I feel like there's some selection bias here. Old people who can engage in aerobic exercise and strength training will often be people who are better off than those whom can't.
Thankfully I think we're seeing a major turning around the world.
The big question is going to be how many of these places that are having a turning actually have conservative parties, because a lot of the so-called conservative parties are just pinko-lite.
The big question is going to be how many of these places that are having a turning actually have conservative parties, because a lot of the so-called conservative parties are just pinko-lite.
America's biggest advantage in the world wars was that there actually was no "must" because there was a huge ocean between it and anyone who really threatened them. It could conceivably sit out of Eurasian wars altogether and probably get away with it. If they "needed" to go to war, it'd likely be to just take the rest of the Americas that don't have any chance if they decided to go all-out.
I feel like all these are sorta off.
We are born both virtuous and corrupted, with a capacity for both, but also a hole that can be filled with either based on culture, environment, and personal choice.
Morality is derived from our humanity. If we were another thing, we would have a different morality.
In some ways, morality is built in because at times acting morally ended up being the only thing that saved the human race. As our brains got bigger, men for example went from having a mostly promiscuous strategy for having children to having a strategy where men take an active role in childrearing. Part of that change would be cultural, but part of it would be genetic where men who are predisposed to active childrearing would survive better. (Apparently that happened about 250k years ago).
In other ways, immorality is built in because at times acting immorally (or acting with a different morality) is the only thing that saved people. There are genes for heroism and risk taking and some areas of the world have these genes a lot and other areas of the world don't have them at all, depending on the history of the regions people. Some men still use the 750k year old promiscuous path for having lots of kids because sometimes that still works (and our kids have different behavioral expressions depending on which path their father takes, being more prosocial and less violent if the father sticks around).
In my last paragraph I touched on this, that genetics have an impact, but so do epigenetics or entirely non-genetic factors. Epigenetics suggests that our behavior and other bodily regulation depends a lot on our immediate environment. A stressed out mother who never meets her children may nonetheless pass on characteristic behaviors induced by that stress onto children. Non genetic factors.ay be cultural. Someone who grows up in a society like ancient Sparta is going to think the highly aggressive, slave based, martial life is normal and good, but most modern people would be aghast at that.
Finally, even after everything else is accounted for, there's personal choice. I'm one of six kids. We grew up in the same house, were raised the same, but went on to live quite different lives. Some of that is the butterfly effect of different minor experiences, but a lot of it is we chose how we were going to live and chose differently, and that led to different outcomes.
So while it might seem I'm saying we are born neutral, in fact I'm saying we're born both good and evil, and it's quite a complicated thing.
We are born both virtuous and corrupted, with a capacity for both, but also a hole that can be filled with either based on culture, environment, and personal choice.
Morality is derived from our humanity. If we were another thing, we would have a different morality.
In some ways, morality is built in because at times acting morally ended up being the only thing that saved the human race. As our brains got bigger, men for example went from having a mostly promiscuous strategy for having children to having a strategy where men take an active role in childrearing. Part of that change would be cultural, but part of it would be genetic where men who are predisposed to active childrearing would survive better. (Apparently that happened about 250k years ago).
In other ways, immorality is built in because at times acting immorally (or acting with a different morality) is the only thing that saved people. There are genes for heroism and risk taking and some areas of the world have these genes a lot and other areas of the world don't have them at all, depending on the history of the regions people. Some men still use the 750k year old promiscuous path for having lots of kids because sometimes that still works (and our kids have different behavioral expressions depending on which path their father takes, being more prosocial and less violent if the father sticks around).
In my last paragraph I touched on this, that genetics have an impact, but so do epigenetics or entirely non-genetic factors. Epigenetics suggests that our behavior and other bodily regulation depends a lot on our immediate environment. A stressed out mother who never meets her children may nonetheless pass on characteristic behaviors induced by that stress onto children. Non genetic factors.ay be cultural. Someone who grows up in a society like ancient Sparta is going to think the highly aggressive, slave based, martial life is normal and good, but most modern people would be aghast at that.
Finally, even after everything else is accounted for, there's personal choice. I'm one of six kids. We grew up in the same house, were raised the same, but went on to live quite different lives. Some of that is the butterfly effect of different minor experiences, but a lot of it is we chose how we were going to live and chose differently, and that led to different outcomes.
So while it might seem I'm saying we are born neutral, in fact I'm saying we're born both good and evil, and it's quite a complicated thing.
