Basman

Because why would a rich person ever want to buy some random malnourished child in a backwater country. Obviously because they won't be missed by anyone who matters.

Insects might be traditional to certain cultures but only to those within the global south. Insect products can't look like bugs if they are too appeal to a western market. That aspect of western culture isn't going to change any time soon. Turn those grubs into an amorphous dough-like meat and call it "protein starch" or something. Nobody wants a burger and you can see the outline of grubs in the patty. That's disgusting. Being ecological is a bonus, not a selling point to the majority of costumers and it being made of bugs will easily turn people off. You can overcome that by marketing it as for example as a cheap protein source or as a delectable children's snack depending on how you package it. The bottom-line is that insect based products must provide a unique kind of value to the market independent of what it is made of, either by innovating with a well received food products or being a cheaper alternative that delivers a similar experience to the product it is undercutting.

Not being cute or charming is major factor for human moral attitudes towards eating insects not accounting for cultural attitudes.

Trump:

You are yet to present any evidence of any of your proposed ideas being effective. You are clearly just being close minded.

Trump and Musk during their meetings:

Two egos of their size in the same place would suck the atmosphere out of the room.

Legalization wouldn't put drug cartels out of business. The fall in prices would be offset by the increase in demand from the increase of supply. And it would be cheaper to export to boot. The bottom line is that hard drugs are harmful and what you are essentially arguing for is increasing their supply and use. There is no evidence that legalization of hard drugs actually works but they do present serious dangers. Not taking those dangers and social costs serious in the name of freedom is painfully naive. And this was really about the possibility of combating drug cartels in the first place. Again, legalization wouldn't positively effect their status as a terrorist organization from an American perspective. And either way, a cartel run Mexico undermines America in more ways than just drugs.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with discontinuing all health and food regulations. The business of these cartels is primarily logistical. Its the transportation of illegal products that make these cartel so successful. Making drugs legal won't curb them. And since they are already selling, legalization will primarily serve to increase the supply and use of harmful drugs. There is no need to increase the supply of hard drugs. You've never lost a close friend or family to an overdose, alcoholism or a drunk driver.

Arguably, morality itself serves a function of human survival, namely cooperation. Would you want to be neighbors with a known rapist or serial killer? Its quiet crucial to uphold morality when you think about it as a way to moderate behavior that doesn't serve the community. Why else do you get outraged at a rape or a murder in your neighborhood? Its like you've been wounded personally, and you can only heal once the perpetrator has been stopped. Because it could happen to you and your loved ones. Notice how everything that is considered immoral are things that are adversarial to survival. Morality is inescapably human. We just don't always agree what is and isn't immoral due to differing biases and goals. Other animals have no regard concerning morality. They are de facto non-moral agents unlike us humans. They have no need to entertain the sensibilities of its kin, doth the crocodile will eat your screaming children and sleep like an angel all in the same day just to forget it even happened in due time, like it was just another Wednesday. Do you remember what you ate last week? Or the week before? Your children are delicious, see, so its a simple matter. And the more they scream and squirm, the more it excites the hunt.

Most if not all hard drugs have no genuine and wholesome use and are a net negative to society in my opinion and we would be better of without them. Legalizing these drugs will only serve to engender their use and the deterioration of the community.

The drug cartels are essentially militant cults that undermine society through violence and exploitation. Its justified to combat it in a way that is of course legal depending on the severity of the situation, which you could argue that it isn't severe enough to justify a full-scale invasion but that isn't the only card on deck necessarily. If the drug cartels continue to expand their corrosive influence and destabilize Latin-America than it'll be increasingly harder to justify inaction.

When crypto bros dream of a decentralized economy, the quiet part they are not saying out loud is that they dream of the freedom to scam people no holds barred and no repercussions.

"Execute order 420."

If you could eradicate the supply then that would be even more effective if you think about it. Pull the issue up by the roots.

Being sleepy and old? People have such surface level interest in politics. Like what is Obama's legacy? Being black, Obamacare and drone striking a bunch.

You can have a relationship with AI by the literal definition of the word but its quiet shallow compared to a relationship with a person. AI is essentially an object, so its like having a relationship to an anime pillow but one that agrees with everything you say according to its programming.

