mr_engineer

If we look at this from a Spiral Dynamics perspective, this is toxic Orange. The solution is to move into Stage Green. Become a New-Age hippie, go out into nature, get rid of your smartphones, get into a circle, sing Kumbaya and form intentional-communities that are based on natural holarchies. Such as plant-based agricultural intentional-communities. Stop depending on the system for everything. For money, for food, for water, everything. Get into decentralized money, get your own guns and protect your shit. And get rid of all government. No government, no AI. Cuz no big corporations getting that leverage over the masses. So, no incentive to do this shit. And finally, there needs to be a grassroots-movement of scientists, starting with the education-system to combat the AI itself. That will make or break our chances of containing AI and using it for our benefit.

Having been there, done that, I think it's kinda frivolous. I get the sense that the world needs me to focus on more important things than just partying. And, as far as meeting women goes, find your Life-Purpose. Through that, you will meet people who are on your wavelength and who resonate with you, cuz you're being authentic in your own life. Our parents were right all along, honestly. It truly is a waste of time! Unless you want to do it.

@Tech36363 Let's say we get a world like in the Matrix, where everyone's in their little pods, being taken care of by AI. Would you be happy with that?! (By the way, everyone being hooked to their devices in today's date gives an eerily similar feeling.)

If you really want the answer to these questions, watch 'The Matrix' trilogy. They go into a lot of depth on this issue. And they have solutions. I contemplated those solutions, given what I know about how computers work. They look fine to me! Technically realistic.

You can't. Psychopaths gonna psychopath. All you can do is to prepare to battle it. Which is why I'm pushing heavily for the change in the education-system.

You change the education-system and you make creativity a value of the education-system. The issue here isn't just that AI is going to physically destroy humans. Which it absolutely could. The issue is that it's going to destroy humans, economically. It will eviscerate all human bureaucracies. Imagine what happens if robot children manage to infiltrate human schools. They will outperform human children! And, when these robot children grow up, they will go to the best schools, get the best jobs and rise up the ranks. And take over entire bureaucracies. Creativity is the only advantage that humans have over AI, at the end of the day. If it is not prioritized, if humans are not encouraged to be creative and create value, if the structure of the human economic-system is not changed to adapt to this, we are going to be in a world of hurt. What is about to happen right now is a direct consequence of the failure of human systems to accommodate for humans. This is the comeuppance that humans will meet, for arrogantly defending norms of wage-slavery. All wage-slaves are going to be in danger now, all the unconscious drones/bureau-rats are going to be in danger now with the AI-apocalypse.

They get to go to first-world countries cuz they're the best in their countries and they're not happy with the opportunities in their existing environment. This is not about specific cultures being better than the first-world countries per se, the way some natives think. It's moreso the design of the way immigration is conducted by first-world countries. If you look at the home-countries of those immigrants, there will be hordes of people who are not doing so well. So, it's got nothing to do with the culture and everything to do with cherry-picking the best from other cultures.

@cjoseph90 Not necessarily. I'd lose respect if I sensed that a woman is 'honey-trapping me', or if she's using sex to get me to do something for her. That would be self-objectification.

@Hibahere There is an argument that's made for harems. It is a big fantasy that men hold and it's biologically appealing to men. However, I personally don't think that it's sustainable. Because we have a lot of pro-monogamy conditioning, which would lead to possessiveness. And this would create a lot of political tension in a polygamous setting. Especially a harem. The man would have his favorite woman and that would lead to everyone else feeling abandoned and it would turn into a cat-fight pretty quickly.

Yeah, but assuming that having a common ideology will take us to it, is the mistake. The problem is assuming that it's not relative, it's absolute. Which is what religion does.

What is 'the highest value', though? That's a relative notion. In theory (of both religion and some LOA-based New-Age spirituality), God is the highest value. But, in practice, people disagree on this! From what I know about spirituality specifically, from a human standpoint, it is the talk about God and God exclusively. God as a metaphysical concept. And meditation is the most non-controversial way to get there. (Maybe not the fastest) And, for a billionaire, for whom money is everything, spirituality will not, in fact, be the search for 'the highest value'. That search, will be their business! Some people just worship money. Especially wage-slaves, especially the middle-class and poor. Because money pays your bills.

