BlueOak

We hit 40 where I was. Which in a humid country like the UK could have been very high, the only saving grace was we'd had a drought so the air wasn't as heavy/humid as it usually is. The downside to that was a lot of fires. *Oh and for anyone wondering barely anyone here has AC, and the houses keep heat in, so add a few degrees more for humidity, and having poor ventilation in our houses. So sitting in 45+ at its worst I would say is a fair comparison for a country that is usually dry. I closed all windows, drew all the curtains/blinds to keep the hot air out as long as possible, I didn't leave the house, and overworked the large fan by my side in small bursts so it didn't overheat, but by using it in short bursts I kept cooling off quick when I was sweating. Stocked up on bottled water for the fridge and a lot of ice to cool down if I needed it, I didn't in the end, but as i'd never been in that temperature I wasn't sure what was required. I opened the windows only when the outside was cooler than the inside. Ate light foods, Tried to do my cooking and errands in the mornings. Got everything in the fridge I could so it didn't spoil. Cold or Mild showers, 2 on the second day, and 3 on the hottest day. I used it as an opportunity to make a case for AC in the UK, and to hit a few climate deniers with some basic facts. A week from now the world will forget so you have to strike while its fresh in people's memories. I don't know if the short campaign that was run on TV here did anything to shift the needle on climate change but I was thankful the mainstream were running it at least. Thankfully where I sleep is a few degrees colder than the rest of where I live. Never worked out why, its a pain in winter but in a heatwave its glorious. I've also seen it said that hanging a wet towel in front of a fan is good to cool off, putting your pillow in the freezer/fridge or using a cold towel over yourself at night if its too much. I didn't need that and got through it better than I expected, strange to say but thank goodness it had been a drought first, otherwise it would have been much worse. @kray

One thing I brought up in another topic elsewhere was, that no other template exists for how countries that do industralize, or go through rapid economic growth, can do that without following the same path we did. Which means buying fossil fuels and burning them. I've never even seen this point discussed in any debate, and to me it seems paramount as it's trying to tackle a future problem before it happens, which has to be easier than shifting the status quo once its established.

A simple video for the layman. For anyone that invests what do you think to this conclusion, where buffet says it's likely/possible every single company on the top 20 list will be replaced over the next decades? Seems hard to believe given the power of some of these corporations, anyone can fall down, but replacing most/all of them?

Why is hate comfortable and easier? Gratitude for any answers.

Because I like to be respectful of the person I am talking to, at least to start there. If they have a name they'd rather call themselves, i'd use it.

@Leo Gura Because at face value on social or economic issues they ARE the majority. They take a popular issue that polls 50%+ and say let's change this. If you were to stop the conversation there that'd be all she wrote. Free X! or Better X! Then they have to come up with how that is funded, which is inevitably going to poll worse than the initial do you want free X poll :D, Then people are polled on what needs to be sacrificed to achieve it. Then we get all the garbage or lies to smear the issue on top of that, and the poll numbers drop further. But then progressives need to be in the minority, that's how life works, they slowly and gradually adapt the status quo to what people are asking for. When that is achieved new people coming in are going to be progressive, while the old ones become the norm. Sorry for highlighting it bluntly, you tend to hate on them a lot Leo, I don't think once I've seen a positive comment about progressives from yourself, when they are a required part of democracy. I would call the recent idealism by conservatives to also be a form of progressive politics, though both sides would skin me alive for the name I don't have a better or more respectful one. I could say reactionary but I've been stomped on for using that before because of its connotations.

Its very limiting in how much you can understand if you equate it to a flat 2D TV screen. People's spiritual side, or absolute understanding of themselves/god therefore remains a flat 2D screen in this perspective. That would depress me too, thankfully I am infinity, everything I ever see or experience! Not a flat 2d screen running a movie. I am the movie, and everything in it. I would suppose that's why most people give up and get depressed, never going into the mechanics behind why it happens or the interconnected nature of what you are seeing. The beauty of it all.

