Justified Hatred... Please read.

"

Boem wrote:

massive snip

Admittedly I could have been more nuanced in my post, but in the interest of relative brevity I tried to make a point without expanding on context.

With regards to technology and communication, I was more referring to the associated isolation technology affords while at the same time connects us more than ever.

You can see this simply as young people spending a tremendous amount of screen time, to adults bring glued to their devices during social engagements. If you would have told people 100 years ago that we would have handheld devices that gave you access to information nearly instantly, or could provide instantaneous communication across vast distances, but we used it for candy crush and sexting, they wouldn't have believed you.

As far as our interactions with each other, I realize my supposition was jarring, but the reality is less though after examination.

For example if a woman trips and falls in front of me, my initial reaction, without much consideration, is to offer immediate assistance, and ask if she is alright. However if I got onto a train, I wouldnt start asking how everyone was, saying hello, ect.., and my guess is the vast majority of others wouldnt either or want me to initiate that interaction. They would be content reading on their phones, listening to music, and so on. So while we are social, empathic creatures by nature, this is tempered by the fact we are more concerned with ourselves.

Finally I think the awareness and media portion of society is playing a key role in how we react to things. In the pas Ltd we wouldnt have even known about an atrocity in Africa, or the plight of Women in the Middle East (to the extent we know now). How the media covers this information wants us to feel a certain way, or evoke emotion to a desired effect. Unfortunately much of this has monetization in mind. Media needs clicks/readers/viewers, in order to profit, and they capitalize on our emotions.

So it's not to say that these events are not real, they are, but how/when, they are covered, and in the frequency they are covered, with he profit intent, is inherently problematic. It is becoming more manipulative by the day.

I know my posts have been somewhat long, and probably edge close to the limits of the CoC, but I've tried to stay directly on the nose here. Society may change, and technology may change, and how we view each other may change, but in the end, our genetic makeup wont change our basic nature (eugenics/cybernetics aside, because fuck I dont want to think about that lol)

There isn't more hate, we are not more divided, we are not more cruel. In fact we are more aware of our differences than ever. Dont confuse the two is what I'm saying.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Disrupted wrote:

I really fucking hate when people I dont know say hello to me

Did you perhaps forget that the people you know said hello to you in the past?

Spoiler

hello :p

Peace,

-Boem-

nah, I forgot I hate those people as well.

DONT SAY HELLO TO ME, DONT YOU DARE

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Have the rules been reversed?

Which ones?

Edit: No, most likely due to early AM thier time, and nothing too crazy in the thread.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Embrace the dark side! It make u stronk.

Stop giving a damn about humanity, and life becomes way simpler when you only truly give a damn about yourself and your personal interests. It's quite liberating.

What kind of zombie do you want to be

[ ]Fast (Danny Boyle, Zac Snyder, Mike Booth)

[ ]Slow (George Romero, Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright)

Submit your preferences before 03 Nov 2020 so the rest of us know where to strike first.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

..., but in the end, our genetic makeup wont change our basic nature (eugenics/cybernetics aside, because fuck I dont want to think about that lol)

You know, these are the bad guy´s,
and the people with child´s cartoon level of thinking are the good guy´s.

Usuall rhetorik, people naturally love what has good impact on themself´s and hate what has a negative impact. Nobody loves cancer.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

massive snip

Admittedly I could have been more nuanced in my post, but in the interest of relative brevity I tried to make a point without expanding on context.

With regards to technology and communication, I was more referring to the associated isolation technology affords while at the same time connects us more than ever.

You can see this simply as young people spending a tremendous amount of screen time, to adults bring glued to their devices during social engagements. If you would have told people 100 years ago that we would have handheld devices that gave you access to information nearly instantly, or could provide instantaneous communication across vast distances, but we used it for candy crush and sexting, they wouldn't have believed you.

As far as our interactions with each other, I realize my supposition was jarring, but the reality is less though after examination.

