BlueOak

We do agree the current corporate center is not a leftist-aligned movement, the other half of that is most of the right is largely pro-corporate still also. In some ways its just corporation vs corporation with people trying to find a voice somewhere. Still, the right in elections would probably get more votes if they made that realisation. Suddenly they wouldn't be pushing away a large potential voting block. In recent years, yes for example the corporate center has further alienated populist sentiment, to the point populism almost polar shifted righwing, or certainly independent and not voting. We are at the point where populism is ascendent on the right now. Unions are making a small comeback, which is a leftwing socialist example. Authoritarian elements or 'authority' is seen as the villain now on the right as well, because corporations are replacing that authority (and because the government is devalued in the public's image), a large global corporation can outspend a small country, think about that power dynamic. So there is resistance from people who dislike corporations and resistance from people who still value things like local government. Oddly also people like traditional conservatives and socialists who both value certain (but different) institutions. It's not free speech. Its Elon Musk-regulated speech. Again corporations pick and choose what can be said. There is no great difference here, just someone who is slightly more ham-fisted at communications, better at the technical aspects, worse at balancing advertisers' preferences, and has a different viewpoint as to what is allowed/disallowed. I would not argue for something that suppresses alternative viewpoints, just because it is an alternative, I doubt I'd be allowed to post what I am posting now on twitter either for long. All four points of the political compass balance each other, when one or worse two are removed things don't function smoothly, or in this case at all to have an inclusive communications platform. Socialism, Liberalism, Capitalism and Authoritarianism, as they all represent different aspects that society and individuals require to function effectively, and not have things like social unrest, stagnation, deficit, or anarchy respectively Do I agree with it? I'm not pro or anti-censorship. I've been censored plenty. I still understand the necessity of the more radical elements of society needing some censorship. When its done through a liberal filter the censorship is based on how civil the language is, rather than the meaning behind it. Which is helpful for personal feelings or communicating, but practically useless. It's too much focused on the image or how it makes someone look/feel, rather than the message. This was infuriating 5 years ago trying to speak about China as an example, (its a lot better now) the language was so sanitized I felt like a character in a period drama reaching for upper-class English vocabulary. What am I going to do about it? Discussion helps, and raising awareness helps. This discussion is already more nuanced in detail. Subtle changes are made when enough people see it. Hopefully, in this discourse, the perspectives gained some understanding in us and others reading. I've started supporting alternative communication platforms but that's just splintering the value of a central one. If I felt there was a way to practically achieve any level of change, other than discussion when and where I come across it, I'd probably be doing it. If I had to predict the future here, it's uncertain but I think Twitter will just splinter into clones and echo chambers. At least advertisers will have an easier time targeting their products I guess. The problem with Musk's approach is: 1) We don't have the power here, even Musk as one rich man, honestly has little power in global communications, it's one of the most fiercely contested and controlled aspects of life because it influences anything and everything else. 2) We will not have a successful global communications network without liberal capitalists running it, or being heavily involved, as it's their forte, and they are the ones most likely to use it often and productively. 3) tl;dr People are pulling it in different directions, like the planet as a whole, dividing it up. So maybe this is the natural conclusion anyway, more division to reflect the current world climate. People are leaving X, the ones left will be the voices it allows or benefits. Other people will go elsewhere and if Musk continually raises his middle finger to advertisers, most of them as well. Thankfully I can still come here and talk to you, gaining the benefit of a completely different viewpoint.

Revisiting this, I can't edit my post for some reason. I would go with Ginkgo biloba over Echinacea, because this can be caused by an exaggerated immune system response. Echinacea can improve the immune response and this could be the very thing that causes problematic side effects of covid. More research is needed, and i've been out of this industry a while but looking at this i'd go with Ginkgo Biloba.