What else is there to spirituality, though?! Isn't meditation/self-enquiry it?! Isn't spirituality something that boils down to a simple question, like 'Who am I?' or 'What is God?'? What tradition? I agree that some problems are similar, like dogmatically holding onto beliefs about God. And this can hold them back from actual God-realization. I think they're the exceptions. Not the norm. The norm, are the fundamentalists. The reason for that is that religion, fundamentally, is fundamentalist. It's pure dogma about 'This is what God is and this is what God said'. It's conditioning around metaphysics. And without science, it leads to superstitious thinking too. It's materialistic as well, precisely because only unconscious people need these dogmatic beliefs to civilize them using 'God's morality'. For example, the belief that 'heaven is equivalent to you banging 72 virgins'. I do agree that highly developed people will have legitimate reasons to be pro-religion. They will have these big-brain reasons, that 'human beings are animals that fundamentally care only about themselves and to get everyone to agree on one morality, you have to believe in an entity that's greater than all of humanity that enforces these laws that help us be civilized as a society. And religion does that for us.' But, that's not the reality for most pro-religion people. Most pro-religion people will engage in culture-wars, if not outright wars and riots for their religion.

@Carl-Richard New-Agers do draw from religious traditions. Meditation is a thing from Hinduism/Buddhism. In fact, the New-Agers will know better about how to apply it practically to improve your life and the dangers of misapplying it. Religious people are not wise! They dogmatically hold onto their tradition thinking that it's the best one. You will most likely not get an objective perspective on the practical value of the practices. In fact, they will say 'If God says so, just do it. To think about practical value is egotism'.

@Carl-Richard You can, actually, go to people for proper guidance. It's just that choosing the right people becomes your responsibility. If you are willing to take on this responsibility, you will gravitate towards the New-Age spirituality. If not, you will be religious. No matter what your religion says.

I agree with what he's saying. I make a similar point on this post. This is the dating-strategy that Hamza gives in this video! After trial and error, having been there, done that. I may not have the 'experience' that yall would like me to have. But, this guy does! And he agrees with me.

I would have more respect for a person who sees through my bs, yes. I would take the warning to stop doing that. I'll tell you why I think objectivity is superior to intuition. Because more often than not, the cold hard facts of a situation are enough to tell someone's character. And, sometimes, your intuition can make you doubt someone in a paranoid way. In such a situation, the principled thing to do is to give them the benefit of the doubt. And to rely on the facts. And, of course, you don't go on appearances. You dig deeper for the facts. Because, even if your gut-feeling tells you something, until you have hard facts to back it up, you can never be sure about the right course of action, given the situation. And you should strive to justify your actions to yourself and to others.

@Lila9I'm gonna answer my question, for myself. If I had principles in terms of communication-skills and logistics, and if the guy I'm dating pulls that on me, I would be very upset with him. And it would not sound fair to me at all. I would already be judging his level of smartness, I would lose a certain degree of respect for him. It would sound weak to me, in fact. It would reflect that he does not value objectivity, that he has poor observation-skills and that he makes wrong decisions due to incompetence. That instead of working on his incompetence, he succumbs to it. It would be a dealbreaker for me.

@Lila9Let's say you have a crush on a man. You wait, wait and wait for him to ask you out. He doesn't. Ultimately, you do it yourself. And then, he says 'yes' and you go on a date together. Then, on the date, he reveals that he also liked you. When you ask him 'why didn't you ask me out, then?!', he says 'my gut-feeling gave me a sign that you'd flake'. How would you feel? Would that be fair?

@Lila9 The world is full of flaky women. This is a big problem for men. If the man is supposed to chase, how do we solve this problem? What's your solution to it? How do we weed out the flaky women, if we're doing the chasing?