For example if a woman trips and falls in front of me, my initial reaction, without much consideration, is to offer immediate assistance, and ask if she is alright. However if I got onto a train, I wouldnt start asking how everyone was, saying hello, ect.., and my guess is the vast majority of others wouldnt either or want me to initiate that interaction. They would be content reading on their phones, listening to music, and so on. So while we are social, empathic creatures by nature, this is tempered by the fact we are more concerned with ourselves.

Finally I think the awareness and media portion of society is playing a key role in how we react to things. In the pas Ltd we wouldnt have even known about an atrocity in Africa, or the plight of Women in the Middle East (to the extent we know now). How the media covers this information wants us to feel a certain way, or evoke emotion to a desired effect. Unfortunately much of this has monetization in mind. Media needs clicks/readers/viewers, in order to profit, and they capitalize on our emotions.

So it's not to say that these events are not real, they are, but how/when, they are covered, and in the frequency they are covered, with he profit intent, is inherently problematic. It is becoming more manipulative by the day.

I know my posts have been somewhat long, and probably edge close to the limits of the CoC, but I've tried to stay directly on the nose here. Society may change, and technology may change, and how we view each other may change, but in the end, our genetic makeup wont change our basic nature (eugenics/cybernetics aside, because fuck I dont want to think about that lol)

There isn't more hate, we are not more divided, we are not more cruel. In fact we are more aware of our differences than ever. Dont confuse the two is what I'm saying.

People make their own realities... If you feel you live in a world where negative thoughts/actions seem to outweigh the good, perhaps you may have an internal struggle that needs to be personally rectified. The world is not full of hatred, chaos, bigotry... etc.
There is something called, "perceived environment." If you live in a town all your life and your town is drug infested, crime infested etc... Your mind will automatically think the rest of the world is of that nature. It’s an automatic response, because obviously you may have seen something dramatic therefore it is stored there in your brain for the rest of your life.

*People who are generally withdrawn have had something of a dramatic episode in their life. I digress...

For those of us whom been lucky to have not had a dramatic event occur, be kind... Help others. I’m not saying while you take public transportation to greet everyone lol... But when theres that rare chance you are in an elevator with others, a good morning or good evening goes a long way.

People blame the media, leaders, their parents, their environment... But I ask the blamers and pointers, "what have you done?”
Maybe it’s me, but I love meeting people, whilst in Hawaii I’ve met people from all over the world. And when a conversation strikes up and I know something about their particular culture, they feel amazing, appreciated.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Have the rules been reversed?

They're just handpicking posts they feel like removing. Half the posts here are way more political than mine was, yet they removed mine for being "too political".

The water cooler is leaking, floor may be slippery, try not to get your ass wet. I was mid reply to the reply to my reply to you when it was removed -.-‘ Pretty sure you meant like meteors or aliens or something, right?

"

Boem wrote:

Also on the point of overpopulation(a point also raised by a previous poster with a more "let's get all genocidal" tendency in it) i see no real argumentation for this.

A feeling and a personal sense, perhaps, but nothing that really backs it up.

For example, overpopulated by what measure? And by whose models? Which person is the arbiter on this conclusion and for what reason.

I would argue that if we went back 150 years people probably also felt "overpopulated", yet we trippled the population in that time-frame with little problems along the way.(in the more general broad sense, wealth went up, poverty went down, criminality plummeted etc)

So i would have to see some models that suggest we couldn't double our current population without issue aswell.
And the problem with models is that they project into the future based on current parameters.

I hear you, and please don't take my following rant in offensive way, even if I might sound a bit grumpy here.

I'v never bought the way some people go 'into genocidal mode' so lightly. I feel it's seriously naive position, cause, you know, your fellow specimen might actually have their say about it. So instead of fixing a population problem we'd just end up ruining any attempt to find a reasonable solution by ruining any recognizable organized civilization. In fact, I'm inclined to believe it would exacerbate population growth.