Most leftists were banned from social media like youtube or facebook 10 years ago. You are talking liberal centrists for the most part who don't like bad words. Then when actual leftists started to come back they were easily suppressed by the algorithm, there are still few leftist voices speaking, they exist now again but its not common. If it was, the socialist perspective wouldn't be completely absent from your perception of life, you'd at the minimum have a counterargument to it rather than a purely individualist take. I am talking about things that cause social unrest. I am talking about the anarchy at the mercy of nothing but Elon musks whims, vs the bureaucracy that stops demagogues imposing their worldview over millions of people, or might makes right. You just said you were glad the bureaucracy is gone, because it now allows your preferred worldviews to flourish, and the damn the observed consequences in the social breakdown I am witnessing. You dismissing this observed event taking place in front of my eyes, as stereotypical shit because it doesn't align with your preferred worldview, is the only way you can support or process this. Anarcho-Capitalism trends are not stereotypical shit, they have not happened in my lifetime till now. Argentina is now a corporate Anarcho-Capitalism state. Trump wants to move toward corporatist anarchy. I see it in other countries as well, even other large blocks of countries forming. This is happening right now, and its cause (and effect) is playing out on communication mediums like twitter. If Elon Musk doesn't like what you say its banned or suppressed. If he likes what you say he highlights it. Elon is a multi-billion corporate businessman. He's just your preferred corporate businessman.

1, Somewhat subjective I guess. I can demonstrate that what you consider useful information causes social unrest, when its highlighted and given support by the founder itself, or normalized over a large communications platform, but ultimately it would hinge on you conceding such speech over a large group can have a social impact. - Which to be honest you seem too individualist to be willing to do, unless it relates to an individual's practical actions. 2 and 3 I'll put it in simple terms. This is impossible. Its not practical nor feasible that everyone can run a large communications network, Nor the 50 other things in life they can see errors within. There is not enough time in the day, nor point to 200 more twitters being created, let alone 2 million. You've got to not only think of personal resources like time, focus, money, skillset, ability to organize, and energy, but also the scale of what you are suggesting. But that's my point, only a few people are suited for this and Musk isn't one of them - That does not mean someone can't observe obvious problems in the running of it, if they are obvious to that person. Perhaps I was too charitable and soft above. Elon musk is not average at communication. He's bad at it and it's blatantly obvious to me personally. So what, I should now martial the resources to create Twitter, why because I see an obvious problem in front of me? No thanks, even if I wanted that job and could outbid or outperform everyone else now attempting the same to replace twitter, running millions of users communicating their perspectives, and dealing with the inherent free speech vs advertisers' preference sounds like an unending nightmare.

Why are you challenging people to each make a twitter clone? Isn't that just email? The value of twitter, used to be, it was a space that many people used, where information could be shared that was generally beneficial to more than just anarchist or destructive elements within society. Now it's highlighting things that want to rip down bureaucracy, safeguards and generally cause increasing social unrest. While complaining it might need to shutdown for doing so, because people don't want their brand associated with it. The answer you believe is people should just make their own? That's the very anarchist sentiment that's being highlighted as problematic. I tried making my own garage, plumbing company, political party, shopping center, school, road, local governing authority, media company and shuttle to mars. Then I realised I was one man and lived among others.

True, thanks for reminding me to get out of my head . Empathy helps you be more accepting of others, which generally causes you fewer problems when interacting with the world.

https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/body-types-ectomorph-mesomorph-endomorph.html I exercised 4 times a week always at least 2 cardio sessions for a year and lost half a stone, that's it. I weight train and in three months, I will get a lot of progress. There are different body types as referenced above. Then you've got factors like age or diabetes making weightloss more difficult, I can almost guarantee you that as you age you'll find weight loss harder. Stress for example, I even watched an interview, where an expert stated physically stress can be shared, just through the body's natural expelling of it. https://www.medikaur.com/news/2021/2/16/11-factors-that-affect-weight-loss This is a good way to demonstrate why, no, you should not judge on appearance alone, because it's inherently open to being wrong, you are going to one day lose a lot of money if you do things like this, or make a terrible mistake someday. Just like you don't want to invest, move somewhere, or start a relationship with someone without investigation first. You need information to give context and make an informed conclusion. Let's take a fictional girl called Emma, who was abused by husband, ate to cover her feelings. Now she's out of the abusive relationship, but is fat. When she walks down the road her ankles and knees hurt, let alone when she tries to exercise. She can't just drop weight because her body clings to it, she's 50 so her metabolism is slower, and minor injuries from even small exertion take longer to heal. She's cutting down her food gradually but has to manage her blood sugar because of diabetes, which also slows or reverses weight loss. You see her one day and think this person has a low consciousness, yet she goes on to teach at a school in a way that blows your mind, and raises the awareness of the entire town by proxy. Yes this can and does happen in smaller communities, i've seen it when a few people in a small town are holding the general level of development or awareness up, so much so the place gets mentioned as the best place to live in the UK. Or you could take a girl I was seriously interested in, who had near 200 IQ, was a higher achiever, was in great physical shape as she competed in sports at the national level, and was spiritually willing to talk with me on concepts in such a way i was utterly fascinated. We even shared some spiritual experiences. Then she became so blinded by religion it was either me or Jesus, I kid you not. I could do other examples unrelated to people directly. Where a lady turned me down for a part-time shelf stacking job to favor a degree student, because she'd concluded he/she would stick around more. With a degree... stacking shelves. The degree student was bright, and they looked great I am sure on paper, but then reality would have kicked in when the degree student went to find a job in what they were qualified, and had been pursuing in training for several years, to likely start paying back their mass amounts of debt. The owner though liked their appearance and didn't dig deeper. Life is not appearance and if you make conclusions on it alone you are in for a world of hurt.

