Are NTs/humans becoming more easily offended as time passes?

Post Reply New Topic

Untrue but valid point regardless. Even if the rate was only 1/8th, and even if births are frequently celebrated in baby showers, the pregnancy structure is far too primitive. Hedonists that don't want to reproduce should get their tubes tied, unless they have exceptional atheletic or intellectual abilities. Humans would largely benefit by becoming cyborgs in theory, with smoother pregnancies. The problem though is that some might be some kind of cyborgs of some kind of dystopian zuckerverse, rather than some kind of ideal and based cyborgs.


War can be entertaining but pregnancy is much easier imo. In war people have to lug around 100 lbs of equipment all day and walk 15 miles a day. They have to watch their friends brutally pass away and then later also question their own moral ambiguity. There's also the sleep issue, its hard to get good rest when someone is in the trenches with explosions constantly. Think of it like your standard 4th of july irritation, but all year round and louder. Though loud annoying babies are equally annoying, both the father and mother have to deal with that so its not merely a female only or a directly pregnancy issue.

In summary, in hopefully a non-dystopian future robots will fight our wars for us and take care of our babies for us so we don't have to hear a bunch of whining. Of course, build and invent a better soundproofing too so the loudness can't be heard.

Also, war often has a mandatory draft, though in America probably nobody would enforce it anymore because there would be a rebellion and left and right might actually join forces, and they don't want that because they want left and right divided.


Sounds like some form of generic cluster b disorder. Of course mainstream education doesn't really teach prosocial things such as mitigating cluster B problems, how to succeed at life, or how to make money, instead just teaches people to chase good test scores and regurgitate what they are told.


Climate change is not a cult it is a science. Climate change denial is a cult.

One of the things I find humorous though is its usually the more fundamentalist conservative types who claim the world will end soon, and they often give a specific date. Yet when scientists get onboard and make predictions about our doom suddenly they resist and say that suddenly the world will be fine and that the scientists need to stop doomsaying, lol.


My opinion of humanity is fairly low but not quite as bleak as this. Most people are just trying to survive, so they aren't always thinking rationally or clearly. Not everyone or even the majority are greedy capatalistic apes. Some people want to climb the corporate ladder because they have agony menial labor jobs and want to escape. Or they are males who got rejected in dating because of their aesthetics and need more money to compensate for either their lack of seduction ability or lack of aesthetics. Or they made too many kids and need more money for child support.

I myself am somewhat of a greedy capatalistic ape, but I don't like capatalism as a whole. Marx said capatalism was just neccesary as a stepping stone. My goal is eventually to get enough money so I can use it for philanthropic purposes and make a better world for all, since this dystopia must end.

I think robots are key to that but of course robots can backfire hugely and I don't trust many or most of the current corpo monstrocities in charge.

Oh and most people complain and hate their jobs but the moment you speak about robots taking jobs suddenly they'll talk about their job like its a precious keepsake ornament.



Modern television can be viewed as a cancerous poison upon society. But like a poison, it is fine in small quantities and can be beneficial.

Overall, I think television as a concept is fine, I just think there is a malicious agenda behind some of the choices of shows they put on it. For instance, it seems like bombarding people with news is part of some campaign to rot culture.

I am pro trans-rights but honestly I think that rupaul drag show is garbage, it just promotes antisocial cultural behavoirs on society. If there was a trans show where they didn't go around acting like completely trash degenerates I would be in favor of that. We need more shows that don't make Ben Shapiro feel proud of himself.


Intolerance can be good though, for instance intolerance for subhumans that abuse animals.



There is insufficient evidence to postulate that this is a purely Darwinian effect. Unstable societies (such as Sparta vs Athens) tend to be conquered by stronger societies. Humans evolved for group cooperation rather than competition. Competition has been a novelty item, such as contest winning out of a pool of 100 contestants, and generally viewed as unsustainable for personal economics, since the odds are stacked against each contestant. Global connected enterprise is a recent social phenomenon and traditionally people did not have to compete with such a large amount of people, and thus cooperation with ones own tribe was always more economically beneficial. There was sometimes war and competition with outside tribes but many tribes did not create conflicts. Some of these conflicts (such as Sparta vs Athens) ended in destruction and were not viable evolutionary strategies.

There is a clear pattern of warring tribes throughout history although it is unclear if it provided an overall longterm benefit to the tribe. Sometimes these conflicts were created for idealogical reasons, other times due to lack of resources, so the conflicts were mere theivery with an idealogical mask to cover up the theft. An example of warring tribes not benefitting themselves from conflict were the Native American warring tribes. Though many tribes believed in peace, instead of uniting as one nation they were divided, many tribes fighting amongst themselves and were eventually conquered by white americans. Then the question is of the tyrannical social construct that is the current white american society, the mcjobs, all the blood spilled only to result in a dystopia where people run around as rats without rights, to be worked as cogs of the bezos machine, the only freedom allowed is to pee in bottles.

