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

Post Reply New Topic

I think what people get offended by is changing, because culture is changing, but it's changing faster than older generations can adapt, so there is friction between the older and younger generations about what is socially acceptable. Older people frame this as "everyone is too easily offended these days" when in reality they get just as easily offended, just by different things.

"Off-color" racist jokes that older people find funny fall flat on Gen Z. But Gen Z and Millennials are less likely to be offended by things that older generations would find sacrilegious or unpatriotic.

Yup.


The science of climate change is solid but the politics is questionable: some believe that California is de-incentivizing solar...Why?


I wasn't sure if you were.


What about water batteries? Pumps that store water via gravity as batteries?


I don't see the connection of how that relates to neural theories. But yes I do notice a general trend of people being snobs towards those on welfare, leftists also act like snobs to them also and in some cases actually seem more snobby towards them IRL than rightwingers.

I noticed the average person complains and dislikes their job, but the moment you talk about robots reducing jobs they will suddenly pivot and explain why humans need jobs not just for economic reasons, but also in order to feel like fulfilled beings.

From an objective lens (like an alien looking at earth kind of perspective) most human jobs seem absurd to me, why anyone would want to defend a way of life where people work at mcjobs or office cuck as the norm seems incomprehensible and I do not really empathize with their sentiments.




In nature animals only have to interact with small local ecosystems instead of having to compete with every other animal around the globe. So in many cases, only the most unfit animals would die off but generally the majority of animals would be fine. With neoliberal globalism, its more like lion society where only the top alphas are able to succeed genetically (in lion culture only 1 male lion gets to reproduce and the rest are exiled.) So it would be like that, except at a larger scale where there are even more lions to compete with than before. So the shrinking middle class is more like that.

Why do you believe that?


This is modern capatalism where people are in a rat race chasing trends. To make the first enterprise before someone else saturates the market in a less than zero sum competition.


There needs to be work done on city aesthetics. For example a city with cyberpunk 2077 aesthetics would probably have much more crime and dystopia than a city with better aesthetics.

I'm easily offended if someone has made a personal offense aimed at me, but not if it's a general thing. I just let it wash over me, as people are entitled to their opinions.

For example, when I was first with my boyfriend he was living with a flatmate who was gay. When my boyfriend was going to bed with me his flatmate grinned and said "I don't envy you!" But I knew it wasn't an insult aimed at me personally, it was because I'm a woman and he shuddered at the thought of snuggling with a woman.

Another example, when I was hanging out with a friend who is like 40 years older than me she seemed ashamed to be seen with me, not anything personal though, it was just because I was young and she worried people might think she's weird for hanging about with a 20-year-old. Obviously she didn't care what strangers thought because for all they knew she could be my mum, but she'd avoid people we used to work with. But after a while she wasn't bothered any more what they thought, as our friendship was more important than other people we didn't really go about with any more.

But if it's personal, like being criticized or undermined or laughed at or whatever, that is when I get too oversensitive. I'm not a fan of PC myself and I don't believe everyone should be obliged to tread carefully all the time, as I believe in freedom or speech, but aiming harmful things at someone personally, or emotionally manipulating/bullying one person, has always been an issue for humans and isn't exactly related to PC.

The political interference is why Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than science predicted. The official predictions were rolled back through political interference. I think you are also drawing false analogies to create guilt by association.
"anybody of you" - so you do define yourself as someone close to a fundamentalist conservative? Yes, I have seen the news about the Dutch protest several times, and I really think they should be more graceful about raising their food output by not running it through domestic animals, which waste up to 95% of the protein fed to them. Have you ever heard of democratic, responsible communism? I think your basic objection is to any form of regulation that affects your life, even if it saves other lives.

Who's life it saves as opposed to the lives it destroys, like the lives of the Dutch farmers and their families; and the access to cheaper food for the population of the importing countries. Not to mention the human rights abuse and the creation of a prescedent that the state can confiscate your property and destroy your life's investment in a blink of an eye. Who is next? Who is safe anymore?

As for the protein waste by animals, I am not able to technically analyse such data. What I know is that there are producers and buyers who engage in voluntary exchange of goods and services. If themselves see profit in it, who are we, or the government, or any researcher to tell them what is better for them. I mean you can tell and persuade them but you cannot force them.

