Emerald

@RendHeaven That makes sense. There's an orientation to expansion as opposed to contraction. My orientation is towards contraction and limitation... which are the necessary birthplaces of meaning and beauty. And any experiences that I've had of Truth and the infinite have been to serve the path of the contraction, limitation, meaning, and beauty that I'm on. To me... infinite expansion and infinite knowing becomes so random. I've had experiences where an infinity of experiences flash before me as I scratched the surface of infinite knowledge. And the chaos of it has highlighted to me how much I appreciate that which small, limited, imperfect, ordinary, grounded, Earthly, and meaningful. I'm like a Hobbit more than I am a princess.

Romantic partners are wise to listen to and empathize with their partners' pain. But I don't know if that's an actual double standard that exists in the direction of men where men have to sympathize with their partners and not the other way around. My guess is that, if you polled a bunch of heterosexual couples, the woman would probably be the one doing the majority of the empathizing, emotional labor, and communication-related stuff in the relationship.

My entire point is to express my subjective perspective as a woman to shed some light on how that bias is from the lived perspective. I can sympathize and even empathize with male pain. And I try to share what it's really like for a woman to try to get men to see through the false narratives that cause them to suffer so much. But despite my ability to sympathize/empathize, that doesn't mean that I'm going to become buddy-buddy with a guy who gives off woman-hating vibes. It's just unpleasant to be around. And it's fairly obvious to pick up on. So, no woman who's got a decent level of self-esteem and a decent level of awareness is going to overlook things like that.

I think you mean MGTOW not Incels. What I'm talking about is very different than men who claim to avoid women to make their life better because they're saying they're avoiding women altogether. And that dynamic comes from overgeneralizing women and misogynistic feelings. But I would never avoid men altogether because there are plenty of men that are great people. And I am very blessed to have a lot of wonderful men in my life. And I am not a misandrist. I just naturally have learned to sort (men and women) from my social circle when they have qualities that aren't conducive to my own well-being. These are skills you learn early on as a woman. And if you don't learn to sort properly, it will be at your own peril. And if men give off misogynistic vibes, then I avoid getting close to them. I don't even have to consciously try to do it. It's just automatic.

Trump's public announcement of anything that seems too good to be true...

Would you like it if another country with more military power than us sent in an invading military operation and maybe dropped some bombs to fight the war on drugs in America? They'd come here to "fight the criminals" but you know the civilian death toll would be massive. It's honestly silly to think that Donald Trump waging a war on terror against drug cartels would cause anything but suffering for the regular people living in Mexico.

It makes total sense that you would be afraid. You never know what Donald Trump is actually going to do. I would stay put until there's real movement and not just talk. Donald Trump loves to talk about things and not do them. So, I wouldn't leave right now. But if I were in your position, I would create an escape plan, just in case. And I'd get my passports ready as soon as I can as well as any other necessary travel documents. And in the worst case scenario I would plan to go South to a Central American country. My pick would probably be Costa Rica. But I had a friend visit Guatemala, and he said it was really nice. I'd also look up what the naturalization process is if things become sustainably less safe. The important thing is to map out a route to safety in the worst case scenario... but continue to live as though the worst case scenario isn't going to happen. My family and I have a bug out plan in case he starts doing some crazy anti-immigrant stuff like genuinely invoking the Alien Enemies Act and not just talking about it. My husband is an immigrant, so we have to be vigilant. There's an 90% chance that it's just talk to fire up his base. But that's still a nonzero chance. Plan A for us is to drive to Toronto. Plan B is Costa Rica.