Like many addictions, drugs are often taken to fill a void, and loneliness is a common void. By reducing the stigma and social outcasting that goes on less people stay addicted to drugs. The worst thing you can do if you want someone off drugs is cut them off from human contact or label them as different, unwanted, criminals etc. With a lot less people on criminal records, so they can if they want to improve their lives. With a lot less stigma for being associated with rehab, my brother has been fired a few times for having a drug-related past, or visiting the clinic that allows him smaller doses of a blocker to keep him off drugs. Guess what that does, puts him in a place mentally that its easier to take drugs. This happened as his last job too, and he's close to 40 now so its ever present. Thankfully he bounced back fairly fast this time. There would be a small upturn in drug use, that's proven out over the countries that have legalized it. We should mention that just decriminalizing it and removing some of the stigma associated with drug taking is a great stepfoward. In not only researching them in depth for the drawbacks/benfits but also not isolating drug users. If something is honest and open that generates trust, at the moment with the lack of transparency people don't trust those telling them certain substances are bad for them, because 1) Not enough research is being done publicly, 2) All substances get tarred with the same brush and 3) Well because its 'cool' for kids to rebel against authority and 4) An entire subculture separate from society arises in drug users that are isolated from that society. - All of these would be integrated and removed if drugs were publicly researched in more detail and de-criminalized or socially more acceptable. We won't see as many people living two lives. I can tell you the worst thing about living with an addict is that they lie ALL THE TIME. Everything is in secrecy everything is considered bad/wrong so they can't talk about it. It shapes their entire persona around everything. This leads to a lot of trauma for the family, because you are constantly gaslighted in every interaction, and you can barely talk to anyone outside the family about it. Aside from them stealing or seeing your brother's head beaten in with a baseball bat because he couldn't get enough money together for example, or being present but too weak to stop your brother ending up in hospital and living with that guilt. The whole way we look at this needs to be untangled from an unhelpful knot. Drugs need to carry no criminal convictions because its the person's own body they are abusing if they do so. Those people selling heroin, meth etc need to be in jail for life, because that's what they take from others. When it comes to weed or DMT for example, its ridiculous to even put them in the same sentence, let alone line of thinking. It'd also be a hit to organized crime which is never a bad thing.

Largely because all countries have moved to an authoritarian mindset and most of what you listed is done in lip service only. This has happened on the left and the right of your country. Your immigration policy moved authoritarian Your economic policy moved authoritarian Your separation of church/state moved authoritarian Your stance on civil rights has jumped authoritarian Your drug policy is moving gradually liberal Your stance on overseas conflict is moving liberal Barely seen any movement on the environment by anyone, just more pledges. Unions. The populists on both sides are giving unions more time because they've grown in popularity. I even saw tucker Carlson on fox giving them airtime. I've not seen politicians do more than stand beside unions and look good on camera. Happy to be proven wrong, they still have almost no power and no political support. Using the government as an agent of human welfare? Any examples as I am not sure what you mean here? Corporate funding LOL No. Let's just agree to disagree on that entirely. There are politicians that say its bad, and most of them take it anyway, a small handful doesn't. Corporate funding decides who you get to see elected, they back the candidates they want on both sides and annihilate those they don't want. Every year a few more none corporate-funded jackals get into power. Everything else is culture war that everyone loves to fight over. Gender/Race. Important sure, but what 90% of your politics revolves around. We can add the church/state balance and civil rights to that now. *Can't comment on trade, don't know your overseas trade agreements well enough. **I don't have the vocabulary or much of the nuance for your country but as I understand it, the method of governing itself, that is in relation to third parties or just keeping a single party in power in a state out of the two, has leaped authoritarian over the years.

I am genuinely sorry you are feeling this way about these posts. The shadow you are seeing is you, it's always related to you. Someone tried to tell you above and its never easy to hear. I am seeing that I use collective hysteria like JP does here and it bothers me. I've been seeing that reflected by leo three or four times as well as others. That I use exaggeration, and I do so for effect, but I needed to see it in a format where I understood how damaging it is. How my vilification of the status quo has led me to ignore its benefits. Something JP helped me to see in other forms So the conversation was useful to me, thank you. Gratitude. I hope in time you can see you are feeling emotionally triggered when others talk about JP, and that has something to do with your identity. I don't know what but hopefully with reflection when you re-read these responses you'll see it in yourself.