I've heard of democratic socialism but never about democratic communism. How does that work? Sounds like democratic fascism.

The challenge is both energy and storage. I'm probably more optimistic about our ability to make grid batteries, especially if they can move away from lithium (that'll be a bottleneck and its really for handheld devices) although they'll need to be of a kind where there won't be considerable losses over storage time or distance.

Even when we have really robust storage and transmission the issue is still much more about replacing 20TW worth of power and not running into limits of mining and manufacturing capacity.



Fair, I skipped a few steps and history perhaps suggests that they'd do the same thing while adhering to religious practices as well. The point is that they're looking at human minds, bodies, and consciousness as barely worth the meat it's riding on, like you could smash a human or smash a bug and it barely makes a difference. From a more cosmologist / Platonist / world-watching perspective that kind of psychopathy seems like something a thinking person can only find an excuse for if they only believe that they're meat (not saying most atheists would even want to take up that PoV, I'm coming more from the angle of philosophically credible excuses for psychopathy). It's sort of like when someone's purely living in zero-sum survival mode no knowledge really makes a difference, it might make a difference in what kinds of in-group social games they play but little or no difference in how they treat outsiders of any variety and sometimes even their own.


There's the old Orwell observation also that a lot of people on the left hate the rich much more than they care about the poor. While I don't think that's true in all cases there are people out there who add credence to that.


TBH I'm not sure what to think on that. I could read all day, hike all day, make beats in Ableton, pick the guitar back up again, make art, meditate, do more martial arts, take up gardening, woodworking, welding, motorcycle riding, take another run at Qabalistic magic systems... I get that there are a lot of people who, even if they had the money to do more than just sit there and fade away on painkillers they'd still do it anyway because they can't generate their on incentives. I don't feel comfortable speaking for them because I've never been that type of person.

Aaron Clarey recently wrote a book called 'The Menu: Life Without the Opposite Sex', I almost wonder if you could also translate that to 'Life Without Work' because a lot of the same considerations for filling time would apply.


For me - a lot of the trauma I deal with is work-based, because so much of it felt like performing with a knife to my throat. I'm someone who makes business to business quoting and even finance / accounting applications, full-stack and by myself (sadly also for not a lot of pay, I changed careers and this is still my first programming job). I really got to see just how little people disregard each other's value, health, etc., really it seems like anyone who has sharp elbows and plays belligerent whose in a high position can rain glass all day on their vendors, those under them, etc., and with a lot of egotistical aging boomers it can feel like you're asking Hunter Thompson and The Attorney, tripping their faces off in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, for clarity on business processes they have in their head, they give you a different Picasso every time you talk to them, and if you so much as make one mistake you either damage their confidence or, worse, give them the sense that they can make you back-pedal forever and increasingly wring you out for free work. On a couple of these jobs I almost had my health destroyed because these guys can ask for things that they'll never pay for, could go into hundreds of hours worth of work, and I was in deep survival mode for long periods of time to where it just about put me in the hospital (I had a period of a month where I was on a liquid diet, 60 mg of Nexium and it wasn't doing anything).


Actually, a lot of it doesn't come down to talent at least in the US. In STEM related fields sure, trades to a large degree, but you get middle management and HR bloat and what happens is that it's much less of a competence contest and more of a contest of whose the most ruthless sharp-elbowed social-climber or whose the most perfect normie-conformie. It's a situation where it really helps to both be worthless and be able to look really crisp and professional looking worthless.

I posted this video somewhere else (I think it might have been in the illogic thread, it's a comedy skit but it's PAINFULLY relatable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg


The US is becoming more isolationist and less interested in patrolling the seas for everyone else. For a while China was the factory of the world but Xi is changing that in short order. It is an open question whether India takes China's place in that sense, they're not failing demographically the way China and Russia are, but it looks like we are running into materials issues and it's just not going to be the same for a considerable amount of time.


Its worse than that as well - ie. if you're not seen as 'high status', or are seen as lower status than they are, they sense that they have the right to destroy you by whatever means they can find within the lines of the law. You become someone that law itself still might apply to but any other social contract is hardly there. People aren't just trying to escape the bottom to look better or have better shots at mating prospects, its also trying to get away from something in a lot of ways worse than middle school.