This government spent more debt than every government of canada in history combined. Yet basic shit looks worse than when we had a balanced budget.
Easier to take school kids lunch money than trying to get adults to pay for porn on the internet.
Base Linux on my pinephone wasnt workable as a daily driver, but neither was android. How is it on the librem?
I aint sayin' nothin', but there's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas probably Tennessee that says: fool me once, shame on... Shame on you........ you fool me I can't get fooled again.
I did some calculations a while back, and while nobody can deny nuclear war would be the worst thing to ever occur, it wouldn't be the end of he world. Thankfully, there's a lot fewer nuclear weapons today than at its peak by a massive margin.
Hopefully if the powers that be press the shiny candy-like button someone will eventually have the presence of mind to take it away from them.
Hopefully if the powers that be press the shiny candy-like button someone will eventually have the presence of mind to take it away from them.
Not to mention the secular cycle described by people like Peter Turchin warning us of massive civil unrest.
It'll mean changes and in many ways that could be very positive when it's all done, but eras like the French Revolution were tragic and horrible times even if they were triggered for the right reasons.
It'll mean changes and in many ways that could be very positive when it's all done, but eras like the French Revolution were tragic and horrible times even if they were triggered for the right reasons.
Allegorically it does make some sense though. The Minoans were so evil that everyone remotely associated with the civilization fled and erased everything about the civilization during the bronze age collapse, so all we had left was an ancient myth of the Greeks about an evil civilization and now some ruins.
If the anthropological evidence that the Minoans practiced human sacrifice and dominated the region and demanded people be given up as sacrifices from other people living under their thumbs, that's universally considered evil enough that that sort of civilization tends to get ganged up on by other civilization, and the people of that civilization didn't carry the tenets of the civilization either. Contrast with the Indian civilization which despite being conquered or subjugated by other peoples many times over the millennia, have such a strong culture that ultimately the region's culture has survived.
Another example from ancient history would be the Assyrians, who were so brutal everyone in the region ganged up on them and erased the civilization.
A more contemporary example would be fascism and national socialism, both of which were wiped out because the rest of the world wasn't comfortable with their antisocial ideologies and actions.
It's similar in one respect to the old testament "sins of the father" stuff. People say "That's so unfair! Why should children be punished for the sins of their parents!" but we can show that it's empirically true today. The impact your parents have on you is so powerful it can predict certain outcomes with a 90% certainty. Whether it's fair or not, the behavior of parents defines the children.
Life isn't fair. If we assume that religions are descriptive first and foremost, then they must include parts that are unfair because of that. Otherwise you quickly end up with the paradox from Christianity where "if we have an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, why does He let evil exist?" and people twist themselves into knots explaining it, but there's a reason Christianity still contains the old testament -- both sets of lessons can be true at the same time, where the universe will wipe you out if you're sinful, but the universe is beautiful and is miraculously set up for humanity to succeed and we need to engage in positive practices like forgiveness to survive as people and as a culture.
(SJ, is there any morning you can put together a post that isn't a wall of text about shit nobody asked about?)
If the anthropological evidence that the Minoans practiced human sacrifice and dominated the region and demanded people be given up as sacrifices from other people living under their thumbs, that's universally considered evil enough that that sort of civilization tends to get ganged up on by other civilization, and the people of that civilization didn't carry the tenets of the civilization either. Contrast with the Indian civilization which despite being conquered or subjugated by other peoples many times over the millennia, have such a strong culture that ultimately the region's culture has survived.
Another example from ancient history would be the Assyrians, who were so brutal everyone in the region ganged up on them and erased the civilization.
A more contemporary example would be fascism and national socialism, both of which were wiped out because the rest of the world wasn't comfortable with their antisocial ideologies and actions.
It's similar in one respect to the old testament "sins of the father" stuff. People say "That's so unfair! Why should children be punished for the sins of their parents!" but we can show that it's empirically true today. The impact your parents have on you is so powerful it can predict certain outcomes with a 90% certainty. Whether it's fair or not, the behavior of parents defines the children.
Life isn't fair. If we assume that religions are descriptive first and foremost, then they must include parts that are unfair because of that. Otherwise you quickly end up with the paradox from Christianity where "if we have an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, why does He let evil exist?" and people twist themselves into knots explaining it, but there's a reason Christianity still contains the old testament -- both sets of lessons can be true at the same time, where the universe will wipe you out if you're sinful, but the universe is beautiful and is miraculously set up for humanity to succeed and we need to engage in positive practices like forgiveness to survive as people and as a culture.
