BlueOak

Even if the question is just about safety. The question becomes do you want unconscious zombies acting out things without realising or a population that's aware of what is going on and can take appropriate action to safeguard others. People are aware of what they are aware of now because they saw, experienced it, heard it, read it etc. Limit what people see and it still occurs, you and they are just no longer aware of it. If you limited this study from being published you wouldn't have access to the information and we wouldn't be talking about it, for others it would be an unconscious expression that happened anyway but they were not aware of it. The idea that silencing someone will stop something is simply untrue, and worse is when you ask me or someone else to decide what should or shouldn't be permitted to be broadcast its even worse. As now i get to impose my way of life on you by default. The only exceptions to this are matters of safety, calling for violence, or breaking a law by harming someone. As long as people are safe and secure, not calling for violence to occur (theft, violence, intimidation etc) which I think is a definition which could be expanded to include certain associated rhetoric, then let people express their opinion and view. As an example. A few years ago I was personally globally moderated off youtube/google for speaking about a diversive topic before the current media was ready to talk about it. Which it now is. Realising I could no longer speak on youtube, without having all my comments filtered by a third party (not the channel itself but the platform) I went elsewhere. I still have those views, I still express them and if I didn't they would still be unconsciously in me and acted upon.

Seems you are missing the collective aspect that endures after you as an individual are dead. If you have no family, friends or funeral costs sure. Family might need taking care of, friends might benefit from a funeral, celebration, or moment, and others unrelated to you would benefit if you have enough money in your bank to take care of the arrangement after you die at a minimum. I mean if you work out how to leave money to your next life let me know , otherwise its only others you are thinking of if you do something like that.

I remember when I used to listen to tony robbins as a kid, someone who dedicated his entire life to financial success. He would say even he wanted 10% escapism time, and that's someone who for me is focused too much in the direction of materialism. Nothing wrong with that, just from my perspective.

It hopefully will allow people to do what they want to do. If they still want a factory job, they will be supervising and repairing the machines. If they still want to drive, there will be jobs for drivers, just a lot less of them. There will be new jobs created not only for engineers repairing AI, designing AI, selling AI, but other industries will open up by virtue of necessity. If they don't then employers will be forced to have a certain amount of staff for their level of income. Why? Because jobs = money, money = jobs. There will not be a factory producing things if people are not buying them. Of course the change could be more dramatic where money is no longer the motivating factor for doing something, or work becomes something for the collective rather than the individual, but that takes a certain level of idealism or imagination that I do not possess, or foresee in the medium term. *Also how likely do you think it is people on mass will want an AI doctor? I really don't see it, that's an incredible leap of trust. Maybe the AI can present options to the doctor at a click of a button.

For me peace can't have violence in it. People being stuck in camps isn't peaceful, violence is in the oppression of their movement or way of life. Even comparing your statement to the dictionary definition I just pulled had: 1. The absence of war or other hostilities. - No unless you mean just external. 2. An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities - Yes as nobodies around to treaty with, only your own people. 3. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations - Definitely No. 4. Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace - Not if there is active resistance. 5. Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind - Definitely No

Somewhat. Its not quite as mallable as I think you are making out. There are certain physical properties that can be easily demonstrated in front of someone. I had the benefit of doing a year or so in optics so vision being subjective was assumed from an early age. Now you are going to answer that measurements are subjective, yes but anything that can be physically demonstrated is what frames reality and makes a useful thing to form objective beliefs around. *If you need an objective physical property of an apple, drop it into your hand, you and everyone else capable of touch will feel its solid not liquid.

I don't know if this will help it may just anger you. The response you are getting here is what is seen globally. At the very least it gives you an idea of what is there, and by experiencing it you have been through it which has value. Although we are different in what we seek as I expressed. If I speak about my beliefs for what an ideal collective is, I am sure to (and have) got the responses of the same tone you did. The push back from the status quo is always there when any kind of change, even tiny ones about a small aspect of culture are expressed, and this a large contrast to what exists currently.