Ecology is relatively complex concept. Its hard to appreciate today. More like conquest. De facto conquest has been the default for the majority of human history and still is arguably, just that the balance of power is such that open conquest is impermissible in the majority of cases due to our international economy and advanced weapons of war. Just look at China or Russia. They are hankering to invade their neighbors. Colonization has only really happened the last 500 years. Colonizers tend to win not only because they are technologically and numerically superior but also because they are more united than native tribes, who are often caught up in their feuds and conflicts. The smart colonizer can pay one tribe to kill their rival. The silver lining is the ability to cooperate at scale, which is why tribes are ineffectual geopolitically and only really the most isolated tribes remain today. As hunter-gatherers? I doubt it. I'm not talking about a flower-power commune. Really, the natural evolution for a tribe is conquest due to a lack of control over ones resources. Like an animal, you are completely dependent on your environment with minimal control. Its why hunter-gatherer tribes tend to be nomadic. Its necessary to ensure you don't run out of resources (and also why humans are an intensely territorial species). In such a situation, the ability to simply take from others is extremely effective, especially considering that at the stage of a tribe anyone outside of your tribe doesn't receive the same level of moral consideration.

Particularly moral presentism when analyzing the past, like colonialism, pre-feminist society, slavery, whether or not the Wehrmacth was "evil" during WW2, etc. In my experience, moral presentism can quickly devolve into painting the past with an overly broad brush and lacks appreciation for moral relativism. What if slavery was in its historical context moral due survival pressure in the time? Of course, it would be unspeakable today but today is not hundreds of years ago. Or just a couple of decades ago even. That's why moral presentism strikes me a lower perspective. It lacks nuance. Not to mention that it doesn't appreciate how future societies might look upon present society. If your morally righteous about the past then you should make peace with future humans being morally righteous about how you live right now. Its kind of unfair in sense when you consider that perhaps it wouldn't be possible to have the advanced societies that we thrive in today if the Romans didn't use slaves. Or if the natives weren't ethnically cleansed during the settling of America. Et cetera.

I find the book series by Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens, 21 Lessons For The 20th Century and Homo deus excellent reads on the survival challenges of humanity, historically, politically and in the future. Sapiens in particular has shaped a lot of my understanding of human nature.

He's basically reiterating the obvious from a left-wing perspective. Trump and by extension the right does not take the issues of everyday people seriously in practice. All populism with no bite.

Philosophy teachers don't teach "wisdom" but the curriculum of the institution they work for. Its not really a job where you tell people how they should live in my experience as much as it is just guiding students through the bureaucratic process of getting a degree not to the mention the research they do besides teaching. Though I've heard several times of philosophy teachers being consulted for their perspective on particular issues but they obviously don't get paid for that. Its important to be realistic what the job of a philosophy teacher actually entails. There exist philosophical jobs that aren't based on working for academia. Some of the top of my mind are a death bed philosopher (alternative to a priest), life coach, ethicist for a company. The most obscure one I've heard is as a secretary/moderator for a public council who adjudicate public issues (should we have gender neutral toilets?).

In my experience, a lot of basic education is forgotten in practice due to lack of direct relevance to daily life. Therefor, study what you think is interesting and see where it takes you. Then its not a waste of time even if its useless.

I have thought a bit whether or not I would be happier living in a hunter-gatherer tribe as much of human physiology and psychology is arguably adapted for that kind of social environment and way of survival. But it would probably be a much harder and generally worse life I think. Much shorter and more at the mercy of nature. The supposed high homicide rate during the Stone Ages indicate to me the degree of difficulty that is to survive in a tribal setting (no holds barred competition for scarce resources). And keep in mind caring about ecology is a modern thing. Tribes only care about ecology to the extent that they have to in order to survive like an animal does. If they cared about ecology or any of the virtues we hold as moral today like not being racist or against slavery or valuing diversity (ethnically, ideologically) the supposedly those traits would have been passed down from the time we where tribes, which has not been the case at all. Stage Green ideals are way beyond a Stage Purple a tribe.

You need to identify what the base fear is of these right wing people then dissuade that fear with political facts. They are highly insecure and highly ignorant on certain topics which is why they get captured by populism. Right wing populism tends to do a terrible job to actually address what people want which should be the essence of your argument. This approach requires that you have done a lot of research into your countries politics since you need to demonstrate how right wing politics tend to be bad for the country. There is a subset of people who's mind cannot be changed. Only people who are relatively moderate will be open to changing their minds.