Perhaps he's realised people do it to him all the time, like the twitter mob and seen how effective collective hysteria and exaggeration is.

If he doesn't think progressives get stomped all the time, he's dreaming. It's a commentary on the culture war people enjoy. Outside of the culture war, there is an authoritarian lean to the status quo that is squeezing anything outside of it, that's been going on for 15 years, he sees some of the backlash. I've seen it since 2005 in more examples than I can possibly name. Status quo isn't progressive. Progressive requires change and reform. Outside of identities being integrated to be accepted so we can achieve collective acceptance, there is almost no progressive change anywhere. The integration of stage green thinking, a collective parity, means anything reforming outside of the status quo is being squashed. Which is consciousness cutting off a leg to say its whole. Eventually, we'll get past this, and we won't need to suppress alternative opinions, and instead we'll be able to handle it in a more nuanced and intelligent way. Overall though it was interesting to listen to, thank you.

@Yarco Very useful to highlight a group this big that has unelected representatives heavily influencing most of the planet, if only to raise awareness. It's very useful also to name individuals, to hold them to account, anonymity is how many of these organizations operate around the law. Because you are right Yarco without naming them, it leads people to hate the entire system rather than the people responsible. @zurew Its not uncommon for investors to get on the board of these companies, especially in larger corporations, and it's often not the owner that suggests it. Source: https://seedlegals.com/resources/should-your-investor-get-a-seat-on-the-board-seedlegals-data-has-the-answer/ Even when not on the board, for the purposes of influence, those funds still influence the percentage of the companies they have money in. Its not going to be an individual investor in the fund that has much pull, it's the collective power of the fund under a manager. 5-10% would probably get you a meeting with the owner directly if you requested it, certainly directors. I would say this man is quite naive in the second video dismissing this entirely. Investing not benefiting the company? Many executives get very nice bonuses when the stock/share prices rise. Not to mention theirs and the owner's own shares in the company will be increasing in value as well. After that I like that he tries to go into complexity, and has more nuance, I think detail is extremely important if any solutions are to ever be found. It helps stop hysteria for example, or just shouting at something being bad with no understanding of any detail of it. However the very final bit is the worst claim anyone made in either video, apart from maybe an AI wanting to take over the world, which is my pet peeve enough to fill 100 videos as to why this is absurd. That claim is, that there is anything at all wrong in any fashion with wanting to profit from your time making a video, there is no necessary conflict of interest and there is an audience that do go to reliable providers for facts rather than fiction.

Given you know his history better than I, why do you think he thinks it necessary to rabble rouse religious people into vilifying another group? Is it just to have their support to push his own agenda? The type of people he will connect with while doing this are zealous, and hard to sway from a perspective once they take it, so there is that. Do you think he's thinking in larger terms like some right-wingers, in trying to encourage a theocracy-light version of government in America? Or is it just to appeal to a new audience? It's essentially doing what, liberals and here labor, did at one time, before they became largely status quo orientated.

@Haribo Because people are not limited to one aspect of their psyche, nor should they be easily placed into convenient labels when talking about their entire personality. We should not dismiss any aspect of life as being not useful, especially when applied across millions or as a way of interacting with such a collective. In truth people and society have multiple aspects to their personality that are in different stages of development, beyond that they choose to access different ways of thinking depending on the situation, or who/what they are interacting with. You are often dealing with patterns of behavior too as much as a conscious choice, in the collective of that country, group, or individual. I often kick up into green for example when I am dealing with a lot of blue and sometimes orange pushback. This is natural and sometimes hits a wall lacking any empathy whatsoever, so whatever identity or collective identity I am using in that discussion gets flattened Sometimes it successfully points people to look at more than just money, or their obligations to family and community. If I were to take the time to understand their perspective in more depth, perhaps I would be able to reach some sort of understanding between viewpoints without this generic green approach. Even if it were, possible, who has time to learn every perspective on every issue before they reach a conversation or interaction with that perspective? It's much the same on the macro: Nation states are a vehicle we use to organize and govern populations without having to understand every perspective intricately in them at once, we make laws or rules that frame how they live and decide a status quo. Nations are built of things like complex cultural, racial, resource and geographical concerns, that we have to sum up into actionable law or collective identity. Is this outdated, no because we are using it. Is it more helpful to the planet than a globally interconnected super collective, in some ways yes, and some way no. The larger the area governed, generally the more inefficient policies decided at a macro level are, because they either have to make assumptions or comprise so much of local concerns that it becomes cumbersome. Of course, larger countries often get around this by delegating certain laws to smaller areas, which brings its own tensions and concerns where those areas interconnect. If you wanted to, you could say we govern somewhat globally now, but those own individual areas have their own perspectives and concerns which cause friction or division. Trouble is by overemphasizing national identity over global identity we get war for example, an increase in selfishness, and more of a zero-sum game. You get great imbalances too.