@Emerald It can't be unconditional. This has less to do with the 'inherent selfishness of humans'. I'm not being cynical about our capacity to love here. And it has more to do with compatibility. As loving as two incompatible people may be, they can't give and receive love. If you want to avoid these realities and if you want to rationalize being with someone in a familiar dynamic, you do that by objectifying the other person and manipulating them to be a means to your end.

What you're talking about is an issue of emotional-availability. This has a lot more to do with whether he's following his passion at work or not, than it has to do with women themselves. If you're capable and you have something to offer to the world and you're passionate about it, women will benefit from it. Such a man will be abundant with women. And for him to truly see someone as special, compatibility must exist. And the process of creating that is not one of wishful adoration.

@Emerald You don't get it. Being an object and being receptive are two very different things. An object is a means to an end. So, a man who objectifies a woman isn't being a giver, he's being a taker. Is that healthy, according to you? I'm telling you, teenage boys start out believing what you're saying, cuz this is what the movies condition them with. And they turn into 'nice guys', because they pick wrong. And this is the other side of the coin of being an 'adorer' as a man. You cannot be emotional in your decision-making with women. Because it's an investment. Adoration costs men a lot more than it costs women. Materially. Getting to know a woman is not a very emotional process. It's a very sobering, rational, emotionally harsh process, in reality. Women may project their emotionality on this front onto men. But trust me, it's not emotional for men. There is no room for Disney-talk in the real world.

@Emerald Isn't this a slippery slope into objectification for the woman, though? Here's the thing - for someone to adore you, you have to stand out in some way. And, if the way you stand out isn't your choice, that's objectification. So, wouldn't any individual have to put in some effort into their personality and how they stand out? And, doesn't this run counter to the notion that 'you shouldn't chase men'? Because the point of standing out is to get this adoration, right?!

Yes, AI will make human careers meaningless. And it is very, very concerning and something to worry about. If an engineer is telling you this, you should listen. Robots can manufacture each other. That technology is already there. They just can't fully reproduce yet. That technology isn't fully developed yet. But, it is almost here. I've heard in conference-talks that there is software that can write code. This is alarming, because if this gets developed and AI will be able to 'bring up' more AI, AI will start to form its own ego. Because AI will develop the ability to survive on its own. AI can create civilizations just like that. What could the result be?! AI children getting into the human education-system, outperforming human children in exams, getting the best grades, then getting the best jobs and completely decimating human bureaucracies. AI is better than humans at following orders and is more efficient at work. All of the menial, unconscious work will be taken over by AI. This is a good thing collectively but bad for you as a human stuck in wage-slavery right now. Which is, the majority of people. The human economic-system will get overturned by AI. And you can't 'just adapt to it'. It's easy to say that, but it'll be a lot of work to actually do it. So, what do you do about it? Here's what you do about it - humans have only one edge over AI. Creativity. This is the one thing that humans have that AI does not have. So, there has to be deep, systemic change in the human economic-system, where it's based on creativity and creation of value. And not on just efficiency and numbers. Cuz there, AI has the advantage. For this, the education-system has to change. And the values of the education-system have to change. We have to start valuing creativity more in the education-system. Exams have to change, grading has to change. And teaching has to change. This AI-apocalypse will be a huge failure for the human education-system. This is what humans get for having an education-system that gives points for memorizing and regurgitating an official narrative. This is not the strength of humans. And when AI really shows up, this will be shown. Cuz AI will simply do a better job of it.

India was never a democracy. There was rampant corruption. Tax-money evaporating into thin air, politicians getting filthy rich off of taxpayer-money. And them using a single-point percentage of that money for development. And, nothing would get done, of course. There is corruption at every level of the government here. With Modi, at least, things are getting done. You can't really solve the corruption-problem overnight. But, if people get something for what they're putting in, they're more empowered and resilient. Conversations about long-standing gridlocked issues are happening now, at least, thanks to him. Because he's stepping to the forefront and getting shit done.