You're welcome

@PurpleTree I tend to think there's a some truth in the above. I suspect that Europeans came to dominate because food doesn't grow there all year round and innovations (like watercraft and weapons) had to be invented to cope with the harsher environment. But overall, I recommend checking out the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It gives a variety of different geographic explanations as to why certain societies came to dominate others and to develop more in terms of infrastructure and innovations. (like regular growing seasons in Europe and Asia because of its horizontal shape, easier to domesticate animals, having metal as a natural resource of the land, etc.) And the book doesn't rely on any ethnocentric ideas that the West was just smarter or more inventive. Also this has happened on smaller scales before. They gave an example where in Polynesia, there was a tribe of people. And the tribe got split (for reasons I don't recall) into two groups that were on neighboring islands. And one of the islands had better resources and access to metals. And the other didn't have access to metal and lacked in resources because of the land they were on. Within a couple generations, the side of the tribe that got the better land ended up dominating (and maybe enslaving, if memory serves) the other people. And there were certainly no major differences between the two groups other than one was on a better plot of land with more resources to dominate the other.

It's not an ideology. It's something that can be observed. And the reason why Western countries were able to innovate is because they had the resources and were able to free up enough human potential to make those innovations. It's pretty impossible to do that, if you live in a poor country with few resources... and under the boot of an imperial power. But no, there are zero non-barbarous countries as humanity is not fully developed yet... but some are more or less barbarous than others. And the most barbarous in terms of foreign policy tend to dominate on the world stage... but also confer a bump in the standard of living and access to resources for its own people. And this enables more human potential to be freed up and put towards greater levels of societal development. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If you live in a place where the infrastructure is underdeveloped and there's little access to clean water... or there's no grocery stores... or you don't have access to a lot of medicine... or there's no affordable school in you're region... or your country is occupied by an imperial power... or you live in a place with an unstable government... ALL of the human potential will have to go to the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Physiological Needs and Safety Needs). And having to hyper-focus only on these bottom rungs, doesn't give a lot of opportunity to focus on Esteem and Self-Actualization needs, which must be collectively engaged for a society to move forward towards Community Actualization. So, what I'm saying is that living in an imperialist nation enables its citizens to Self-Actualize more. But at this juncture in history and all times before it, the way that a populace gets freed up to pursue Self-Actualization and Community-Actualization is through these extreme imbalances in power. And I have hope that we will grow past this with the development of new technologies, economic systems, and collective paradigms. But we must all first become aware of how all the positive things that those in "1st world nations" have access to has come at the expense of people from other nations. It's at once recognizing that human development is a bloody and barbarous process with lots of human sacrifice of human will and human life... while also aspiring to something greater and more holistic.

You guys don't know why Leo prefers what he prefers. It's like if I asked Leo "What's your favorite food?" And then one of you chimes in "Pizza." And the other of you chimes in "There are people who enjoy Mediterranean food and others who enjoy Indian food. One finds more joy in certain spices while others find joy in other types of spices." I'm asking Leo in particular because I want to know something about him in particular. It's a personality question.

