Nilsi

We have a different definition of double standards then. I do something to get an advantage (eat the fish), yet if everybody did it, it would put me at a disadvantage (no more fish). The only reason I can eat fish in the first place, is, because not everybody eats as much fish as me. I will admit that the fish example was not the best, but you can substitute it for example with cheating in an IQ test, using instagram beauty filters, multi level marketing etc. I guess you could say these are more a subset of double standards, but you could actually apply all double standards to this, if you use the right level of abstraction (but really its about those double standards that lead to a competitive advantage).

The problem with uncovering ones own double standards puts one in the classic game theoretic conundrum of the multipolar trap (it would be better for all if noone did it, but since everyone else is doing it, I have to do it to stay competitive). Say I dont want the oceans to be overfished, yet fish is an integral part of my diet. If I bring this contradiction to light, I can a) not eat fish anymore; this puts me at an absolute disadvantage, since I miss important nutrients like proteins and Omega-3s, that I cant easily substitute; it also puts me at a relative disadvantage since my fellow humans will keep eating fish anyways OR b) change my ethics around overfishing; this results in me adopting some kind of libertarian worldview, thus reinforcing a race to the bottom, where everyone is seeking a short-term advantage to the long-term detriment of all (at some point there will be no fish left). Whats needed here (and in any example of double standards) is actually a systemic solution e.g. understanding population dynamics of fish and fishing an optimal amount of fish, to keep the population in a fluctuating equilibrium; advancing synthetic biology to create fish analogs etc. There are two strange attractors on the other side of uncovering ones personal double standards; you either end up an ascetic or a libertarian. This is why you ultimately can not separate personal development and systems theory, and doing so is only a red hering, that distracts from the real underlying problmes that have to be solved.

Go back to my original post and replace the fishing example with any other double standard - ITS NOT ABOUT THE FISH!

Im aware, I just didnt think my point was that hard to grasp.

This is not what Im talking about though. If there was no demand, nobody would have to "illegally" fish. Using this fish example was a big mistake

Its not, in this case. I misunderstood you. You got to be joking.

My point is not illegal fishing why do you bring this up? There is nothing "illegal" going on here. These are systemic issues, that automatically arise under certain conditions. This is not about pointing fingers - there is no one to blame here. The consumer and the "illegal" fisher are co-dependently arising; there can be no consumer without a fisher, and no fisher without a consumer.

Im not so much concerned about rules here. There really are no rules as to how much fish there have to be in the oceans, or how much trees there have to be in the amazon rainforest. Furthermore, if there were rules, people would just break em, so thats no solution either.

Because youre a hypocrite

lol Why do you think there is reckless (illegal) fishing? Fishers are not manufacturing demand for fish. People demand a lot of fish, which the fishers supply to them. There is no one to blame here.

Being myself i.e. eating fish, while worrying about overfishing IS the double standard. Im precisely not suggesting that this is me doing something wrong, its just the nature of the beast, hence the title of this thred.

Im not saying I cast the vote. Im saying many people eating fish is how the vote is cast. If I stop, nothing changes. If we all stop, there will be no more overfishing. Overfishing, in this case, is an emergent phenomenon of many people consuming fish.

Even basic survival needs like food, shelter, electricity are currently not sustainable and will cause our system to break down, if it keeps going on thus trajectory. In your day to day choices, you almost always have to choose between giving up some advantage for the benefit of the whole OR gaining an advantage to the detriment of the whole. What we have to do is to set up our systems in such a way, that there are more possible choices, that benefit you and the whole simultaneously.

The problem is that if I buy fish, Im part of the problem. Everybody that eats fish doesnt think they vote for overfishing, yet if enough people buy it, thats exactly how the vote is cast.

Thats what you supply, hence the symbiotic relationship between men and machine. AI probably wont come up with a great movie itself, but if it operates on your hardware, its not that hard to imagine that it could.

All environmental circumstances are kinda "forced on you," no? Yet, you have to make choices about ethics anyway. If you choose "selflessness" everytime, your organism will end up dead in no time, so thats not a viable strategy.

Either you ask or you probe through escalation - its not that complicated.

Its even worse - you can cut the middleman and produce all this shit as the consumer, just through pure will or dreaming or whatever you wanna call it. This is where mysticism and technology will intersect.

That would be a very naive "woke" person. A person that thinks holistically would know that starving to death isnt helping all your brothers and sisters that are starving to death as well, and that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to build a better, more just system. Its a slippery slope of course, but just rolling over and dying is unacceptable in my view.

I can just tell my AI to create an artwork of x in the style of Aaron Limonick. It really is that bad, and there really will be no need for any human artists in the forseeable future. Everyone will just create whatever art they want to consume on the fly, and with brain-machine interfaces, it is even feasible to have AI create art based on your current neurochemical state or whatever, that pushes all the right buttons for you - in real time. As far as making art just for arts sake - great! but dont expect to get paid for that.

Check out Ken Wilbers work, he talks about this ad nauseam. Also, since you are aware of spiral dynamics, you will know, that postmodernism is called stage green, and there are two higher states being postulated - should make you wonder, whether postomoderinsim is really that sophisticated.

I cant take Andrew Schulz talking about awakening seriously for some reason.

"Hey, are you in a commited relationship right now?"

This is one of the greatest dance records ever IMO, and comes stylistically quite close to your prompt.

Im working on both I dont mean to over-complicate things, its just that there is precise language to communicate my point, so I might as well use it. I dont think my point requires any prior knowledge of these concepts to be understood.