zurew

In that case, I might agree with you, because in that case, your definition of intelligence probably entails creativity and the ability to connect with others and the ability to sense what feels good to others. The reason why i didn't agree with you first, is because people don't use the word intelligence the same way you do. A generally considered unintelligent woman, could have all the positive aspects that I listed above, therefore have the ability to have good sex.

Probably the government will need to incentivise people by making social security payments much higher and that might 'solve' the problem for the moment, but in the longrun it won't be affordable, but it will buy some time.

Depends on how you define cognitive intelligence, but I think its useful to make a distinction between a person who is an intellectual and between a person who can use his body well, can feel into things and have the ability to sense what feels good to others. If you define cognitive intelligence how I defined above, then according to your theory, most intellectual people should automatically be good in bed, but thats not the case, most geeks and nerds are bad at sex, because they lack experience and social intelligence and kinesthetic intelligence. I don't see a difference in ability when it comes to sex, between a person who has a high level of kinesthetic intelligence and a person who is an intellectual and have kinesthetic intelligence.

But people would only have a say and could only vote in the context of a company where they work at, and they wouldn't have a say in every company, and thats why the same rivalrous dynamic is there just in a different context. People would want to create more profit where they work because if collectively they can make more money then they can distribute more money between them and they wouldn't give a fuck about people that are working at a different company. They have an incentive to be the best in market and to rule the whole market as a big business, so they still have an incentive to fuck other companies over and to be better than them. They still have the incentive to create addictive products. - So the same dynamics would go down. That would have its own problems. There would be no drive to innovate or to work hard and it would produce poor quality goods and services I knew this question was coming, and I can make a distinction between this and political democracy. The distinction here is that its much easier to see and to measure who would be a good and effective person who can make really good decisions for a company and to do his work very effectively compared to trying to make a test for who would be a conscious leader of a country. Its also much easier to train someone to be a better financial guy compared to train someone to be a conscious leader. For the first, you just have to be a good business man who can generate quality goods and or service and profit and not fuck up the company financially in the longrun vs in the second you have to have so many good qualities and have to have a developed cognition and it would be impossible to measure for those things the other disinction is that , the dictator wouldn't be hold accountable by anything but this business person could still be hold accountable by political restrictions so if the businessman start to do shady shit, he/she can be caught and be hold accountable and thats an important distinction. I appreciate Janitors, but their contribution to the company is not the same as people who are educated and who are able to see how to maintain the company and how to make it more succesful. From a market lense, that janitor is easily replaceable and it would be easy to find a different person to his/her place, the same couldn't be said about a highly education person who has a lot of experience making hard financial decisions. I think I could agree with this. I think the biggest problem is not necessarily inequality, but inequality where not all people having their basic needs met. I know 'basic needs' is a vague notion, but its a collection of things that you need to live a happy life in the current times. I think the current times part is important, because as time passes by things can change, and what would be considered 'basic needs' is also changing. I don't think that would be the worst case scenario. Given our culture and our collective level of consciousness it would be a granted dynamic that would eventually go down. My argument against socalism is not that it would have elements of capitalism, my argument is that it would have all the negative elements of capitalism + being ineffective + it would block innovation. The collectively owned part isn't relevant when your money isn't determined by the whole country, but by the people who are working at the same workplace as you do , and by the success of the company where you work at.

In the context of sex, why would cognitive intelligence matter at all?