@MarkKol We are becoming more conscious, that's why you are aware of what you are now aware of in society and yourself. That's what the internet is an accelerator. We haven't just started to have the immaturity you speak of, I would call it state of being, its been there forever. Even just speaking developmentally, all points of view are useful for development, by limiting what people are exposed to into a narrow band or a handful of perspectives we limit their and our development. What's missing is: Space, understanding and reflection in processing the information given to us. Discipline, not anger posing as discipline, actual discipline. Social connection so its not all processed individually, or in a single channel, a handful of speakers etc, and has communal mind to balance it. Group channels that hold different perspectives are more valued in that respect. Trust. By constantly shoving one perspective into people, and saying this is how it is. People can quite easily begin to question that perspective. Its like trying to cover something that exists by cutting off other aspects, ultimately it leads to failure and resistance or struggle. Like this thread or me commenting on it. What we are doesn't go away, it just manifests somewhere else or worse builds to a large or traumatic release.

Yes, and also what is chosen for us.

Yes. This would be your relative or subjective view on the nature of apples. I would see them by type for example, that would be my relative or subjective view of an apple. I categorize and label for ease of reference. This opinion and post I am giving you now, its phrasing and structure is my relative view of your post. Relativism for me is the outward version of self inquiry.

I stopped using youtube years ago. Its been focusing attention on the major channels for a long time, and now it intends to keep their audience. Only its doing it in too obvious a way. As a very direct example which I suspect holds true for everyone. Search news and see how many results you get for independent or smaller news outlets.

I agree there isn't a zero percent chance of everyone, not someone, but everyone in the world making/living in peace with those they come into contact with or have a relationship with. Group consciousness or group behaviors can influence people enough to put peace before violence for example, by simply leveling and reinforcing those around them to a common perspective or action, but they can't remove the possibility of violence entirely, externally or internally. If you wanted something constructive to think about, working on methods of separation before violent act or emotion would be useful, allowing space for thought or intervention before simply acting on instinct. Emotion - SPACE - Action [Discipline]. This will be simpler than trying to get people on mass to show empathy for strangers, or dissolving an illusion that our lives are not connected. Part of me resists this after living with an addict for so long. If everyone in the world is capable of something, then purely by that definition it can happen again, there are so many people to allow for it. Even setting aside things like greed, bad upbringing, social issues, drugs etc which may eventually be addressed to a more peaceful resolution. There are mistakes, emotional reactions, psychological conditions, and violent accidents to consider. On a happier note, yes if people can heal something it fades. So if everyone in the world is capable of it, then yes it can also happen.

1) Always :D. It has to be a tough job on any one person's shoulders. So many factors i'll never see influencing them. We need to be looking to elect not just them but their entire team around them to have any hope of achieving what we need. Not a party, not an individual but a group of individuals in their roles. 2) Yes. That lie of not being able to admit fear drives leaders to do all kinds of stupid things to cover it. Like any truth or emotion. Thank you for the discussion.

I know little about the man so I can't comment on him, only the concept. I wouldn't live there as it takes part of life and over emphasizes it. Also living under a single figurehead of any kind for me is intolerable, because they can't be held accountable or removed if they do something harmful enough to warrant it. I realise others appreciate this type of government/leadership so I am not looking for the pros and cons. However everyone receives opposition from the status quo. That's why things change very slowly and also why you receive these answers reflecting experience. A couple more theocracies on the planet won't hurt it much more than other government types have done, it might add something as a collective we lack. Its isolated on a small island so I don't feel its situation or fate will be the same as Tibet. You need plenty of what spiritual people are inclined to overlook just to hold a non status quo position, let alone make a change. So it will be interesting to see what happens to it. An experiment on an island seems a good place for it. Watch from a far and see what happens.