I'm not sure that's how it works, or at least you have a lot of beautiful cities with beautiful landmarks that get really bad with respect to crime for all kinds of other reasons (poor policy, underpaid police and even police getting harassed into early retirement, poor employment prospects, etc.). Cities have to have leadership that actually wants the city to do better rather than just lining their own pockets and trying to bribe people with limited amounts of free stuff for voting for them. A lot of major cities have the same problem that DC has, ie. people who chase money tend to do so because they're more than a bit narrow-minded, status-focused, self-interested, etc. and any place where power accrues tends to fill up with people on the dark triad / tetrad end of Cluster B pretty fast.

When I was very young, I first heard "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and I was suddenly able to avoid most of the trouble I'd been getting into. I knew that I didn't like it if I got fewer cookies than my sibling, and that she objected similarly if I got more. I concluded that I should try to live on an average share of the Earth's resources. Since then, that share has been reduced 68% by population increase, and some more by resource depletion. Nobody is asking the Dutch to stop farming, just to change "crops."

The amount of land required to produce various foods is well documented, but even common sense would suggest that not all the grain that goes into a feed lot comes out as milk and beef. There are a few instances where we eat animals that eat things we would not, but those diets are very hard on the wilderness areas left. Currently, all the wild animals on Earth only weigh 20% as much as humans and our domestic animals, and consequently, a mass extinction is under way comparable to the end of an epoch. Meat was the health food of the Stone Age, before preservation and trade. Vegans are over-represented at the Olympics, and under-represented in hospitals and morgues. I only had to try it to like it.

First, real democracy is more than a label. Superior forms of democracy have proportional representation, so almost every vote gets a representative, and a wide variety of platforms can get a chance to progress. They also minimize the influence of money in politics, so that politicians don't wind up employed at the pleasure of their biggest contributors.

It would be a lot easier to show examples of democratic communism if not for the pre-emptive assassinations and even invasions that an imminent electoral success have attracted. Who knows what would have happened in Korea, Vietnam, or Iran if they were left alone? We only see totalitarian examples, because only they could resist subversion.

Left in peace, I expect that ordinary communist citizens would live in economic groups of about a hundred people, so that everyone could keep track of each other without overseers, and feel that they had a significant contribution. Political power could start with one elected rep from each group going to meetings of reps from similar groups, and those electing members for national coordination of economic activity.

However, I don't expect any of this to persuade you. I think our disagreement goes right to our genes. The Neanderthals had bigger brains and bodies than ours, but they never developed trade. It is through co-operation that humans prevail on the Earth. The more effectively we co-operate, the greater the reward for cheaters, and cheaters also serve a function by being more likely to survive certain kinds of disasters. When her companions were reduced to cannibalism, Tamsin Donner lost little weight.

Now, I have other people to write for.

You seem to understand economy as a fixed pie, where some people take more than their proportional amount of slices. That is not how the economy works. With human ingenuity and labour it is more like an ever expanding pie. It expands because some people through hard work and ingenuity find more and more efficient ways to exploit resources. This happens in an individual level in every moment all arround the world. The more one's labour's outcome is demanded by others the larger the piece of his pie. Attention though, it's not a pre existing piece of pie that he appropriated from the common pie, he invented that piece of pie. It is deservingly his.



I have nothing against that.



Yes, definitely the horrendous atrocities of Communist regimes basically wherever it was implemented are America's fault. Sir, Communism reduced people to cannibalism in Russia and in China, not to mention Cambodia. That's communism for you.



Sounds like an autistic nightmare.

I know a lot of people in general but also here emphatically don't like Peterson. Regardless he had John Vervaeke on, who I think it's harder to argue that he's got significantly more unalloyed insights, and he said the following rather specifically around the 35:25 of the interview linked below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ-tHaHfB8A&t=2125s

He brings up the term 'degeneracy' in the technical sense but admits that he doesn't like the term, ie. the way it's being used doesn't match the common parlance well but has more to do with variation on the fringes. He brings up Andreas Wagner's work and something along the lines that cultural evolution seems to have sharp state changes when it finds itself in environmental mismatch and it tends to then flip into what was previously an outlier direction because that outlier direction is more (my words) 'resonant' with the environment as it's become, Vervaeke's language for the resulting behavior was shifting phenotype.