On what exactly? What major policy has the democratic party gone left on? If you get one you'll be doing well.

@Yarco Because of human adaptability without over sensationalizing the severity nobody ever does anything or pays attention to how things have changed one decade to the next. I can physically see very little snow compared to when I was a kid, and much hotter temperatures. Further the biosphere will survive long after we are dead. It is no exaggeration to say people will not be able to feed themselves as easily in the coming years. Threads like this and media coverage to kick people up the behind to keep on advancing agricultural technology or climate policy, are very much required. There will be a point when a % of a population dies of heatstroke for example, that will happen at some point. You need your body temperature to be above 40c for an extended period to experience heatstroke. This week in the UK we hit for the first time ever 40c. Ten years from now what will we hit 45? 10 years after that 50? The time period isn't important so much as the fact it will happen, by that point what temperature will places like spain be at? It's the extremes that will cause death so they are worth highlighting. Eventually, when 40c become the norm for a summer nobody will care, because we'll adapt. I remember for the longest time farming and food was never talked about. It is also not an exaggeration to say some areas of the planet will become uninhabitable more as the years go on either through flooding, changing weather patterns, or these extreme temperatures making living there increasingly difficult. They already are, which is why resource wars have been happening for decades, and as food/fuel often underpins the strength of an economy its why emigration happens gradually out of these areas. For people who don't need to be told look here is an impending disaster, let's do something about it in headline. As I say its been a gradual change for the worse across my entire lifetime. Certainly not a gen z :D, but I appreciate the compliment. It's not even consistent, it's just a graph over a long period of extinction, rising temperature, rising sea levels etc. Its a clear pattern that is not being reversed because its not given priority. Now you add two huge economies like India and China, well the problem will accelerate, as all the 2nd world in Asia, for example, become first world nations, and all the 3rd world fully industrializes.

I agree we have to push for it, but he's also being realistic. Without the fight, the reasoning or the argument, things will be worse than they are otherwise. Technology might save the species, it might not, but unless there are people holding people's feet to the fire to get it done, it will come more slowly than it would otherwise.

That's not how climate change works sadly. Its a very slowly increasing gradient of severity, that people adapt to and thus ignore. If it were something that was a huge event relative to normal life that happened over the most polluting areas, it would be difficult to ignore, but its usually nothing like that. This is a large shadow in the human species, and their adaptability for once hurts them and their planet in the long term. I mean half of Australia was on fire, and they barely shifted their policy an inch. I occasionally watch Australian news coverage, and they still refer to climate policy as a climate cult, because you know everything that isn't status quo is a cult LOL. I don't mean to bash Australia here, it's just a good example of the collective, and the dismissal of anything inconvenient to the individual. For decades so many species are near extinction or have gone extinct globally that it's a joke, so other species suffering is of little collective concern to the human race otherwise that would be more important. People complaining about immigration from warmer countries, resource wars (always called something else) and food prices, but they haven't seen anything yet. Food price is perhaps the one saving grace people will acknowledge in their daily lives, but even that adaption is just as likely, and the blame can forever be put elsewhere. I tend to agree. When adaptability wins out over morality, inconvenience or suffering, I don't see that happening for a good long while. I even would ask why would technology be developed. What would be the financial return, given that most populations are still thinking in terms of zero-sum survival and purely individual value judgments. The only thing that comes to mind is, someone could sell technology as life-changing for the people buying it, and how it would bring some immediate benefit to their lives, for example, in lowering food prices for the collective. Maybe we are holding out for the collective jump to green, where things beyond personal value judgments are of paramount concern, rather than a luxury, but I don't see collective thinking yet in regards to the environment.

