How to win the war of life ?

[ValeryZeSpanich]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.
I'm just saying it cannot yet be calculated, and thus, free will is a better choice we can comprehend and doesn't have to be proven. Whether those choices were pre-determined or not cannot be proved yet. As far as we understand these things, we can manipulate ourselves in the moment to change directions.

I don't believe it is an invalid way of thinking: I just believe things based on proof. Without, I just pick the senses first. I can see why one would be a determinist. If I saw the evidence, which I do believe can one day exist, it still doesn't remove the fact that free will is the exact same thing as destiny. Its just a question of perspective, and that is just semantics: deconstructionist. Different words based on context, same result.

However, free will has not been proven either, and is irrational. What does "have a choice" mean? Nothing you just follow what your brain tells you to do based on third party factors that have influenced you. I remember a scientific experiment claiming that you can with electrodes on your head, completely reliably, predict a future choice while you think you are still hesitating.

That's a choice. It is pragmatic, and I agree, but that is duty, and duty, as I define it through the kantian lens in this conversation, is just something that achieves long-term happiness for one's self and the public regardless of how you may feel in the moment: Something that may stem from mirror neurons, and feelings, but we may follow through with regardless of if we feel good about it or not in the moment, because we know that we will feel better about it in the future.

I feel like a lot of the debate is just on timing and context. We stand for the same things overall, just different perspectives with the same result.

ok

^can we go into this more? also, what are the downfall of utopianism? what do you think is required for us to co-exist and be able to travel to other planets without killing each other?

I also disagree that it's not mental gymnastics; it's just technology and very possible, very rapid growth.

It seems to me that I meant that dishonesty is everywhere in society as society and that it is utopian that one can end just with "good government" in a liberal state. Possibly a very religious society where people are religious enough to themselves refuse usury, dishonest economic practices as a rule, practice charity, strive to keep the promiscuity between people and the integrity of the social fabric , etc.
But this balancing act is based on even more irrational bases, namely the postulate that the population will believe enough in a stupid book to behave in a certain way. I don't believe that a purely rational society can stand up without strength, Kant is an idealist and is not like everyone else, he is, moreover, a dead virgin.

sidenote: What technologies do you consider utopian? Regrowing limbs, and organs? Telepathy via implants? Programmable proteins?

There was no question of technology, but it is indeed utopian. I had a sprinkler friend like you and he had the same problem of projecting too far into the future too distant to be relevant. Before thinking about telepathy, I would like to have the fiber installed ah ah. But above all, I don't think that technologies change anything about the problems of contemporary liberal societies. People want love, security and food, it's not a new technology that will improve that, again admitting that it comes "early" enough that it is even relevant.

They do: It's the hierarchy of needs, I'd argue. Even carnivores won't typically just outright kill an animal without intent to eat it.
Herbivores with opportunity will eat other dead animals, etc. Things can be logical as well as emotionally correct.


"Again I am not a total deconstructivist, I just attribute to the moral a purely and simply pragmatic origin, a way of managing the human population to help man transcend what is most primary in him to create civilization from the sublimation of his creative / sexual energy." - @BiduleMachin

Wiki: "Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives.[1] A cynic may have a general lack of faith or hope in people motivated by ambition, desire, greed, gratification, materialism, goals, and opinions that a cynic perceives as vain, unobtainable, or ultimately meaningless and therefore deserving of ridicule or admonishment."

I agree with cynicism: I believe people should pursue things for the benefit of society but should receive "material tokens" along the way. When people fall for their own BS though, and are not humbled by the experience, then yes, I also agree with cynicism.

I'm not sure I understood

"I agree. In order for capitalism to exist, the wealthy must capitalize on margin: the total amount of transactions, and size of transactions while providing a more sophisticated, and hopefully proprietary product. The larger the margin, the more is hypothetically being taken away from someone else earlier in the chain. Thats not due to capitalism itself though. That is actually politics, I'd argue, which is abused in some places because of the need to adapt to poor conditions; ie. the inability to have freedom of trade, and true free-market capitalism. BSV enables this, and as such, I think we can enter end-capitalism where margin becomes minimal, but innovation is at its highest, fulfilling the majority of everyone's hierarchy of needs." -@x3cyo

Can I get more elaboration on this point, please?
I'm also confused as to what you mean by "...production continues to rise to the point of satisfying everyone thanks to innovation (which is again utopian in my eyes)..." Is Utopian just delivering things more efficiently to the public? I don't understand what the issue is.

Do you believe we would be more happy and able to meet our needs without technology?

I meant that the hypothesis that production would continue to increase to the point where everyone on this planet can enjoy a certain comfort as in the West (thanks to innovation which makes products cheaper to produce) is utopian and is not even desirable (consequence on the environment, social ties, etc.). No I don't think technology makes you "happy", I'm even pretty sure that a less technologically advanced but less stressful society can be more enjoyable.

I think this is a stretch. We can't know all the repercussions, but I think we'd have a better chance this way, than just outright giving people money: They need autonomy.

I'd rather be an employee, with the same vision as me, that provides higher and higher positions to work towards, than to have no job at all.