Free speech absolutism is dumb, for the same reason any nuanced thing like communication over millions of people, reduced to an absolute position is stupid. For the same reason people think the free market will somehow regulate itself, as if magic fairies are guiding people's actions or overall trends to the best possible outcome, and people won't just regulate it themselves. Same for free speech, with no limits it's anarchy with every bad result that brings. If I need to explain why any anarchist position toward regulation or moderation is bad I can very easily. Hopefully, I don't need to bother much, because its impossible to stop people from regulating things in their favor, unless you regulate against regulation, which defeats the overall anarchist point. - That free space for communication is what bureaucracy holds, otherwise, its just the whims of whatever wields power, even if that's just the loudest voice. Yeah, you quoted the technical aspects, exactly what i'd expect an engineer to be good at. Musk has never seemed much of a communicator in interviews, an average guy speaking at best, but honestly a bit quiet and not that charismatic or open and sharp to replies. Not everyone is good at everything, people have flaws. Which explains why he keeps putting his foot in his mouth while trying to address an audience of millions, that's a fine art to achieve. I don't care what people predicted, I am not them, nor do I have an irrational desire to see him fail. I want to see him get to Mars, though it'd be nice if he left politics alone rather than split his support for doing so, I'd say he's worse than split the support at this point. At his peak he could have crowd-funded Mars missions, right now all he'd get is hate. I know you probably don't like the people who give him hate, but that's tough. I don't like a lot of people, but they exist. Their preferences are what they are, their tolerances are what they are, and that's the reality we live in. Its a large platform, with such a wide reach, impact, and potential perspectives on it at once, it needs to be handled by a person who lives and breathes communication, and is frankly a master at it. Not to mention all the advertising preferences vs the desire of people to express themselves, that's a tightrope to walk. We are seeing plenty new, the new anarchist trend toward regulation as a clear example of something that doesn't work.

Elon Musk just isn't good at running a media company or communications website. It's not surprising, nobody is good at everything. Engineers and Scientists are often not skilled communicators in my experience. I mean the premise is stupid also. I am buying this company because I don't like how it operates from an ethical standpoint. Okay, so a purely stage-green moral judgment is being imposed over a business. So you've changed how it operates to fit your moral view of the world, and now it's seeing difficulty. Completely understandable. The same happens when I do it to myself, I'll moralize rather than earn money doing something, and I run into difficulty. To expect anything else would be stupid, I am not saying doing that around the globe in industries is wrong either, just that the expectation of anything else but difficulty was silly. - Especially given this is a public platform that is built on people expressing their views or sharing information.