This might be another thing that's happening to NT's right now - ie. a deep sense that the world is leaving them behind and that progress is getting out of their control, and maybe this is part of why they're really circling the wagons and getting dogmatic - somethings about to change significantly and this is sort of a 'last gasp'. To an extent I think that's scaring everyone, especially with x-risks and 'Moloch' but yeah, what John said there was golden. It reminds me of something I've heard about slime mold movements where on average 2/3 of the mass stays home while the other 1/3 goes out and explores. I don't know if it would always work quite that way but it seems like each species has it's own ratios of fringe / outliers that may have quite painful lives (us as an example) but ultimately those outliers are there in service of the whole and to in turn provide information from.... lets say the 'real' or 'outside' world rather than the inner / social world of a species.

I do not know anything about Dutch politics, but I do know that America gives subsidies to meat makers to make it all cheap. America already is socialist, but it only distributes the wealth in an arbitrary manner, what we need is a more universal type of socialism. Meat is much more expensive to produce than the prices its being sold for due to subsidies, and vegetarians have to pay for it which is a form of socialism, same with roads. They keep widening roads even though it won't stop the congestion and fixing the roads is more expensive than building them in the first place. So people are actually paying to increase global warming.


The water batteries can be made out of wood or hemp with a thin metal coating. Can be stored in someone's backyard. It doesn't need to hold 20TW, only 30KW for daily storage.


Seems true. I often wondered why so much mainstream software nowadays seems dysfunctional, this could be one explanation.


Data shows that it reduces crime. Beautiful cities lead to more positivity and productivity, ugly cities lead to rebellion and crime.


Sounds like capitalism. An ever expanding rate of consumption to have an economic growth. Ie. people need to constantly buy crap they don't need. And the more people that have jobs the harder it is for everyone else to get jobs, leading to negative value economics (such as advertisements trying to convince you to get a product you don't need, or advertisements trying to deride other products, or planned obsolescence products, or advertisements that simply exist to waste air time so that their competitors can't advertise, or hiring shills to write fake 5 star reviews or fake 1 star reviews.)


If someone invents something, they ought to be rewarded, but capatalism isn't the best system for this. You have to pay somewhere of USD 20K to get a patent and are still not really protected. There are corporate patent trolls that also spam patents so poor people can't get ahead in life. And then there's corporate copyright where the copyright lasts for some absurd length of time (much longer than a patent) so that poor people can't get an advantage. And I saw them shilling some service called InventHelp on the tele, turned out to be some scam that just steals people's inventions yet is somehow legal.


Real communism is stateless and thus could not ever function (a society with no rules cannot function in theory.)

Even “communist” states acknowledge that their “communism” is imperfect.

Of course, they paradoxically go way beyond the pale, to the point where the “state” is all-encompassing in people’s lives. A right-wing actuality within a state ideology which is purportedly left-wing.

Residential is a little over 20% of energy consumption - what about the rest?

Earth movers for everything from construction to mining equipment run on diesel. You're using that equipment to get metals that we need for production as well as things like potash for fertilizer out of the ground (the kind of thing that helps allow us to maintain numbers of humans well over what environmental carrying capacity is without mass starvation - something Russia's production going offline is significantly threatening). What are we replacing diesel with?

Trains are a large part of our infrastructure for getting raw materials and finished goods from one point to another, on average carrying 3000 tons. What are we powering them with?

Another significant swath of how things like food make it to market is via the standard 14-18 wheel trucks which need substantial amounts of up-time for the interstate travel involved and are often sitting in demurrage for long periods of time as well (and whether they need to keep running power during demurrage depends on whether it's cold and the drivers need to stay warm, whether it's a refrigerated truck trying to maintain cold goods in 90 degree weather). What are we powering them with?

You have heavy haul to move industrial equipment and large project components, talking high tonnage / oversized loads that need sometimes a month to make it across five or six states with negotiated police escorts across various districts (we've made software for such companies before and seen how much is involved in scheduling and planning trips like that). What are we powering that with?