I know lots of people all over the world. And while my travel experiences are minimal, I have been to a few other countries. And I don't sense that the US is uniquely under-developed compared to other places in terms of the experience of the average person living in the US. It's still probably in the top 20-30 countries on the planet in terms of quality of life for its citizens in most facets. Though it does have its uniquely terrible things like lack of universal healthcare and lack of paid vacation and maternity leave policies. And it's hyper-Capitalist and cut-throat. And its foreign policy is atrocious. Gun violence is also horrible here because of how easily accessible guns are. And there are many things that I disagree with and dislike. I'm very open in my critiques of the US.... in terms of both domestic and foreign policy. You seem to assume that I'm some hyper-nationalist USA defender. I'm definitely not. But my perspective on the US is nuanced and calibrated to what I know about the current state of the world, which is something that I'm always open to learning about. I have no attachment to the idea to any nationalist ideals. And I do resonate more with the societal supports that Scandinavian countries have. I wish that the US would move more in the direction if Social Democracy. But terror attacks rarely happen... and when they do, they're one-off situations. And I don't feel unsafe because I know that I'm a million times more likely to die in a car accident than I am in a terror attack. Only conservatives who watch Fox News get paranoid about things like that... and the same people get scared of the guy with he beard on the plane. And the War on Terror is just a way to get the people whipped into a frenzy of fear and xenophobia to support the government to have more control, wage profitable wars, and have more ability to skirt around due process as long as they label someone a terrorist. And next to NO ONE is better off with a foreign government toppling their own. Maybe in a really domestically authoritarian place with tons of human rights abuses, having a foreign country come in and take over could be preferable to the status quo. But that's so much instability... and the populace would be so vulnerable to the new power structure. Lots of unrest. And I trust that the US won't selectively attack some section of its own country because 1. It has no power-based interests to do that and 2. That would cause a genuine uproar in the populace which would create a lot more resistance to the powers that be... which is something that large power structures try to domestically avoid and only do outside the bounds of the country. And yes, there's definitely lots of economic warfare going on. It's definitely shifting to shrinking middle class and bigger gaps between the rich a poor... and that comes from a government that's in the pocket of billionaires and major industries. Now, in terms of my way of life... I do like my way of life. I wouldn't necessarily want to change that. Or if I did, I'd want to on my own terms. This is a very hyper-individualistic society, and I am pretty well adapted to that and really appreciate the achievement-focus. I find that very exciting. I also love having the support of my family and really like our little single-family home. But I intend later on in my life to create intentional community, because we do lack in terms of community connection. That said, I would not trade my freedom and authenticity for community connection. And it seems like people from cultures who emphasize collectivism over individualism have to sacrifice a lot of agency and authenticity to make that orientation to the world work. So, my goal is to eventually organize a small intentional community of like-minded folks to commune with so that more of those community and connection needs are met. And I don't care if the top 0.0001% have it better than me. I only care if they're impacting others negatively... which they are. But I don't care if someone has a lifestyle that's a zillion times better than mine... as long as I have everything I need. I don't like a lot of things about the US and how it functions. But that doesn't mean I want to leave. I like my life here. And I feel pretty lucky in many ways to live here, despite the shortcomings. But I'm still going to speak my mind about my issues with the US domestic and foreign policy... despite US nationalists saying "If you don't like it, then leave!"

Here's a meta-analysis on food groups associated with higher and lower risks of all-cause mortality... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28446499/ With the exception of fish, meat consumption was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and plant consumption was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. Also, you can look up more yourself on Pub-Med and type in keywords and phrases like "diet and all-cause mortality" or "diet and stroke risk" or "diet and heart attack risk" etc.

Here's a study about plant based diets and their inverse relationship with all-cause mortality... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33951994/ But there was a very large meta-analysis where they cross referenced thousands of individual studies on the impact of diet on all-cause mortality (and maybe some other factors). And they found that the fewer animal products and the more plants are in someone's diet, the lower the risk of all-cause mortality. I'll try to track that one down again.

I never said that no one would have negative effects on a Vegan diet. That would be an unsubstantiated claim. Any diet could potentially react negatively with someone's individual make-up. What I said was that the scientific consensus is that the Vegan diet is a diet where you can get all your nutritional needs met at any phase of life... and that's its associated with better health and longevity according to various studies and meta-analyses. And it's associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality... and lower risk of heart disease and stroke. And these are all scientifically based claims. And I said that Integral's perspective was making unsubstantiated alarmist claims that Vegans are generally unhealthy and start looking like skulls and have all these health problems. And I said that his perspective is not holistic because he is valuing personal anecdotes from people who agree with him over the scientific consensus to maintain his unsubstantiated 'Veganism inherently causes health problems' claim. But I'm sure that some people could react negatively to a Vegan diet. It's just not common that people do. There has to be something really specific going on... like a particular condition. Like I know that people with epilepsy often benefit from a Ketogenic diet, which would be much more difficult on a Vegan diet compared to an animal-based diet. There are also cases where people who already have auto-immune issues could have a negative reaction to quite a lot of plants. So, that might make a Vegan diet more challenging. But for most people, Veganism doesn't create any health problems. That said, it's really common when someone quits Veganism that they come up with ways to rationalize their decision to themselves... and adopting beliefs that Veganism is unhealthy can be one such rationalization. That's what I think is going on with Integral.