Scholar

For me, Hashimoto's is definitely related to my gut micro-biome. There are studies that indicate the two are related. Especially if you consume iodine (which you have to be careful on with Hashimoto's) I found that my thyroid reacts really badly when I do not actively take probiotics and prebiotics. And actual pills with probiotics, not food. Food does not actually help that much as it requires way more bacteria. But depending on what is going on with your gut, probiotics will not be sufficient. You have to know specifically what strains of bacteria you have that might be harmful and what types you need to resupply, and all of that has to happen in the right order and with the right diet for it to work. So it actually requires a specialist.

No, you need a more advanced notion of existence. What would mind or imagination even mean, if not existence? God is just existence, you wouldn't be calling it a mind if you didn't grow up in a materialistic, dualistic society. So you're just a reactionary in the way you use your terms. What you actually mean when you say this is: "Reality actually has qualities that I previously attributed to the notion of minds, which was a notion I was indoctrinated into through materialist dualist culture." Minds don't exist outside of the idea of them.

Whether or not it's new doesn't change the terrible consequences of those dynamics. These dynamics are what allowed higher class individuals to watch the poor class starve to death before the poor class would have enough and kill all the rich people. I don't see how that is a trajectory that we want to be on. I think this is just relativizing the problem. And it does not work because people in the past did not have nearly as much mobility as they do now. People couldn't even realistically leave their own country, they had to contend with what was there and if they wanted better life's, they would have to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that life. And even within individual classes, people were stuck with each other locally, they had to be concerned with what their neighbours were doing, and it was in their best interest to support each other locally. This is not at all true anymore.

Life will end either way at some point, that is inevitable. But like I said, that's like saying bombing people is healthy for them because it gets overweight people to do more cardio. Life won't have to worry about whether or not it will go extinct in a hundred million years or more if we destroy it far before then. To pretend what we do now is helping is just silly.

This might mitigate the overall problem in terms of making it less risky, but it does not address the root issue, which I think is more a social issue. The lack of strong communities due to a transition away from healthy stage blue is something we have not yet found solutions to at all. Human beings get most of their meaning in life from communal living and orientation towards communal goals. One of the problems is that intelligent, educated people will move out of cities and problem areas because they do not have any sense of community in the first place. This means individuals who are dysfunctional will just be left by their own, and there is no potential for communities to heal. On a global scale this is true as well. Today, the most intelligent, talented and healthy individuals have the opportunity to leave their own countries if they grow to dysfunctional. Nobody is even motivated to change the systems if everyone is more concerned with leaving them. A challenge of the 21st century I think is that people will seperate themselves into the healthy groups and dysfunctional groups. In the past, people were forced to deal with their environment, and there was a mixture of dysfunctional and functional individuals within any given environment, allowing functional individuals to help dysfunctional ones, because they had no other choice. Today, they can just move somewhere else and let the people who stay behind deal with the problem.

Do we really want to give big pharma license to sell cocaine and heroine? They are already bad as is, and obviously they will have incentive to capture as many individuals in an addictive loop as possible.

Nature did just fine for hundreds of millions of years. This is like saying, war is healthy for humans because they have to run away from bombs all the time which is good for their cardiovascular health.

Have have you been smoking lately, lol. Except that we are literally destroying the all forests of the planet to grow crops for animal feed. We aren't restoring any balance, life can balance itself just fine. The problem is that higher temperatures are far from the only problem we are facing. It makes no sense to just analyse how bad things will be through the lense of temperature rise alone. We have soil erosion, we have ecosystem degradation and collapse, we have pollution and so forth. You are familiar with the concept of network effects, so apply this logic here. It's not an environmental problem to you because you are not the one suffering from the consequences, as you still have a contracted ego that does not actually view much outside of himself as the self. If that wasn't the case, you would already see that this is a problem even now, and that indeed humans are the least affected by the consequences of these problems. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-degradation-is-undermining-human-wellbeing-un-report-warns I really don't know when that idea of "Humanity will prevail because the Divine ordained it so!" has taken hold in your head, but it is toxic as hell. God doesn't give a shit if mankind, or infact all life on this planet perishes. That is a miniscule sacrifice for the greater picture of evolution. We are not guaranteed a future just because evolution says so, it's quite the opposite.