Overall, the animal kingdom is in some ways a hellish cesspool, with animals being eaten alive all in the name of survival. What makes us human is our ability to stand taller than that, to see there is a way for a better world and to make it happen. Otherwise we are mere animals subject to fate. Consumer rats led by carrots, subject to the decree of the capatalist taskmasters.

I blame political correctness, and the over emphasis on wording things in such a way so as not to cause offence, or injury to some people's overly fragile self-esteem.

It seems to have created a climate where everyone has to walk on eggshells all the time, or someone is going to take offence.

In a related point, some people believe that they have a right to speak their mind, regardless of what offence it may cause to someone else. In my opinion, some consideration should be given to the feelings of others. Unless it is some kind of moral issue, in which case it is justified to call people out. But of course morals can be relative and subjective, although some moral issues are pretty much universal and absolute.

Whether to speak your mind vs being considerate depends on the dynamics of a situation. We autistics are generally clueless about which situation is which. We can come accross as compliant or as insensitive in any situation, regardless of politics. This political correctness environment complicates things even more, for me at least.

Similarly, I am amused by the people who don't believe in evolution generally being very particular about breeding, both human and domestic, but then hunt the healthiest wild animals.

I am not saying that climate change is not real, I am saying that there is a cult about it. I question the political interference with the economy. I also question the extent at which we can meaningfully control the climate of the entire planet. I question the sanity of it all. This cult has even it's heathens, the "climate change deniers", basically anybody who has questions.

P.S. I am not a fundamentalist conservative btw.

I'd have to do some research and keep my eyes peeled with that specifically in mind.

I consume a lot of my information through long-form video, I do know that the people I'm tuned in to do have written resources like The Consilience Project - it's a collective that authors these articles anonymously but the areas of expertise that people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Samo Burja, and Zak Stein have tend to yield good hints as to who wrote it (like if it's an education article it's probably Zak, if it's an epistemic commons topic it's probably Daniel, etc.).

For circling:
https://circlinginstitute.com/what-is-circling-method/

I've seen some videos of it and it does look like it could be a bit intense without adaptation but the main idea seems to be having certain times and protocols for very direct and honest communication. It's something that's gotten big in the GameB as well as Authentic Living (Sara Ness et al) spaces.

What really excites me about GameB is it's a lot of very geeky NT's (and some where they could have at least one foot in our space) analyzing complex systems, incentive structures, and all the ways in which autopoiesis can go wrong if the incentives are haphazard.

Also for online meetups I'm cool with Zoom, Facebook group calls, Clubhouse, Twitter Spaces, and things like that if you do them. I'd probably just want to tune in on what the areas of concern are and see if I can think of anything directly from the GameB and adjacent spaces that would be of help.

My biggest hope is with people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Nora Bateson, and some of the others who not only spend all day thinking about things like this but do so exceptionally well.

It seems like, at least in the systems geek circles these days, Scott Alexander / Slate Star Codex's 'Meditations on Moloch' essay has been the rage for the past few years and it seems like if one were to try and pin down a 'big boss' problem, something on the order of a seven-headed dragon from the Book of Revelations, it would be the nature of multipolar traps. Obviously our world has resource issues as well, Peter Zeihan and a few others have been beating the drum about how ugly things are going to get for most of the world as the Russia / Ukraine situation is disrupting global potash supply, how much the price of fertilizer is going up, just how much fertilizer has to be pumped into the soil in places like Brazil for them not to be net food importers, and how many countries around the world are net food importers even under optimal circumstances (it sounds like 50% of the world is food insecure and the next few decades might be quite grueling for the developing world). We'd have a heck of a time fixing resource issues but the issue of multipolar traps without solutions (hopefully avoiding dystopic Panopticon solutions) mean doom even in a world without resource limitations.

Another one to watch on the topic of energy is Nate Hagans 'Great Simplification' channel where he talks with various other academics about various energy and resource limits, how much of the greatness of the current global economy came from fossil fuels (he estimates something on the order of 500 billion virtual workers / slaves) and that as the cost of getting oil out of the ground goes closer to equaling its economic value we're going to go from a 20 terawatt global economy to somewhere between 5 and 10 terawatt, at least a half, possibly 2/3rds haircut. It doesn't sound like solar or wind are going to get us that far, nuclear has materials quantity and build time issues (as well as securing waste), we won't have the lithium for everyone to have their own EV, and I've heard Vaclav Smil whose apparently one of the top global experts on the issue of energy say that we're going to be struggling with energy for the next couple centuries based on just how much capital is required to make the whole system work.


With the way people talk about each other these day's you're seen as a 'useless eater' if you're not working and you're still kinda-sorta seen that way if you aren't doing something super important or working 60 hours per week (they're taking their reductive materialism 'consciousness only exists on neurons' very, very seriously). I think John Gray nailed it when he analyzed Reagan / Thatcher neoliberalism and that for as much as Thatcher believed she was taking the world back for a kind of 'return to the good old days' capitalist system she was really opening things up for neoliberal globalism which is, IMHO, the closest economic equivalent (at least when the gloves come off) to nature red in tooth and nail. It looks like globalism is about to collapse but the ugly of that, again, 50% of the world going from food insecurity to food shortage and the global south goes back from being the global north's sweatshops to starving.