@Razard86 Thanks I need to love and respect the status quo more, the judgments more, the feeling of being judged more as that holds the status quo in place. That's what the collective reflection of the thread was showing me, and you pointed me towards in summary. There is nothing wrong with being powerless, we all are powerless and powerful about a whole host of things. Including the judgments, we make and receive. Judgments are in every stage, integrated as part of life and often unspoken. I need to integrate something(s) that I have an emotional charge toward still. That's what this period of judgment has been about for me, dialing it up in intensity until I came to this conclusion. Appreciate it. Hope I can offer the same to some of you in the future.

No warning points. This forum seems very reasonable in its moderation. I also don't care if a thread gets locked when its done, if we had the discussion, then we had the discussion, what comes next is less important. It's annoying if it happens mid-conversation, especially on a particularly serious issue that someone is having. I do complain about censorship myself quite often. Maybe the last ten years I've come to accept that some is necessary as people on a whole, can't or don't take more than one perspective on an issue into account. This leads them into narrower and narrower viewpoints when presented with so many speakers and channels. The balance is the more there is censorship the less people can form their own opinions on subjects, at least those of us that do try to look through different providers and speakers have less to look at. Insights are missed for example, and things repeat until they are seen.

Complaining about censorship, while complaining about those complaining about censorship. Come on guys.

I appreciate all of this, I do thank you. Some of this is true for my life some isn't. I am aware enough of my patterns to usually tell you them the second after they have happened. Studying more won't help change the underlying emotional state, it just expands my awareness of life and myself, spiritual work can help but I've done a lot. I feel just doing more spiritual work is the same, knowing isn't doing or feeling. It helps put you outside of something and remove the reactive emotional attachment but doesn't change the state beyond that. Yes :). Thank you this is what I feel. Its easier. Its just reflecting what's there in me and that takes no effort whatsoever, internally/externally to change. I would say laziness and just being comfortable with that status quo inside myself is the biggest vice I have. I value comfort so highly it influences everything. I do occasionally have negative internal feelings. Its not common now like they used to be, and they are gems of information when they happen. Usually related to an identity I have attached too much value or expectation on. Its more an overall state that I am still inside, like an egg for want of a better word. Where I favor judgmental responses as opposed to empathetic ones. My default is judgment not empathy and this I dislike. Several years ago I told someone who reflected this judgment way of thinking to me the exact same thing, about their words being love expressed a different way. All source through a filter. There response was almost instant. Perhaps the conditioned state is so strong because of the pre-existing judgments in society, and so in myself. If there are macro spiritual techniques, not dealing with a single emotion or trauma but an entire conditioned way of thinking/reacting that would be appreciated. Alternatively, perhaps I just need to finally accept the judgmental authoritarian side of myself once and for all and stop resisting it :D. Thanks all for your time.

Yes I feel that. I don't hold hate, only if I've been through a trauma or something I can't let go of. It's more that the ego is empowered when its speaking in a hateful way. It/I feel stronger, and more secure when my judgments are strong for example. When I put this in this place, and this in that place. It gives a great deal of control. Whereas being in a loving or grateful state just feels good, it can encourage positive experiences sometimes.

@Danioover9000 That is your assumption or projection to your feelings from my own words. There was no emotional trigger there. I've listened to him on some issues and found it beneficial as I have a blue shadow at times and he helps correct it in an intelligent way at times. Not towards religion however, authority. In fact, half of the post was in agreement with his basic philosophy in a way to reach religious people, and the first post was saying he was useful to the conversation overall. My so-called extremist positions would be right-wing to you and Peterson on some issues for clarity, it is only on economic or internal social issues I am a lefty. It is not extremist to highlight why calling your political opponents satanic to people who take the bible so literally, is not only extremely unhelpful to intelligent or reasoned debate but also dangerous in the current political climate. Further to then be surprised when you receive a reflection of that hate back shows very little self-awareness.