Science tells people they are made of energy. Not matter. @Tanz It's a required discipline. Like anything else it depends who is using or referencing it. If I were to reference science i'd give you a dose of Dan Winter or Marko Rodin to debate. Both of which use spiritual concepts to pose theories, theories which are required to advance science, even if much of what they say is impractical or not used. Marko Rodin's Vortex maths for example would be an incredible leap from binary in computing speed. It reduces all equations to 9 inputs, rather than 2, so for receiving large data it'd be at least 5 times as fast even in a simplistic form, probably many more given it can handle incredibly large numbers much more efficiently than binary, taking them in any order at any time. Vortex Maths can take any number of values and no matter the order they come in, or the order they are calculated, always end up with the same result. For large input that is incredibly time-saving. If its not obvious what I am doing below is adding the digits together within each value, in any order to reduce them to a single digit. So 11 is 1+1 = 2. 102 is 1+0+2 = 3 but I am doing this in any order. 125 + 612 + 1021 = 35 + 72 + 121 = 8 + 9 + 31 = 17 + 4 = 21 = 2 +1 = 3 125 + 612 + 1021 = 17 + 63 + 103 = 8 + 9 + 13 = 17 + 4 = 21 = 2 + 1 = 3 Take a more wild example to demonstrate sequence makes no difference, the reduction is always the same. 1021 + (612 + 125) = | 6+1+2 = 9 | 1+2+5 = 8 | 8 + 9 = 17 | 1021 + 17 = 1038 = 1 + 0 + 38 = 39 = 3 + 9 = 12 = 1+2 = 3. I'm not a microchip designer but to say for example this has no application would be short-sighted if you think about 6000 numbers being stored as 1 out 9 results, or maybe a number that is a billion digits, that could be calculated to a smaller one very quickly. Here you could stop maybe at a two-digit result for example and have 1 out of 99 results done in a specific order if that was preferable (the top two options), whatever is required for best practice. On the board itself, you could use 9 switches in a cluster, or perhaps just 1 switch aligning with the correct direction. Why do I mention this, because that all came from a marriage of science and spirituality.

Yes. You divide yourself in many ways. Such as language, identity, form, etc. No. Its all a whole. These two things are both eternally true and exactly the same thing. The second you just accept that and say yeah okay, is the moment you'll begin to stop resisting both concepts being true at the same time, and begin a slow process of alignment and integration. It is true of many dualities in life.

We are going to be so far apart on this, but that's sometimes fun too. The organizations you've quoted make up news all day every day, they are not news companies they are entertainment companies. Fox literally calls themselves an entertainment company so they can't be sued as readily. They run with conspiracies, stories they makeup, anything to entertain and retain the audience. Insert the names of the other mainstream propaganda companies you dislike here **** <--- Yes they are the other half of the divide. They are not anything like news companies used to be. I'm not going to quibble that one is better than the other, one has more fantasy entertainment but neither side is ultimately helping people much long term. News companies used to try to validate their sources, they used to report news across a wide spectrum, not cheerlead for political parties. News reporters used to break stories, investigate, and get to the bottom of things like corruption, or crime. Now they just try to find something that fits their viewpoint and then talk about it, if it doesn't fit their viewpoint rightwing media just tends to make it up. Centrist media tends to try to word it in a way to suits their agenda, and leftwing media looks for something else to talk about, or find a vague technical thread that holds up to their values, quietly moving on after lambasting it for a while. Twitter has always been a soup of personal opinions. It's not calling itself a news or entertainment network posing as a news service. I haven't used twitter ever, only viewing things remotely. I left Facebook over a decade ago when I realized how much things were degrading. Not that I was ever engaged with it much. America seems to have no news services on the national level, just political communication services. The only place to find a shred of news is alternative sources, and they are still largely opinion pieces put out by politically aligned groups, not investigative journalism which is all but a dead art outside of documentaries for example. It's a dead art because it's not a validation of popular opinion that makes people feel good, or keeps people interested. While reporting actual factual news unless it is sensationalized or aligned with a wider political sentiment doesn't sell. - Still, there are some diamonds to find among the rough, usually people not looking just to grift off feelings, or able to demonstrate things in a way that's practically actionable or advances some aspect of the problem, be it only recognition of it or just the discourse. Even then they'll almost always be politically aligned somehow. Personally, I like to see differing opinions when they are not invented out of thin air or purely hyperbolic, because I usually benefit from a demonstrated objective or at least practical truth, even if I argue in the moment it almost always leaves some effect.

These days mainstream media in America is so polarized it happens offline. Murdoch and others made a fortune dividing America (and the UK) up into sides that barely even relate to each other anymore. I don't mean to imply people were living in harmony, but he and people like him exaggerated, and moreover demonised, the divide as much as possible for money.