Comapanies want to make profit, if they have a hard time to do that because of higher tax, then they will eventually adapt. We can use empirical data to see what products and services are prone to produce addiction, and then we could attack those. Im not sure about that one, why would it be significantly less? The motive that creates atificial demand is the want for profit. That part would still exist in your system and I don't see how that would be mitigated just because people wouldn't own companies. You can be a worker at a company and you and the other guys that work there would still collectively want to dominate the market with whatever means possible, because its their incentive to do so. If your system involves markets and if your socialist country have more than one company, then you will end up seeing the same dynamics you see now. The ability to vote in a workplace doesn't solve this problem, country owning all companies doesn't solve this problem either, so how would there be significantly less artificial demand? Having a choice is not always good. This model can only function well, if most people there are knowledgeable and educated, but if they are not, they will make poor choices overall for the company, which would be bad for everyone working there. Lets say there is a big company where there is 100 people. There are janitors and all the other workers have higher education and other qualifications. Why would the janitors have the same amount of say, when they have little to no contribution to the success of that company? How would you reward people? Would you reward them based on how much they contribute to that particular company's success or other way? Also I don't see how would your system solve inequality, when there is still a market. The same dynamic would go down just as in a capitalist society, which is that some people are exceptionally good at managing their finance and money, they know exactly where to invest and how much and when, and eventually they would dominate the workplace as well , because they could use their money to corrupt the workplace. The difference would be that you can't own companies so people couldn't dominate the market that way, but my guess would be, that in that case, people would migrate to countries where they can actually create a private business , or if we assume that every country is socialist, then these people would still end up dominating the certain parts of the market just with a different strategy like owning houses and other properties. There are ways to measure this, but it wouldn't be easy at all. We know mostly what we want (like more love, more healthy society where people are happy and more functioning etc) but the problem is that its impossible to do it in an isolated way, where we can confidently draw a causality line and we can exclude every outside effects. But this is a problem, that isn't relevant to this discussion however its a good topic to explore, because collectively we should figure out how should we do it. Because of competition. Competition drives profit and quality. People don't want the same from everything, and since in your system there is a market, demand would eventually end up forcing the government to create more companies to satisfy the needs of the customers. People don't just want to buy adidas shoes, some people like nike others like vans etc and there is no way that a company can specialize in being good at producing all the quality services and items.

I didn't say there would be the same amount, i just wanted to point out, that the problem wouldn't be solved - just mitigated. The reason why I wanted to point that out, to show you , that that particular problem is not exclusive to capitalism, because earlier you made it sound like, these problems are only related to a capitalist structure and not to the content within that structure. I think its very important to distinguish between structural and not structural problems. Lets say there is a small company where there is 100 people. These people will collectively decide on stuff. Lets say there is a person who know 55 people there and this person has a good relationship with those people. They can do whatever the fuck they want there, because they can vote whatever they want. Different example: This person wouldn't even need to know 50% of the people, he just need to offer some money and basically buy votes and power. Based on what plan would you distribute the money? Lets say there is a business and the profit is 100 million dollars, and lets say there is 10 thousand workers working in that business. I would switch the word capitalism with unregulated markets and competition. Generally speaking I agree with this, but I think there still a lot of room to grow but I agree that it need to be slowed the fuck down and prioritized under human wellbeing and under environmental damage. Also I want to add this here: GDP would still be a good variable to measure improvement with, if it would only measure consciously created goods and services. Looking at it from the big picture, it might, but if we zoom in and get into specific parts, then this wouldn't be true. To be more specific: Lets say there is 2 shoemaking business in a socialist country. 100 people working in business 1 and 100 people working in business 2. People who are working at business 1, I assume they would only have a say and vote that is related to business 1. These people have an interest to collectively be better compared to business 2. So In the big picture, most business 1 people wouldn't give a fuck about business 2 people. They would want to find a way, to outsource and to outsmart business 2 people, to dominate the market which would eventually result in business 2 people earning less money, and getting fucked over and being forced to switch jobs.

It is possible, but not every tier2 is attracted to that.

Probably with higher taxes, but would have to think about it more. It seems that you say, that there is still a market under the socialist system ,that you are talking about, so if there is a market, there will be artificial demand, so it doesn't solve that problem and it seems that problem is not exclusive to capitalism, but that problem is exclusive to having a market. You say there is central planning and then you say there is still a market. I assume that when you say central planning you mean something like people voting collectively on who should get and how much profit and voting on what to do with the collectively owned business in general. Not necessarily, you can still get fucked if we are talking about people who has big networks. People with big networks at a workplace could make it more central and fuck up other people who works there, so how would you make sure that doesn't happen? If there is still a market then there is still demand and competition. Workplaces that have more skilled and smarter people with big networks , those would naturally dominate the whole market, Also how and when would a new business get created? like how would it go down in the real world? Almost every, but again not just the capitalist systems aiming for growth, so to only relate capitalism to gpd growth is misleading, imo. GPD growth would have been a must under any economic system. Imagine if the whole world would have been stuck in the early 20st century. We wouldn't enjoy the comfort and the benefits of anything right now. Every science, The whole medical field (We wouldn't have nowhere near the same capability to deal with diseases and illnesses), no internet etc. Under a system where there is 0% GDP growth, how do you adapt to a growing population? How do you provide a business and jobs for those people? How do you make sure that everyone will have a good enough livelihood? Under a socialist system where there is a market, there would still be a want and aim for GPD growth, because if you want to participate in a market, you have competition and of course you don't want to lose in a competition, especially if your livelihood depend on it. So again, this problem is not exclusive to capitalism either, this is probably exclusive to systems that has a market and an underdeveloped culture. GPD growth is not necessarily bad, because although that metric is not perfect to measure collective wellbeing , but it does create the possibility to make people's lifes better (if we assume a developed culture). So it seems to me, that if I didn't misinterpreted most of your stuff, then that system wouldn't solve the core problems of capitalism, at the very best it would probably mitigate it, but that doesn't necessarily true either. We would probably need empirical data to prove these theories.