In the meanwhile, I also find it naive to ask for models on overpopulation. Sure, maybe theoretically Earth could provide for gazillion human beings, but we aren't living in a theoretical world. It's well-documented that our current way we have set up production is quickly ruining environment for other species, let alone if people are to copy the same production chain in developing countries. The most serious risk is endangering systemic balance. Such threat is existential to all known life in the universe, no hyperbole attached. This is why the argument is not neutral -there are severe differences of outcomes between scenarios under information uncertainty. See:

https://populationmatters.org/campaigns/anthropocene

Maybe I'm missing something. It really escapes me how people see weight of testimony put upon doomsayers, given how the argument goes and what is at stake. For all we know, Earth might be the only source of biological life in our universe (some might say that is improbable, yet again -where is the evidence?). Considering this, general attitudes to environmental questions seems absurd to me.

I'd happily be wrong. Downside to it seems negligible to me.

"

vmt80 wrote:

In the meanwhile, I also find it naive to ask for models on overpopulation. Sure, maybe theoretically Earth could provide for gazillion human beings, but we aren't living in a theoretical world. It's well-documented that our current way we have set up production is quickly ruining environment for other species, let alone if people are to copy the same production chain in developing countries. The most serious risk is endangering systemic balance. Such threat is existential to all known life in the universe, no hyperbole attached. This is why the argument is not neutral -there are severe differences of outcomes between scenarios under information uncertainty. See:

I'll respond to this portion to attempt brevity.

Iff the claim for models is naive, then this moves both ways, it would imply naivity on proponents for and against.
And given how the models are utilized and usually butchered in the name of ideology they serve only a function of change not a representation of reality.
(which by all accounts is improbable neither is it realistic given the multitude of variables required)

So i will move on to the next claims.

1) population isn't an ever growing exponential curve, similar to how animals organize based on resources, so do humans.
So i'm not particularly saying people in general will keep increasing, only that they will follow natural pre-conditions for expansion untill that limit is reached.

Saying we are currently at a crucial limit is contrary to what can be observed. That's not the same as saying there is no crucial limit.

2) developing country's are still in formation, this means they aren't at the level of wealth when climate becomes a feasable thought.
(china for example is going heavy on climate right now, which would be an implausible thought a couple of decades ago under starvation conditions and general low wealth)

It's like asking a father/mother with a hungry child to put climate first, people simply don't function like that and that doesn't make them bad it just makes them people with different contextual parameters.

Once the self-interest is fullfilled, then people can move on to other things.

3) Species and mass extinction, i really don't understand this argument.
Extinction has been going on for as long as species have competed with one another, new species arisse and others get removed.

When it boils down to it, i'm picking human over polar bear any day of the week.

Not that i don't like nature or it's creations, i am actually a big fan of all of it, but i also don't have this disney pre-conception of a benevolent nature where lions lick my hand when i approuch them.
Sometimes in my more cynical moments i think people have this notion that winnie the pooh is an accurate representation of a bear after growing up in a big city never actually experiencing nature that hasn't been paved beforehand.

I understand the need for certain species to hold up natural events(think bee's and flowers with farmers) but thinking that people will not react when these conditions are under a lot of stress seems infantile to me.

If we need them, we will sustain and protect them the moment self-interest kicks in.(as evident by todays culture and general shift of attention and subjects)

4) On information and propaganda(different outcomes based on information), a difference should be made between reality and formulated reality.

The later can be questioned, the former however cannot.

When a river dry's up, forcing the farmer to leave that piece of land or spend massive amounts of wealth on water to continue their work this is a reality.

Or when the bee population goes incredibly low to a point where certain fruits aren't generated at sufficient rates etc

The thought that people will not react to these reality's on the ground, opposed to formulated reality's is unrealistic.(since the outcome would be death if sustained long enough)

5) optimisme or pessimisme?

People behave oriented on self-interest and they can undertake massive changes in relative short time-spans.
Once the reality presents itself and its do or die i see no reason to believe people will choose "die".
We will adapt and the world wont be the same as when we "arrived", but this much was true for every generation of humans that came into existence.

Our grandchildren might not be able to see polar bears alive anymore, but thats missing the key point that they would still be alive to experience whatever is new.(hyperbole to serve a point)

I could go into the social aspect of telling people "they are responsible" or that something is "just happening and a reality" as a message for generations to come and the impact on that front, but i fear support deletion and losing the assumed brevity i started out with :p

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : quick glance after posting ensures i definetly didn't attain brevity. Worth the shot i suppose.