Basman

Obviously, women depend much more on social resources for survival because their bodies are adapted for birthing human children, one of the most complicated and costly mammalian birthing processes. A female cat can get pregnant multiple times at once, giving birth to an entire litter, and still independently survive whereas a pregnant human women won't have the same capability for survival on their own. Women's prosperity in a society depend on men, hence why feminism only happens in countries that are of a certain level of development culturally and technologically. Women can be practically independent today because their protection has been outsourced to the government via the police and the military.

The right is on the rise in general in Europe as well with an exception of a couple of countries like Denmark, which incidentally has a much stricter immigration control than many other European countries (much of these is about immigration) and is far away from Northern-Africa. I see this recent push-back against Stage Green values as an inevitable outcome due to nature of Stage Green. Its too unholistic and impractical to function, which inevitably leads to backlashes from the lower stages which are the majority. Political failure is what will eventually lead to Stage Green to turn into Yellow as they learn that they have to play ball with how the world actually is as opposed to their idealized vision. Democratically, this right-wing shift is the majority rule. I would rather have a majority rule that burns itself on bad policy and learns the hard way than a minority rule of Stage Green elites that are too out of touch with the day to day issues of normal people, like identity politics and such garbage.

Do you need to be lonely to be hopeless?

Having done a couple of commissions as an artist, I've experienced it being completely horrible to work on a project that I have no passion for which has resulted in me only accepting commissions that fall into the curfew of my passions and be way more strict. It has led to me to question to what degree my life purpose is just me making art for my own sake. How do you balance personal fulfillment and satisfying others in your life purpose? Are there situations where you draw the line when a customer wants something that you can but won't deliver?

That would be nice but it would likely be more expensive than normal meat and stay that way as a niche alternative, just like soy meat. Problem with lab meat is that you are doing everything manually that a cow does effortlessly just from eating feed. It will always be more expensive and complicated to produce than a regular ass cow.

Its not a mistake. Its how you survive and maintain form. Its not possible to maintain form without taking energy from somewhere else in this finite world we live in. Predation is essentially just the transference of energy from one form to another. Even at the base of the food chain, the sun's energy is being drained by photosynthesizing organisms.

There's no prerequisite requirement for talking to girls. Its clear that you want to talk to girls so just do it. You can live a crappy version of your dream today.

No kidding. There's obviously an incentive structure interfering such that you can't have a pure pursuit of knowledge. That takes resources which you have to get from someone, who naturally wants a return on investment. The conflict between utility and pure learning is a longstanding one in academia. In a sense it was way more pure when only the elite attended higher education. There was less of a structural survival bias. They where learning and doing research just because they where bored essentially.

No, but there needs to be way more emphasize on economic policy. Bernie Sanders was quiet popular with a lot of guys who voted Trump this term despite being left-wing and Sanders doesn't give a shit about identity politics. Barely ever talks about it. We are living in a cost-of-living crisis and people are feeling the squeeze. Republicans are acknowledging that and selling a solution much better than the Democrats, who present themselves as nothing more than the alternative "not Trump" but end up just looking like the establishment despite having superior policy for common folk. Its about identifying the pain and selling the solution. The truth about identity politics is that its unimportant to the average person who's living paycheck to paycheck so its therefor in practice an irrelevant talking point. When you talk about the rights of minorities, that's good and all but the majority doesn't win on that. Good economic policy should be a win-win for everyone. Identity politics is just in general relatively unimportant. Nobody really cares if you black or gay as long as they are materially secure and unbothered.

You guys are acting like the US is the only one arming Ukraine. Britain, France and Sweden especially are all eager to bloody Putin's nose. An imperialist Russia threatens to destabilize Europe. Obviously, the US has less of a bone in this fight.

Hating on politicians you don't like is age old. Because their politics/messenging undermines your survival interests. Politics is essentially just fighting about who is right. Its why people immersed in politics tend to be bitter and combative. You kind of have to. Just look at Leo going off at Trump on his blog. His rhetoric has only become more vicious with time in regards to Trump (Trump has also become more vicious as a politician arguably).

Essentially this I believe.

Sounds kinda backwards to me. Surely, its much stronger to simply not care what opinion people hold of you, good or bad. I think in most cases, at least with acquaintances they don't really think that much of you.

I think this example is more greedy than its generous. It doesn't take generosity to invest into your children that you identify with. He's benefiting relationally and possibly materially down the line.

Fast food is mad expensive these days if you want a filling meal.