The answer is yes, it does lead to artifically created demand, but it can be regulated but I don't think its exclusive to capitalism. Demand of anything could be manipulated by the government as well. How is artifically created demand fades away under your system? I don't think there is any economic system today, where there is a goal to have 0% gpd growth. In a system where there is no market, I think it could be argued that artificialness is much more there, because everything is artificially moderated but by who?

You don't have to overconsume under a capitalist system (there wouldn't be a problem if there wouldn't be artificially created demand). If that part wouldn't be there, then the market would change and adapt as it needs to the culture and to the real demand. I don't know what you mean by socialism, because there is a lot of different versions of it. Do you mean no market at all or do you mean regulated market or do you mean no private ownership or do you mean something different? If people don't consume or consume very littile in any economic system today, that system will fail.

Thats not just capitalism, if there is a company that will automatically optimize for some profit, now how much that company will optimize for profit will depend on how much it is regulated by the government, and of course, it will be based on its development. Yes, because thats how the market is today. This could be modified a little bit with regulations, but this is a very tricky problem. No, but processed food will be unhealthy and cheaper in general. Then it seems you aren't talking about a different economic system, you are talking about regulated capitalism. Overconsumption of food is just one metric to look at. I think in both Japan and China people are working their ass off and are sleeping in metros and overworking in their whole life. I think most of your points are not exclusive to capitalism structurally, because if they would be, then most of these couldn't be solved with regulations or with hybrid systems.

How is that the fault of capitalism? Under your system, how would you make healthy food more cheaper?

This rule only applies if we are talking about challenges and pressure that you have the necessary capacity and capability to overcome. If you have constant pressure and you have no necessary tools to overcome that pressure, then you will crumble.

Thats fair to say, do you have other sources that you think make good points about the limitations of democracy?

what is restricting you right now under a democratic system ,that you would be able to do under your hypothetical system? How? How would your hypothetical system be better at spreading power broadly? Voting is just a tiny thing to have a very minor influence on others. There are a lot of other ways, and we all have influence on the collective system and on each other, no matter what political system we have. It seems that you have a problem with unwanted influence, and with corruption. None of those things are exclusive to a democractic system, and almost all your criticisms could be applied to other policitical systems as well. If you really want to attack democracy, then you should attack its structure (limitations and problems, that are exclusive to democracy).

I dont know where you want to go with this line of questioning. Of course you can still do bad content using the podcast format, but thats not exclusive to podcasts. Reactionism is just one way to go about it, but there are many other ways to go.(also , i dont think all react content is necessarily bad)

No, its not the same, because you are not reacting in this case, but creating something new on your own.

@rnd Your passive agressive behaviour and your closed mindedness to this topic is stunning. Take a deep breath, and reread what @Ulax said, and then you can realise that he didn't make any big or aggressive claims. Also your accusation of bias is very funny, because your bias is clearly beaming on this one.

I am God. I am not God. Everything what Leo says is true.

Maybe to challenge some of those positions or to try to understand them better or to build a bridge.

Because its a good way to share ideas with a relatively low effort and to make a lot of money (especially if the the site that you use has a time on site businessmodel). - and it seems like more and more people recognize it, also the demand is growing for it. You can have the long podcast format, and then you can make a clip chanel as well, so you can profit a lot from it. I think podcast format is really good, because it has many spontaneous elements to it, and it feels more authentic than other formats.

With all those monsters and beings waiting for you in the corners? That guy is very young and very talented.

Caring about stats is not directly related to being an SJW. You should care about stats if you really care about the facts that you often talk about. So basically, you have a very strong stance on this issue, and a lot of assumptions, but you haven't checked the stats, and you still not open to their view? Nope, you care about a certain set of people, who had a certain lived experience about this issue, and you ignore all the contrary ones. Whats your steelman version of feminism? If you say man-hate, then we don't have much to talk about here, because you don't understand feminism as an ideology at all. If you claim to understand it, then I would be curious about your steelman version of it.