I don't know of it'll help but a lot of men i've known have struggled with the same issue. Especially if you are young and the drive is there to do your own thing. This seems to be a core issue. Never get children unless you want them and they are right for you. Even if you are a nice person you can do a lot of damage to a kid if you don't actually want to have them or the responsibility of them. >>I’m not sure that I’m ready to settle down for the rest of my life and that’s the direction my relationship is heading. >>But on the flip side we’ve build a great thing over the last couple years and really vibe. After a long think and time alone on how you feel. Time to do the hard thing, talk to her and see how she feels. If you are feeling this way and its not just nerves talking. Phrase it in the not being ready for a family and marriage sense, be honest, open and you'll know if it can work out anyway. How the relationship goes is her decision as well, not just yours, that's the tough bit of relationships. But with communication you'll know if you can last together anyway. Wish you the best.

I had to uncondition myself. To understand emotions were natural and healthy to feel, that took 10 years or so. There was a period people were considered to be over emotional at large, but I feel that was simply decades or more of men being told not to feel coming to the surface collectively. You have emotions and if you don't use them, you are cutting off part of yourself, like an arm or leg. Now I speak from the heart and the head together (Most of the time ). It also removes the need for lying that people talk about on the forum, I just realised that right now that they struggle with, so thank you. Don't get me wrong, people can still be too emotional for their own good, just like they can be too cold for their own good, but that's not for me or you to tell them.

I am from the UK so understand this is not a dig at the UK. Strangely I think the EU will more likely become federal without the UK or Turkey in it. Turkey because of the Greek - Turkish border tension that flared up awhile ago, and the UK because its much more anti European Hegemony than for it. The further Europe went in that direction the more the UK pulled back. The balkland region might also have problems with border disputes if the EU accepts them and they go federal. Internal issues like these linked notwithstanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe *Some of these are large some are very minor. As it is right now, the EU is in its strongest position to become federal, but it would have to be done in a very careful and clever way. People likely couldn't lose their national identity, you can see the push back in europe right now and that's centuries of conditioning into that identity. Would it be beneficial to lose this identity anyway longterm? A federal europe stops border disputes and fighting over land, to an extent, but a lot of culture and political self governance is lost as a result. There is a breakdown of identity and a certain amount of apathy which comes as a result which is being seen right now as identities are eroded, though its only one of the factors, lack of trust, self interested groups pulling it apart etc being others. Do I think it will go federal, I think its more likely to go federal than it is to splinter but I don't rule either out, nor do I rule out it staying exactly as it is.

I was born in the early 80s UK. So I don't have a point of reference for the 70's much beyond what history I was taught, which wasn't much of the immediate era preceeding that. History lessons were mostly focused on the medieval period, ww2, ww1, renaissance etc. Its possible tensions were higher in the cold war period between two large alliances. Certainly a 40 year old american who also was born afterwards, might well say that, but we didn't talk about it in England after the fact much. Whereas we are still talking about the middle east, china borders, russia borders, european nationalism, (rise of the right generally), disinformation and polarization are at the highest i've ever seen them globally. People focus on two countries still today in discussion, but I am talking about all the border disputes currently ongoing and internal tensions which have been arrising for the last couple of decades or so.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes here are the external ones, but there is plenty of internal powershifts going on right now that you see talked about.

'If you think of assets beyond a certain level .... you are doing capital allocation.' All tax is capital allocation.

True I regretted that when I wrote it. 1st world war era was more tense for example, middle ages etc. Certainly in my lifetime of 40+ years though, this is the most tense period I can recall.

Would you want to? Nobody here can say yes or no to what's going to happen next with certainty. That's sort of the point.

Isn't what you said an interpretation as well OP? Relativism taken to the extreme folds in on itself. (I still enjoy it )

There was a time when Russia was closer to actually joining Nato, what a different world that would have been. On the EU's army. Until the last few years heck no, we don't want to encourage further militarisation. Right now yes. Its needed. The world is less stable than ever. When I see the UK cutting its military budget I sigh. I think individual countries struggle to justify having a large military budget, but large alliances can do so with less domestic push back.

Hemp has a multitude of uses, such as fuel, cosmetics, clothing, ropes etc. Fuel alone means it'll never be legalized worldwide until the fossil fuel interests are finally disempowered. We are getting there at a snails pace. The key being having the people with the money no longer care becase they are already in renewables.

No. Have you ever met someone you couldn't make angry?