With communism the big defection patterns (aside from the horrors of Lysenkoism) came free rider problems and from what I remember of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago it was a perpetual conspiracy theory state constantly looking for 'wreckers' wherever it couldn't sort out why the system was failing. In neoliberalism / market liberalism the whole culture gets so mercenary that they not only can't replace themselves in the literal sense but will teach their kids to be mercenaries like they are which means society unravels. Holodomors and nations of psychopathic ancap mercenaries are both extremes we need to avoid.


For techno-optimism I can only do that in the long term (the scenario where we take the risks seriously and survive the coming transitions) and only if we deal with things like destruction of our epistemic commons (all of Tristan Harris and Center for Humane Technology's work on social media algorithms, the Twitterfication of main stream news, add FBI/CIA feeding the moderating teams on what stories to ban, etc.). You also want to figure out how we deal with people who society has severely beaten and damaged so that once CRISPR and synthetic biology become things that anyone can get their hands on if they really want to that we aren't dealing with horrible manmade plagues, as well as making sure that people who aren't making AI aren't building them with human extinction in mind, or even just very fast-and-dumb Bostrom paperclip maximizers.

The E. O. Wilson quote about paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technologies applies here. We need to grow up as a species, we're also fighting Darwinian evolution in trying to grow up when it tends to select for the dumbest who can make a given environment work for short time horizons (long enough to breed but not much else).

FYI: I don't value the act of procreation.
No offence intended.

It is catastrophism that is the problem, and it is hardly "scientific".

Agreed.

Agreed.
I have no time for hyper-PC.

Agreed.

I have heard a cult defined as a shared system of belief. Given that most people are not expert at any science, but use it in technology constantly, we are all running on faith most of the time. The appearance of personal conflicts between debaters who don't understand the fine points on either side gives a similarity to general cult activity, but that does not mean there's nothing important and verifiable at the centre of it all.
It is our economic activity causing climate change, so our options for stopping it are either political control or war. The corporations are granted limited liability because they are supposed to be for the public good, and they clearly need more public, political control to improve their scores.
Some things in climate, such as volcanoes, are beyond our control, but it is obvious that our choices in energy use are causing climate damage. We should adopt the non-damaging, renewable and even restorative methods to power our economy just to avoid a supply crisis. The biggest reason we do not is because a very small number of very rich people base their wealth on carbon use. Government is supposed to control anti-social behaviour.
I also question human sanity, but if advertising can persuade us to waste our money on harmful products to enrich the advertisers, I think we could also be persuaded to live in a way that leaves the world a better place for our descendants.

The corporations are even successfully selling us on re-tooling to reduce climate change as expensively as possible. There is no real push for increased efficiency; instead, we are told to just replace everything with electric versions. carbonengineering.com has shown that synthetic gasoline can be produced just from wind and air at a price we can afford. The process could be tweaked to divert and securely store a portion of the carbon handled as well. Just putting that into the pipelines and gas tanks would instantly convert any gas-guzzler into a green machine.

Thanks for the info.


Currently we use Zulip, text-based chat only. (We're considering switching over to Discord but have not yet made this switch.) The next chat meeting of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group is on Thursday, February 2, at 7:00 PM Eastern (New York City) time.

TY, I just bookmarked the page.

I distinguish two aspects in this climate change cult. One is scientism, that is the practice of citing science as an argument that legitimizes one's ideological beliefs. Nazism claimed anthropology and biology as scientific proof of their racial theory. Communism claimed the science of histiography, economics and sociology as arguments for their social engineering. Similarly happens whenever politics interfere with science. I do not mean with this that there is no climate change, what I mean is that it should be questioned in every detail. It has become politicised and politics are interfering with the scientific process.

Coming to politics there is the second aspect that I distinguish. That is the anti-capitalist aspect to it. The evil rich are the ones who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the environment. Not at the expense of the working class this time but at the expense of the environment. Yet another justification for people to hate the rich and yet a new opportunity for politicians to expand their control. Because of course the politicians for some magical reason they are not self serving like the rich are. They are the platonic benevolent philosepher kings. We sure should give them power over peoples rights. Look at what happened with the Dutch farmers just this past year. The government passed a law were they will forcefully make the farmers halve or get rid or their livestock, this in a country that is the second largest exporter of food in the world. This means the closure of about 30% of privately owned farms in the country. This also means that for many importing countries food will become more scarce and therefore more expensive. The poor are the ones to feel the consequences first. What is happening in Holland right now reminds me of how first thing the Bolsheviks did when they came to power in Russia was to expropriate the kulaks, who were small farmers who owned their land. The resault was devastating for the population in Ukraine especially, with famine killing about 6 million people.

So congratulations for your new green communism. And did anybody of you even hear about the massive protests by the Dutch farmers? I don't think so. That's how powerful your cult is, it silences information about people it crushes.

Last edited by Dengashinobi on 09 Jan 2023, 10:41 am, edited 2 times in total.