weighted distribution? For instance, do humans get a greater weight in the equation than, say, chickens? Does this boil down to the idea that 'we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others'? It all sounds great in principal, and I understand that the sentiment is good, but when we get our hands in the dirt, it seems far from simple. @Bodigger Yes, and the vast majority of people fall into the 2nd group, myself included if I'm to be honest. Thinking about being compassionate and helpful is far easier than actually being helpful and compassionate.

This video is pretty interesting, especially regarding carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Life on Earth amazingly adaptive. Also, this documentary on Chernobyl is also pretty amazing, especially how life flourished in a radioactive zone, just because of the absence of humans. Nature is one tough son of a bitch ?

@remember How do you see it playing out?

I can't see a solution to any of this other than nature doing a hard reset on the human population through drought, famine and disease that will ultimately result from this. Those that choose to ignore it (the vast majority of the human population), will be the ones to perish en mass. Those societies that put plans in place, such as hydroponics, sustainable agriculture, solar, desalination and carbon-negative green/yellow systems and technologies will have a chance of surviving the onslaught. In other words, if we don't find a solution as a species, earth will implement it's own solution and the fittest will survive. If someone has a more optimistic outlook, please explain how it would play out?

No, not if you want mince meat.

@winterknight In one of your linked pages you wrote "Surrender is letting go of all your desire for things to be other than the way they are". When one surrenders to thought, does one surrender to the fact that the thought is happening, or surrender to the content of the thought? For instance, if someone thinks "There is no hope" -- do they surrender to the thought that there is no hope, or surrender to the fact that they're thinking such a thought? I hope I'm making sense.

Who said that? Who said that? I'm not the thread starter by the way.