No, because I have a human bias and I don't think it would be practically functional. Its fine to be biased and a hypocrite if your honest. Problem is that vegans tend to be ethically inconsistent with their logic. If the premise is that you can't eat animals because its wrong to take a life then you must apply that standard to all life for it to be true (which to a certain extent isn't physically possible). Now, if the premise is that you don't want to eat animals because you feel sorry for farm animals specifically, then your in the clear. Its a subtle difference.

Homophobia was spread a lot by abrahamic religion I believe. In a general sense, suspect that it has something to do with perceiving homosexuals as a weakness and unproductive. Societies tend to be extra resistant to changing male gender roles, probably because men are more fundamental for a functional society. Its a cultural issue, hence why you can accept homosexuals in one culture an not the other.

click on your account, top right -> account settings -> Ignored users, right side under "Other settings"

OK, I'm going to go off since you want to be challenged apparently... Apparently plants feel pain. If so, do you not have compassion for plants? If you eat plants how can that be? Likewise, do you vacuum spiders in your apartment? Do you feel the same compassion towards spiders? Or how do you cope with the fact that your immune system annihilates millions of microbes a day? Do microbes not have a right to life equally as all other life? What makes a microbe less of a life than a beloved pet? Assuming your a typical vegan, why is your veganism so selective about what you care about? To which degree are you compassionate just because pigs and cows are cute, and if so, is you compassion would evidently be deeply biased and unprincipled.

"Family values" right? I never experienced it but it makes me shudder.

Neoliberalism on steroids. What I love about this setting is how analogous it is to our real world, being a parallel timeline, but where society regressed into a sort-of corporate technocratic feudalism due to extravagant levels of corruption and government incompetence. Its SD Stage Orange run amok to such a degree that society overall for the average citizen is SD Stage Red due the abject lack of resources. People fight over the scraps. You can see a lot of the same gears that run society in the real world in Cyberpunk. The political maneuvering. The competition. The survival agendas. Cyberpunk is essentially what happens when there is no one sovereign power. Instead there are a bunch warring powers vying for control but none of them succeeding completely in dominating the other and the resulting chaos that happens from the partial natural condition that exists as a result. Corporations also don't have any loyalty to society itself which results in there not being competently or properly funded social services beyond the needs and wants of the corporations (police are corrupt as hell). As long as they maintain dominance, corporations own society effectively. Its warring states in a technological neo-liberal corporate make-up. Its technologically advanced with flying cars and advanced cybernetic implants but there's rampant gang wars and blatant corruption. Its complete madness.

You can work yourself up to a position where you contribute to making a particular change in the world. Then at least you can say you've done your part. Remember, you live in the most prosperous time of human history. I wouldn't worry too much and just enjoy life for what its worth.

I don't have any experience with it but I've heard from Leo and the likes that that is essentially transhumanism. That a perspective devoid of a human agenda is no longer human. But even then, it seems he still has goals and ambitions. So human after all for the time being.

No, not fundamentally. Its a feature of finitude as we live in a finite world. It is possible to reduce suffering however. Like, we don't live in a feudal society for instance. History shows that slavery and wars have been reduced and that society is becoming gradually more egalitarian and "utopian" relatively speaking. For example, women have been second class citizen for most of human history. That has changed relatively recently. Long-term, society seems to become less and less destructive due to unsustainable practices becoming self-defeating as technology develops, both hardware and software (as in the quality of institutions and development of culture). Female oppression became self-defeating due to industrialization and the need for more workers (it wasn't a revolution in my opinion as much as a relinquishing of outdated practices). Its possible to reach a highly conscious and egalitarian society but then why should our civilization exist and not someone else's? Or at all? You have to accept that your selfish to a certain degree in this world.

For something to be there it something else can't be there at the same. Like if a cloud forms on an open blue sky, that automatically negates the existence of both a completely clear blue sky and a different cloud at the same time in that moment. You can't have both at the same time. For an animal to exist it must come at the expense of other things that could and want to exist in its place. Survival is maintaining your form for as long as possible until it inevitably passes on and changes. Everyday you immune system destroys millions of bacteria that threaten to undermine the integrity of your body. That is at their expense at the same time that those bacteria want to proliferate and survive at your expense. A predator-prey dynamic is simply the passing on of energy to maintain a form. Prey are in a sense themselves predators in the sense that they consume plant matter (life) in order to exist, which itself consume sunlight. It is not possible to live without it being at the expense of something else on a fundamental level. Its why I accept animal suffering for food to a certain degree. Human prosperity cannot exist without it being at the expense of nature to a certain degree.