(SJ, is there any morning you can put together a post that isn't a wall of text about shit nobody asked about?)
It seems like drug companies have been selling a non-factual theory of depression.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/20/scientists-question-widespread-use-of-antidepressants-after-survey-on-serotonin
In my experience, the drugs are like morphine on a bad injury. It numbs the pain, but you don't cure a broken leg with morphine, you cure a broken leg by treating it so it'll set properly. If you just take morphine and keep walking on it you're going to lose your leg. Likewise, it seems to me that antidepressants should be a temporary measure to be implemented during treatment and ended as soon as possible over the course of treatment.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/20/scientists-question-widespread-use-of-antidepressants-after-survey-on-serotonin
In my experience, the drugs are like morphine on a bad injury. It numbs the pain, but you don't cure a broken leg with morphine, you cure a broken leg by treating it so it'll set properly. If you just take morphine and keep walking on it you're going to lose your leg. Likewise, it seems to me that antidepressants should be a temporary measure to be implemented during treatment and ended as soon as possible over the course of treatment.
I've got a serious problem with the mainstream. Once the establishment finds out that a thing exists, they're going to start breaking it for their own ends. I often agree with or disagree with people on the fediverse, but at least I know the people I'm talking to are authentically talking to me. Once the establishment starts breaking in, I fully expect to see astroturfed users, astroturfed likes and reacts, and that's where it becomes sludge -- people getting paid to pretend to care full-time.
The fastest macro object we've ever created (I'm sure there's tiny things we've made and then gotten going really fast with a particle accelerator) can only go 0.058% of the speed of light. There's this speed limit of the universe at c, but it's so fast we can't even hit 0.1% of that speed limit.
That gets me to thinking about the Fermi paradox, and I wonder if other species might exist but never underwent a cognitive revolution the same way humans did. After all, there's all kinds of life on planet earth, but of all of them only humans ended up with the level of abstract thinking we have.
I've often thought about a gaseous lifeform that relies on photosynthesis. Such a lifeform would have a completely different view of the universe than we do. Things we consider normal such as being social animals might be completely different. I mean, what are the odds that some ape ends up becoming the most advanced intelligence on the planet and not one of the many other forms of life out there?
Imagine if something like hydras continued to grow and evolve down the route of intelligence and so you had this biologically immortal being. What a difference that would make! I wonder if an intelligent hydra would develop taboos against reproduction altogether? Basically you'd build up the safe population and only have a new hydra born if one dies from predation, disease, or accidents.
There's also as far as I know essentially 2 forms of multicellular life, and each relies on a symbiote to survive. The animals with mitochondria, and the plants with chloroplasts. Some microscopic creatures don't have mitochondria because they evolved a method to do the same thing independently, and others stopped symbiosis and absorbed the DNA that does the things mitochondria do, but complex multicellular life almost always required one of the two symbiotes to thrive. Does this mean that such symbiosis is a critical node on the path to what we might consider intelligent life?
That gets me to thinking about the Fermi paradox, and I wonder if other species might exist but never underwent a cognitive revolution the same way humans did. After all, there's all kinds of life on planet earth, but of all of them only humans ended up with the level of abstract thinking we have.
I've often thought about a gaseous lifeform that relies on photosynthesis. Such a lifeform would have a completely different view of the universe than we do. Things we consider normal such as being social animals might be completely different. I mean, what are the odds that some ape ends up becoming the most advanced intelligence on the planet and not one of the many other forms of life out there?
Imagine if something like hydras continued to grow and evolve down the route of intelligence and so you had this biologically immortal being. What a difference that would make! I wonder if an intelligent hydra would develop taboos against reproduction altogether? Basically you'd build up the safe population and only have a new hydra born if one dies from predation, disease, or accidents.
There's also as far as I know essentially 2 forms of multicellular life, and each relies on a symbiote to survive. The animals with mitochondria, and the plants with chloroplasts. Some microscopic creatures don't have mitochondria because they evolved a method to do the same thing independently, and others stopped symbiosis and absorbed the DNA that does the things mitochondria do, but complex multicellular life almost always required one of the two symbiotes to thrive. Does this mean that such symbiosis is a critical node on the path to what we might consider intelligent life?
There's a youtuber named chibi reviews. He looks like a little wierdo, but he does a good job of pointing out good shows.