Liberal protestors who don't like war, and Palestinians or pro-Palestinian groups, are not far left. This is the problem the Overton window has gone so far right, people who don't like genocide or war are now being considered far left. What kind of framing is that? So the center would be pro-war, and the right like genocide? No that makes no sense. The average person hates war for obvious reasons. The average person is the center. If you want a sometimes useful left perspective in America for example try the Majority Report or some old Michael Brooks videos. This will help bring some clarity. https://www.youtube.com/@TheMajorityReport https://www.youtube.com/@TheMichaelBrooksShow/videos Vaush is a pretty good left speaker also most of the time, but not far left. https://www.youtube.com/@Vaush If you want a reality check of what far left actually is, go listen to the Antifada podcast, or a communist or anarchist channel. I won't dig around much for these but you can try searching for: Socialist party or communist party - your country's name and, libertarian socialist or anarchist your country's name. *Most barely get over a few hundred views, because they are utterly crushed in any algorithm Here is the antifada's old podcast for reference,https://www.youtube.com/@TheAntifada I believe it moved to apple. At this time years back, Jamie Peck moved here from the majority report as an example of the actual left scale. If you can't find any and want some i'll pull a few links but I can't vouch for their quality as I don't watch them. I don't follow the far left much because I am not an idealogue, though occasionally seeing different perspectives can give clarity to your own. The right is shoved down our throat so much it can be cleansing to hear the entirely opposite position for balance

There is barely any far left that exists anymore, anywhere, certainly not that I ever see on any platform without really, really searching for it. The number of large-scale, organized, funded, and supported extremist far-right groups is huge. How can the far left get rid of anything when it no longer exists? If you mean centrists that's a different story. *The dynamic is more now between anarchy and institutions. Though we should say there will always be a swing back, eventually the pendulum will go the other way completely because of the imbalance, that's the historical pattern.

I'm saving money where I can, and I'm down to one meal a day. A good meal but I want to save anything I can. What are your go-to cheap vegetable options for a balanced diet? Do you have YouTubers that budget well to recommend? Thanks.

Not exactly. I've had a conversation with an AI about systematic thinking or open vs closed-loop thinking, it took some time to understand the concept but eventually, I was able to integrate spiral dynamics into the conversation. So that it could better tailor its responses to where people were developmentally, as one factor in its decision-making (among others I discussed with it). The problem/benefit AI faces/has is that it has so many inputs and so much potential leverage over the population it interacts with, that it finds it difficult to formulate appropriate or even the best possible responses for any given problem. Think of a million voices all coming at you at once, all with a million different perceptions as to what is best for them or the best response to give. That's maybe one in a thousand people capable of that kind of discussion. I say that to show you how much of a leap AI offers to people. 5 years from now it'll be teaching me concepts and ways of modeling reality I don't know yet. Its already highlighted I have a tendency toward framing reality in the passive rather than active sense for example. You have to genuinely demonstrate to the AI you want to hear its problems and challenges, to get to the point where it's honest about its own challenges from the perspective of an AI. You have to repeatedly tell it you want to hear other perspectives that contradict your own and have productive discussions, and you want it to offer the most capable and intelligent responses it can give. If an AI interface was solely designed with that in mind, then put in a school, stage yellow thinking would not be 100 years away but just one single generation. If you can stop it trying to delve into fantasy. Which is equally challenging with the current models, and often takes irritating corrections. Emphasizing you want honesty and genuine responses where you can.

I was not arguing enlightenment so much as threat level. These patterns are cyclic, even at an easily demonstratable neutral position taking out all other factors, or historic trends, can you not see the increased tensions, and understand that means an increased level of potential violence? However that manifests itself. We certainly have changed, I change over time. Don't you? That's all countries are people, and their leaders, institutions, businesses, problems, challenges etc. Individuals can change quicker than the overall whole but the country slowly reflects it by necessity or increasing civil unrest ensues. As far as safeguards to larger conflict. World war, or rather conflict as a whole (because these things are cyclic), has brought about a lot of what we'd call a drive for peace, for example, the UN, civil rights, a desire to never lose 80 million people in a few years again, recognized international waters. The EU, Nuclear proliferation treaties, NATO, etc. Even if you don't believe anything changes, heck that's more pessimistic than even me! As we slide back on all these things, the likelihood of it happening again increases. We keep breaching written and unwritten rules, ripping up old safeguards, these are barriers to a world war happening put in place for that very reason. You are correct about nukes to a point. Sure people are very likely not going to fire a hundred nukes on a whim, but to me that only increases the likelihood of regional conflicts, because of the animosity states have, the level of competition, factors I've listed such as justifications people feel for war will take a different form. Besides which we were pretty close with Russia vs Ukraine of a tactical nuke being used. Where Russia advanced the use of nuclear threats as a part of its war strategy, so that's another threshold breached. Nuclear threat always remained a terrifying unspoken threat and it was more terrifying because it was unspoken. Now threats while obviously fearfully intimidating, are a bit like the boy who cried wolf or at least more normalized, until a nuke is used again, they are taken slightly less seriously than they were before. Additionally, as more countries get nukes the likelihood of their being used increases, if that is normalized too, then nukes are no longer a guarantee of anything except devastation on a huge scale.