We have planes in the air - both for commercial / business travel and for rapid shipment of goods. If we do end up in a real fuel crunch there could be fewer planes, the cost benefit analysis might push more of that light-weight plane-loaded freight back onto trucks. At least in some cases this is more in the 'nice to have' category, in other cases it might be critical but it would just mean critical would be far more expensive than it has in the past if it became an expensive / rare capacity. What are we powering them with?

It's great if we find inventive ways to self-power residential and light commercial buildings (places where people do office work, not fabrication) off of rooftop panels, various new wind boxes that can pull energy without needing huge rotors, and all of the various tricks that I'm sure we'll come up with for grabbing both sun and wind, and I'm sure we'll have more ways to draw power off of waves as well. Optimistically companies like Ambri and their ideas for things like calcium-antimony grid batteries take off which don't need rare earth minerals - great for storing energy (80% efficiency trading off maybe 10-15% for lower price and availability), none of that provides quantity of energy rather it just stores certain amounts for certain lengths of time (and what I don't know is whether places like northern Minnesota, cities in Alberta, etc., would ever find solar or wind enough to keep the lights on and buildings warm through the winter even with battery stored solar and wind reserves). It still doesn't answer the question of how we're dealing with heavy machinery, heavy transport, fabrication, mining, etc.. None of that is small.


Yes. 100% on that. Where ever power and success go - so goes the sharp elbows and social climbers to start dominating sharp minds again.


I'm sure with two given cities with identical demographics, economics, and degree of political order / corruption that - all things being equal - the prettier city will probably enjoy some benefits.

OTOH if the city is treating its police force badly enough to cause most of their better veterans to retire early, if their tax policies and regulations are horrible for small businesses, if their streets are loaded with homeless, if their politicians are driving out the people who'd be making jobs, the art work installations or choices in architecture aren't going to save that city. At most it might cause certain people to want to stay and fight that government because they're more likely to see the loss as tragic but if they can't win then it won't make that much of a difference.

For daily gravity battery storage:
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculat ... ential.php

Taking an assumption of 7 meters:

30 KWH = 108,000,000 J
J/kg = 9.80665 * 7 = 68.64655
108000000 / 68.64655 = 1573276 kg

Sizing that in gallons and then drums:
1573276 / 3.79 = 415,112 g
415,112 / 55 (g per drum) = 7547.49 drums

That's not going in anyone's back yard or on their roof. What's more plausible, maybe two 55 gallon drums:

3.79 kg * 110 gallons = 416.90 kg
416.90 * 68.64655 = 28618
28618 / 3600 = 7.9494 WH

That's enough to charge a phone once per day. What's left over probably isn't powering an LED for much more than a few minutes.

This is why energy is a wicked problem, it's not easy to solve.

This is where I worry that Nate Hagens 'Great Simplification' is probably correct, ie. that we'll have a system that has to pull back somewhere between 50% to 2/3rds of its energy consumption as fossil fuels become untenable and that'll be a very different world with a very different relationship to energy.

There is always nuclear energy

Energy quantity and energy storage are two different issues. If we're using more than we're drawing out of the environment we could have a 77 billion gallon water battery and it wouldn't matter if we were putting in less than we were using.

With nuclear there's the following confounds:

1) amount of fissile material (under normal use we'd have 5 or 6 years of fuel if we ran our whole economy on it)

2) we're still doing huge nuclear plants, SMR's still have close to a decade of regulatory tape and supply chain before they're able to go online - which is about the same amount of time if we started building traditional nuclear reactors today (to then run for five or six years each).

3) There's the concern with handling the plutonium output which means you'd need regulatory agencies and strict procedures for who can unload / clean SMR's if they come to public use.

4) there's the whole thing about fast breeder reactors which hypothetically could 60x fuel and maybe make 5-6 years of fuel look more like 300 - 360 years of fuel, when I try to look up why they aren't in use it's mostly vagueries about regulation, risk of plutonium theft, environmental concerns, price of uranium, etc.. If it were price of uranium it sounds like uranium is deeply undervalued.

Nice overview.