I hear the truth of your words. But Nature is cruel - is there no room for compassion? Thank you for your thoughtful words. I appreciate your articles.
I think there is. Many of the advancements we make are made out of good intentions, it just appears to me that we destroy ourselves by trying to create a perfect world. I don't know where the line Is but at some point, we end up doing more harm than good.
I wonder if it's us trying to work out our own salvation but we just can't - like you can't get there from here. We try but we just need God to complete our good intentions. Because I believe there are good intentions but they just go astray.
It could be that our compassion is a response to the system - a kind of rebellion against the survival of the fittest which seems to promote competition. Nature may just be harsh/strict but it seems cruel to us who cry out at the astonishing need for death just to feed the living and brutal suffering of those animals which do not have medicine or technology to heal. If we allowed nature to take its course via natural selection we would not heal those who were sick or disabled. We would not try to accommodate people with all different types of abilities and accept them into society. I think there is more compassion in our world than one sees demonstrated on social media - and of course there it depends on who you follow!
In these two sentences, you sum up so much. It would be nice if leaders in our country could understand it as you do.
"The collapse of advanced civilizations is not a mystery... It's a process with a clear modus operandi. The story of man is the Tower of Babel told time and again."
Couldn’t it be argued that capitalist society upholds an acknowledgment of natural selection? Unskilled workers and unviable businesses fail, and those who can adapt and fulfill societal needs succeed. A society in which everyone receives UBI would be a rejection of natural selection, but capitalism seems to apply natural selection to economics. And the results are often destructive to well-meaning people, which makes it difficult (albeit not impossible) to see natural selection as a morally-driven, God-ordained force.
Yes, but capitalism can only arise when a society has reached a sufficient level of advancement. It can be viewed as a second-order effect or byproduct of advanced societies. This is primarily because capitalism depends on the emergence of a highly efficient merchant class, which can only realize its potential within a stable and technologically advanced society.
In some respects, capitalism may act as a selection pressure on a small subset of the population—merchants and inventors. However, it is arguably a net negative for the population overall. The genetic health of the populace becomes insulated from natural pressures by the very technological advancements capitalism fosters. One could argue, therefore, that in practice, capitalism accelerates the decline in population-wide fitness.
Capitalism also shares a key flaw with socialism: both systems fail to scale without increasingly negative returns on investment. While each may function effectively at a local level, they tend to undermine their stated objectives on a macro scale. For example, socialism often leads to widespread impoverishment, while capitalism eventually stifles innovation as dominant companies grow large enough to eliminate competition and entrench their positions
Great stuff. It's true...like breeding bulldogs and Chihuahuas that could never survive the real world, we are breeding ourselves for aesthetics instead of ability. If it were possible to test the innate intelligence of people in the 1400s, I think we would find that they were far smarter on average than today's population. And Nature (God) has a way of bringing things back into balance. There will be a reckoning.
Exactly, I believe that civilizational collapse is God's way of resetting things when they get too far out of balance. Like a fever, it hurts, but the function is to kill off the desire and protect the body.
Bit of a strawman reply. No one is complaining. I made a critique considering there are thousands of religions, gods and holy books followed by billions of people.
It seemed crow-barred in 🫤 It’s so much better keeping that religious component out. It’ll speak to the world more and hit that common denominator in all of us despite what we individually believe and follow.
That is fair, but I would be denying what I believe is the truth. Secondly I would be concerned that without mentioning God, it could easily be turned into a pro eugenic concept rather than what I see as passive eugenics.
I hear the truth of your words. But Nature is cruel - is there no room for compassion? Thank you for your thoughtful words. I appreciate your articles.
I think there is. Many of the advancements we make are made out of good intentions, it just appears to me that we destroy ourselves by trying to create a perfect world. I don't know where the line Is but at some point, we end up doing more harm than good.
I wonder if it's us trying to work out our own salvation but we just can't - like you can't get there from here. We try but we just need God to complete our good intentions. Because I believe there are good intentions but they just go astray.
I'm not convinced that nature is cruel. Domesticated cats torture their prey, wild cats simply eat them.
One only has to glance at x/twitter to see a shocking lack of compassion in the modern world.
Nature is a harsh mistress, no doubt about it. But doesn't that mean we need to be compassionate in order to survive?
It could be that our compassion is a response to the system - a kind of rebellion against the survival of the fittest which seems to promote competition. Nature may just be harsh/strict but it seems cruel to us who cry out at the astonishing need for death just to feed the living and brutal suffering of those animals which do not have medicine or technology to heal. If we allowed nature to take its course via natural selection we would not heal those who were sick or disabled. We would not try to accommodate people with all different types of abilities and accept them into society. I think there is more compassion in our world than one sees demonstrated on social media - and of course there it depends on who you follow!
In these two sentences, you sum up so much. It would be nice if leaders in our country could understand it as you do.
"The collapse of advanced civilizations is not a mystery... It's a process with a clear modus operandi. The story of man is the Tower of Babel told time and again."
Couldn’t it be argued that capitalist society upholds an acknowledgment of natural selection? Unskilled workers and unviable businesses fail, and those who can adapt and fulfill societal needs succeed. A society in which everyone receives UBI would be a rejection of natural selection, but capitalism seems to apply natural selection to economics. And the results are often destructive to well-meaning people, which makes it difficult (albeit not impossible) to see natural selection as a morally-driven, God-ordained force.
Yes, but capitalism can only arise when a society has reached a sufficient level of advancement. It can be viewed as a second-order effect or byproduct of advanced societies. This is primarily because capitalism depends on the emergence of a highly efficient merchant class, which can only realize its potential within a stable and technologically advanced society.
In some respects, capitalism may act as a selection pressure on a small subset of the population—merchants and inventors. However, it is arguably a net negative for the population overall. The genetic health of the populace becomes insulated from natural pressures by the very technological advancements capitalism fosters. One could argue, therefore, that in practice, capitalism accelerates the decline in population-wide fitness.
Capitalism also shares a key flaw with socialism: both systems fail to scale without increasingly negative returns on investment. While each may function effectively at a local level, they tend to undermine their stated objectives on a macro scale. For example, socialism often leads to widespread impoverishment, while capitalism eventually stifles innovation as dominant companies grow large enough to eliminate competition and entrench their positions
Great stuff. It's true...like breeding bulldogs and Chihuahuas that could never survive the real world, we are breeding ourselves for aesthetics instead of ability. If it were possible to test the innate intelligence of people in the 1400s, I think we would find that they were far smarter on average than today's population. And Nature (God) has a way of bringing things back into balance. There will be a reckoning.
Exactly, I believe that civilizational collapse is God's way of resetting things when they get too far out of balance. Like a fever, it hurts, but the function is to kill off the desire and protect the body.
This is good minus the fictionalized god nonsense.
"You can't ignore the divine order of creation."
Complains you acknowledge the divine part of the order of creation.
Bit of a strawman reply. No one is complaining. I made a critique considering there are thousands of religions, gods and holy books followed by billions of people.
I mean you can ignore that part, if it helps
It seemed crow-barred in 🫤 It’s so much better keeping that religious component out. It’ll speak to the world more and hit that common denominator in all of us despite what we individually believe and follow.
That is fair, but I would be denying what I believe is the truth. Secondly I would be concerned that without mentioning God, it could easily be turned into a pro eugenic concept rather than what I see as passive eugenics.
And there’s the rub. 😭