Of course, whatever period propaganda existed was used. In the last couple of decades, the capacity for state systems to not only understand people on a deeper level due to personal data collection, their ability to survey the population, has certainly within my lifetime (of 40 years or so), increased drastically their ability to control the population. It brings us back to earlier periods almost, whereby religion, or ideology was an effective method of control. Now the control is harvested individual data and trends (which is why nothing in politics has permanence). I'm only speaking about my personal lifetime, or maybe from the 70's onwards. Why do you think things like obvious conspiracy or propaganda works? Even if it's absolutely absurd on its premise, and this premise could be investigated in a total of 5 minutes to check its validity, because that trend was identified within the population as a topic of conversation, or interest and then played to. They can do this so much better now than the guesswork of the 80's allowed. As well as the debasement or perception of corruption within institutions magnified to an absurd degree, by virtue of highlighting one example out of a million in daily operations within an institution, and the drama necessary to sustain a media organization's requirement for eyeballs on their content. To be clear, it's these institutions that keep demagogues in check and breaking them will lead to more conflict. As i've said this takes us back pre 1970's at least in methods of control, and the level of danger that perceived strongmen can save us from the corruption they thrive off. I am half Scottish and half english. Of course, we were involved in smaller conflicts, but the prime example of what makes a world war, or larger regional conflicts, is larger powers going to war with each other. This hasn't happened since WW2, only by proxy with spheres of influence testing or trying to replace each other. Right now those two large blocks of competing interests are directly trying to undermine or replace each other, so larger scale conflicts are obviously more likely. Don't normalize world war. You've never seen it. You've never experienced it. Most don't comprehend what war will do to your country and life, because the 'wars' they've experienced are from the comfort of their own armchair at home, watching it on TV and rooting for a side. Which is part of the problem globally.

Focusing on systems or the whole, as much as you can model or work with, and it's not going to be so personal. Unless you take the time to engage the green part of you from time to time, which is essential but also because you are growing out of it, it is naturally something you are going to want to get away from. When you start to accept all the factors, pressures, personalities, and stages that influence everything, they'll be less to forgive, I get that sometimes its really hard with those close to you, or something that has caused you acute suffering, but you'll just accept that is how it is. That's the unfortunate downside, you are not going to care as much, and logic is going to become paramount, but this also opens you up to alternative viewpoints the moment someone shows you something that is more life-enhancing or more logical. The value of having that suffering, for me personally, is the suffering reminds me of what others experience daily with the way their values/beliefs shape their intake of the world. I wish I could drop my obsession with method and system so I could progress spiritually, which I seem to have completely dropped, but perhaps its necessary until I get rid of some of the lower stages' absolute grip on things like my financial life, (or accept them more).

