I'm genuinely convinced we're in a matrix. (Or some of us are, and a ton of "people" are programs)

"

kolyaboo wrote:

If "people" or some of them, are actually programs, they are the dumbest programs ever written.

True words.

"

DoubleU wrote:

"

kolyaboo wrote:

If "people" or some of them, are actually programs, they are the dumbest programs ever written.

True words.

Actually those subjects have their different names depending on Mystery Tradition we check. For example in Kabbalah those are called "shells" because they are empty inside. Gurdzijew called them "dead inside" and Tsarion "subjects without a soul". Slavs called them "organic portals" or "tvary". Many more all describe same thing.

"

DoubleU wrote:

"

kolyaboo wrote:

If "people" or some of them, are actually programs, they are the dumbest programs ever written.

True words.

This sounds a lot like my Year 8 classes.


Also - I know Kung Fu

Cheers,
Matt.

Morpheus is waiting for your call but tell me, what good is a phone call if you're unable to speak ?

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Well, if secretive, rich people could run a conspiracy to rule the world, what are the odds that they would say, "Nah. We don't know better than anybody else. Let's just be nice guys, and leave the teeming masses to live according to their free will?" ='[.]'=

The only sustainable systems are ones wherein the participants who seek what they perceive as best for themselves generally end up doing what is good for society. Systems that do not meet this criterion inevitably decay.

So if they want to maintain the system: yes, they would be the "nice guys." For entirely selfish reasons.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Well, if secretive, rich people could run a conspiracy to rule the world, what are the odds that they would say, "Nah. We don't know better than anybody else. Let's just be nice guys, and leave the teeming masses to live according to their free will?" ='[.]'=

The only sustainable systems are ones wherein the participants who seek what they perceive as best for themselves generally end up doing what is good for society. Systems that do not meet this criterion inevitably decay.

So if they want to maintain the system: yes, they would be the "nice guys." For entirely selfish reasons.

^This

The rich and powerfull are motivated to maintain a stable system and they become rich and powerfull by gathering resources from willing people currently.

The whole thing crumbles when you move away from merit based resource distribution though, because society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds since they are limited.

Long time no see scrotie btw.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

The rich and powerfull … become rich and powerfull by gathering resources from willing people currently.

Even if someone became rich by one big con, their incentive would switch to wanting to promote stability. I am confident some of the rich DO cheat their way there, but after they do they shouldn't want to promote destabilization — if they understand what's good for them. And creating further dissonance between the group interest and the individual interest IS promoting destabilization.

"

Boem wrote:

society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds

I mostly disagree. I'll leave the how and why as an exercise for the reader. :-p

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

The rich and powerfull … become rich and powerfull by gathering resources from willing people currently.

Even if someone became rich by one big con, their incentive would switch to wanting to promote stability. I am confident some of the rich DO cheat their way there, but after they do they shouldn't want to promote destabilization — if they understand what's good for them. And creating further dissonance between the group interest and the individual interest IS promoting destabilization.

"

Boem wrote:

society as a whole benefits from resources going to the highest merit based candidates to utilize those funds

I mostly disagree. I'll leave the how and why as an exercise for the reader. :-p

Well, i was talking in broad strokes, obviously people at the top have the same potential to be corrupt like anybody else.

But since people are free to spend money in any way they want, the high % of the rich got there by producing something people wanted to pay for out of their own volition.

Not sure if you don't understand what i mean by merit though? I'm talking about IQ and productivity as standards for merit.

Im quite happy people like elon or bill gates have bilions at their disposal and not Joe Smuck from around the block. I got nothing against Joe Smuck though, he can live a happy life currently if he wants because of the excess wealth produced by the top of the piramid.

Peace,

-Boem-

Many of those 1% has individual education also are bor in money and shaped to be like they are. Its eugenic actually.

"

Boem wrote:

Not sure if you don't understand what i mean by merit though? I'm talking about IQ and productivity as standards for merit

Irrelevant. I'm generally against the (re) distribution of resources to those with the most merit because I believe resources should be distributed proportional to merit. That still means those with lowish merit are rewarded for small gains, a critically important and necessary incentive.