To only focus on CO2 emissions in terms of environmental distruction misses the bigger picture. One of the big issues is that we are degrading ecosystems which capture CO2 by using the land in the most inefficient way possible, generating calories and protein by means of animal agriculture rather than directly consuming plants. If we were to use land efficiently, we could reforest large parts of the planet and therefore capture more of the CO2 that we are emitting. And this seems to actually be something that we will need to do anyways, because it will not be sufficient to simply reduce our emissions at this point. We cannot continue to use land in the most irrational way possible because people want to eat bacon instead of lentils. China is currently adopting a more western diet, and the consequences are felt globally as massive portions of tropical ecosystems are destroyed to be replaced with monocrop fields for animal feed. As the trends are going at the moment, we will lose all major land-based ecosystems on the planet in a matter of decades, simply because people adopt western dietary habits. We will soon require multiple earths to be able to sustain the agricultural needs for the world, simply because we enjoy certain animal products, not at all because it is necessary for survival or economically more efficient.

Germany had to revert to coal and gas because it is phasing out nuclear energy. Where are you getting your information from? While China does need coal and gas, that has nothing to do with them being utterly irresponsible and insane with the way they pollute their environment. Corruption is real and is destroying the entire country, you have this weird, unsophisticated realism where you will just point at reality and say "Well this is how it has to be", as if reality was some sort of disembodied process that you do not participate in.

China is not moving fast on this at all, you are being sold propaganda.

Technological development is linked to social factors.

Consciousness expands from the point of individuals, and these conversations are part of that. The motion of history is embodied through the actual progression of individual actors, this is how Divine Will manifests and evolves. Forcing things is part of the motions of nature, and must be accepted as such.

From what I know the "male" tournaments are basically open, so anyone can participate. It's just that women have a specific seperate protected category. But the same is true for the men. If you look at the graph, men will also dominate in the most disadvantaged group, namely people with very low IQ. Sure, the world is unfair in that sense, but I would say being a human in general already is such a privilege in most cases that the difference between male and female are basically negligible. You have to remember, you are basically just arbitrarily looking at this in terms of male vs female, but you can subdivide groups of individuals into infinite categories, from which then you can evaluate which one has it worse than the other.

The longer this is going on the more my BS-spider-senses go off.

Well, let's assume for a second that this was true and due to biological factors: And let's say this translates to games like chess. If this was the case, would that bother you? If so, why would that bother you? And then, why does any of this even matter that much? If it was true that men are more likely to be in the lowest percentile of intelligence, but also in the highest percentile of intelligence, do you think that would be bad?

Somebody like Leo will not give a shit until things start affecting him, which is unlikely to happen with his wealth.

Firstly, I have no idea why it matters what "anybody" complains about. Secondly, do I really need to explain to you why mass extinctions are not something that should just be ignored?

Every country in the world mass rapes, tortures and murders animals in a way that is worse than the holocaust. If this was happening to human beings, people would riot. Most people have so little concern for non-human individuals that if they had that little concern for human beings, the only plausible explanation would be racism or sociopathy. You cannot actually reverse most ecological destruction because it leads to permanent loss of biodiversity.

This is unlikely if women and men actually are on par cognitively speaking. The pool of transgender individuals who play chess is far smaller than the pool of female chess players, therefore if both are on par, it should be very unlikely for transgenders to outcompete females.

Roy can you give us a summary of specifically what your position is? I think instead of arguing, it can be helpful to actually ask yourself "Okay, I believe this, what premises do I accept that lead me to this conclusion, and what leads to me to accept those premises?". Then there can be clarity around what people disagree about. Because right now, everyone is just stating they don't agree, and pointing out how much they don't agree, but there is no investigation from where that disageement stems and therefore we can't really discuss the actual thing that would change people's minds.

I just found out about Bernardo Kastrup, very interesting. He comes to a lot of conclusions I myself have independently arrived at as well.

Welcome to a world where the mega-corporations extract all economic value from the population and gather them in their super AIs which of course only they will be able to construct and compute.

Then we wouldnt be able to post Leo's content