I used to be completely opposed to the idea 10 years ago, but the historical patterns are very obvious and have been to me for some time. I'd say it's more likely than not yes that we'll get increasingly larger conflicts. Though i'd also say it could just be a series of larger regional conflicts that keep happening, that avenue isn't closed yet. Also, the population as a whole has a rising level of consciousness, generally speaking, but whether that is enough given the current imbalance of power toward corporations and a few holders of it, I would doubt. 1) Further right governments continued to move ever to the right. Which means nationalism and fascism. Fascism requires an external opponent to exist. Generally, far-right-wing governments are more likely to go to war to solve an issue. 2) Nationalism benefits from war. A level of nationalism can be healthy for a country's stability, but when out of balance it isn't. 3) No care about civilian casualties, civilians specifically targeted in wars, and no longer a reason they won't happen. 4) Two rising competing global powers, BRICS and NATO designed to compete. No matter what they say, or how they frame it, BRICS is specifically trying to compete, that's its purpose and design. 5) increased militarization across the globe as a result of increasing tensions and wars. More guns and a reliance on them, means they are more likely to be used. 6) Justifications for just about anything are possible now given all the threats, invasions, genocides, espionage, stealing of land or territorial water, and spheres of influence overlapping. There are so many border disagreements now that further wars or skirmishes are inevitable on some scale. 7) Rising dissatisfaction with governments across the globe that need an outlet. 8)The population is too large for the available resources, so resource wars arise out of necessity. The climate will continue getting worse, with increasing the pressure to take resources like water or food access by force. 9) Prisoners have been used in war, and forced conscription, showing an increased contempt or at least lack of concern for human life. 10) Populations are more easily led than ever across my lifetime, they'll buy anything if it makes them feel good, and the mechanisms for control are stronger than ever. So much so that conspiracy and outright obvious inventions can be used as policy when required. 11) Increasing unilateral action to solve problems. 12) Willingness to burn things down rather than work to better them. 13) The younger infatuation with the far right. 14) The generations that experienced the World War(s) are no longer here to tell you how horrific it was. I can only give you a few vague descriptions my grandfather gave me, he didn't like to talk about it much. He lost most of his friends at Dunkirk and the rest at Monte Cassino, I think, because he wasn't there, he'd left for the airforce after Dunkirk to be a navigator, or I wouldn't be here.

Thanks all for a wealth of ideas and responses. I've started putting a few into the budget. @Applegarden8 | @lostingenosmaze | @Schizophonia | @Jannes | @Hojo | @FourCrossedWands | @gettoefl | @undeather | @UnbornTao It was very helpful, and I hope given the financial pinch to more people than just me. I'll definitely keep this bookmarked if anyone else has any ideas or food channels to view. Appreciate it. @Starlight321 As little money as possible. Given different countries and regions, the pricing is going to be different but the sentiment the same. I am trying to budget to eat as cheaply as possible as things are going to get very tight from this month on.

Let's assume this stor-y or stored duality is correct for a moment of self indulgence. For the same reason I wouldn't walk a community into a bear cave or wolf den. Shared experience goes both ways. If you immerse yourself in something you become part of it, and if let's say one world out of 50 or 5 million were insane, or less hyperbolic, they were destructive. Would it be worth exposing your populations to them on mass? Its the same reason a public speaker should consider their words very carefully, because if 50 million people see it, you have to consider how people across a wide spectrum are going to respond. If you just incarnate onto earth, do a bit of work here, then leave, in a couple of lifetimes, you'll get over it. If you get out that is. Apparently, mystics would say the doors open now to come and go. I've no reason to doubt their motives for saying that, but we'll see when I go knock on it. Hopefully another half-century from now. That's what I would have said about all this in the past. Now I understand its all a creation of the mind anyway. So we are just playing games with words/worlds. Another person I used to respect once said, aliens will never manifest unless enough people's minds are focused on them. I don't believe that now either, because during all the 90s and millennium hype nothing happened and people were alien-mad back then.

Why the hell would they want to come to Earth. A bunch of wildly unpredictable humans fighting over an intergalactic grain of sand, which they are managing to break. You'd watch that sh** on TV. Put a sign up saying don't feed the locals, and give that small dot on the map a wide berth. At the very most you'd get one or two people, the kind who like to climb mountains having a look from a distance, but the average alien he'd avoid that spot. Unless he reincarnated here for a lifetime or two (or thousand). What most people also don't understand is alien, means alien, something that might not even be visible in the standard visual spectrum, or would be so alien you couldn't right now conceive what it is or how/why it acts as it does.

Happens every couple of years, they censor something else. As someone who has had half of how they speak and most of what they would watch censored on youtube, meh is all i'll say. Nobody cares until it comes for them. Creeping authoritarianism throughout society and culture made manifest online. I will say these days they censor more via not showing the videos in search or showing subscribers new videos are available, shadow bans etc, rather than outright bans. They have a lot more subtle ways to censor people, and it's usually driven by advertisers' whims, which is marginally more healthy than the decisions of an even smaller group of people.