The only reason why I think this is from videos I've watched analyzing EVE online's economics as an example of end phase capitalism (a space video game known for its strong economics.)

There is no question of not working, anyway it is not possible. Why do you want to be employed so much? Why do you want to "climb the ladder" so much? Wouldn't you rather be free?

Yeah, freedom without feedback is cancer. I agree. And also, this freedom was limited originally to specific races. I think this further pushes my point of why we need technology to become more connected to actually understand one another with honest data rather than just a game of telephone.

I don't think technology is required anywhere near to the current degree in a world as it is now if humanity ceased to continue to grow and was run by autonomous people mutually. The problem is that people want more, and then there's the whole cynicism conversation all over again, which is why we have these problems, yes.

Technology does not bring people together; on the contrary, it provides the means to withdraw into oneself. And anyway why would we need technologies to solve a social problem, it does not make sense.
Once again, it is not a question of "a company run by bad people", it implies that the company is good but that it turns bad because "" "badly managed" "", I am not agree at all.

yes

I disagree. Without knowledge, and sharing of knowledge, there is no job from which to attain money to purchase food.

We don't need the state to finance the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge is universal.

We do need the states to provide utilities which we use to run the technology to share said knowledge, which we pay for with our taxes though.

Students shouldn't go to school and acquire loans: they should learn what they want from the internet, together in libraries and similar places with tutors, progressively achieving credits in different subjects, and then submit themselves to internships/mentorships.

A degree does not guarantee a job. Having hands-on experience doesn't either. But if businesses are incentivized via tax credits to pay to have said students work for their education, and being paid for it via producing results for a company, then at least we have something a little cheaper to work with than the traditional route.

What about the teachers? They'd just work for companies via the state as agents possibly to provide continuing education and things like that.

I'm not 100% certain. I'm not an economist or a politician.

ok

As for those with loans already without a guaranteed job... I'm not sure. perhaps we all will just carry that debt in the future.


"The main problem with capitalism, and conservatism, is that it takes too long for the long-term best solution to come to fruition, and people need results now. The only thing that bridges this gap throughout history, yes, is technology, and materials." - @X3CyO

Wiki:
Conservatism is an aesthetic, cultural, social, and political philosophy, which seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions.[1]
In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.[2]

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

I don't understand what you're saying. Conservatives are not anti-progress, the progress just needs to be built on the traditional fundamentals from which we already have that works and tinkered with rather than outright changing. This progress happens through technological advance, and policy which allows freedom within the market, smaller gov't, and open trade with poorer countries, providing them a means to create wealth and capital within their own homeland.

Either you are conservative / reactionary or you are progressive. The conservatives / reactionaries are for the preservation of traditional values and the progessists for their overthrow. So the conservatives are indeed opposed to "progress", at least moral "progress". I meant that you cannot be both conservative and liberal at the same time because it is not consistent. We can also say that an economically liberal system tends to create a society that is also liberal in terms of mores, the free market is a box of pendor for a whole lot of reasons.
I was not talking about technological progress.
You still talk about technological progress as a way to lift countries out of poverty, it means that without technological progress they could not. This is not what I call an ideal system.

The problem with the two, is that trickle-down economics doesn't benefit the businesses which pay the people fast enough, and the top .1% who are producing the most amount of money are not ever proportionately taxed as they should be relative to the amount of value generated, (with fewer people being paid, and paying them less,) and thus don't allow us to distribute wealth proportionately within the system to the people who need it most.

we're agree

It's not an issue of just give people money. It's an issue of we need to provide people their bare needs: food, water, shelter, education. Money doesn't fix anything.
People need to be free to not have to walk to school on foot, read books without food in their stomachs, and be provided opportunities to work to pay the state back.
I agree with providing equity to the disenfranchised rather than equality, but it's not money itself that they need: that's just a symptom of the problem.

It's not about giving people what they need fairly, especially without giving them anything back. Everyone has to participate in exchange for being included, it's a social contract.
Yes indeed the money is not the basic problem.

Decadent: characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence: marked by decay or decline.

People self indulge all the time: it's when working people give other people who self indulge money, and they use that to continue that habit, that there should be some sort of intervention if that was not what that money was intended for. (Something that BSV allows).

Poor people are poor because of politics, generational, and societal issues, not because it's their fault. I do believe in freedom of choice though, but don't believe it plays as large of a factor as others may believe necessarily.

I think that following peat, teaching people about their bodies, food, the toxic stuff in it, prevention, and removing Hypothyroidism is a large part of restoring autonomy for these people first to reduce misunderstandings between people, resorting to violence, and lessening the sensitivity to all the pains they have to experience in order to survive. Reduction in ego when exposed to challenge, etc.

this

You do bring up an idea though: we can provide people money directly if we can audit where that money is going, and are ensuring it is properly spent or invested from the state to an individual. Perhaps that may be a future gov't job to support people getting back on their feet temporarily in conjunction with what was mentioned in response to your prior statement.

Yes, but as much to give work to those who do not have one. I don't just want to give money like that. It also seems quite flawed to monitor what people are doing with their state donated money. We need to have a more global vision and actions.