Basman

Inspired by that blog post about digging up dino bones for rich people (that belongs in a museum by the way). Compile here all unique careers and life purposes that you have come across so we can expand our imagination for what is possible. If it's online, paste a link and explain a little bit what makes it special and/or interesting or just write about it. Feel free to share your own life purpose. --- I'll start. This company is specialized in making food commercials. It's a highly artistic job that combines the culinary arts with cinematography and engineering.

Communal living is how humans have survived for thousands of years, since before humans where recognizably sapien. It's the norm and it is social atomization that is the exception. Communal living is how humans survive in nature when they don't have a big government taking care of them. And it's clear atomization has certain issues and limitations that are dysfunctional, like increased loneliness, lack of purpose, poorer health and a society that is overall more fragile and dependent on institutional resources. Like when the housing market is in a bad place, it more readily stagnates and loses it's ability to give people dignified lives. In the middle-ages people had to be nearly completely self-sufficient with the exception of military, which was what the role of the king amounted to essentially (in simple terms). Middle-age people knew how to survive. And it absolutely is a matter of culture. Where did the notion that moving out or becoming completely financially self-sufficient are basic milestones of adulthood? Multi-generational homes are common in Italy and that is not a poor country. If there's no baseline appetite for valuing connection over independence, then the idea of multi-generational living becoming normative will never take off in a way that has cultural staying power. For a similar reason, you can't introduce western style feminism and democracy in the middle-east. Values determine what your willing to open your mind to, if at all. Survival ultimately decides what works and atomization is a survival strategy in a globalist economy. If the assumption that atomization is substantially dysfunctional then you'll see people opting into the alternative out of necessity, which is partially already the case right now in my opinion. Indians immigrants are a great example of a successful demographic which is strong in big part to strong family ties. That is a culture with family values (to borrow a historically misused term). Though granted it comes with downsides with pressures to conform. My vision of multi-generational living would minimize toxic conformity, but of course it is only realistically possible to maximally transcend conformity through autonomy. This whole thing is not meant for people who are trying to awaken.

Historically the norm, but since post-war there has been a period where it became the norm to move out as soon as you gained financial independence and for the general population to atomize, but now it is becoming more common again for adult children to live with their parents due to the economy and all. Historically, independent living is a luxury to a certain degree. I find this exciting because it feels like nature is healing in a way. The atomizing of society has had certain negative effects and eroded much of its community. There are a number of important and significant things that multi-generational living can provide, such as stronger bonding, stronger financial and social resources and support for raising children, taking care of elderly, etc. Divvying up responsibilities can get those people really good at their responsibility, like a traditional housewives in the old days could be extremely good cooks (not saying that we should go back to traditional gender roles by the way or to the same capacity). Apes together strong basically. When everyone has to survive on their own as independent units, we're overall less effective socially compared to communal cooperation. My hope is that multi-generational living could help prevent certain social issues, such as the mental health crisis, the elderly crisis, and preventing overstretching healthcare, housing and other social goods. Overall, people will be effectively more self-sufficient which frees up more resources. In our modern age, we have forgotten how to survive without relying on faceless institutions. Historically, we survived communally by pooling our resources and assigning responsibilities. A degree of communal living could make society much more effective, healthier and happier and help insulate against institutional failure/collapse, like elderly neglect at big senior homes or economic downturn. Communes is how humans survive in the absence of a government taking care of their survival after all. Western and especially American culture is very independent though (America also has a lot of land) and it's no longer a given that work is locally accessible, a big reason why people move away from their families. We don't exactly build houses for multi-generational living and we have higher standards than Cambodians. We're not all going to be sleeping in one giant bed in a tiny living room if we can afford otherwise. It would demand greater interpersonal and communication skills and certain personalities are not built for it or get along with their family like that. If you don't want to play the game you shouldn't have to. Culture is probably the biggest barrier to accessing this social strategy in the absence of economic restraint.

True, but generally you need autonomy to not be subject to conformist pressure. Good luck breaking from religion on your parent's money.

People on this forum are overall going to have a greater bias and need for independence and avoid conformity. It's correct then to be more autonomous.

Can only happen if you have the culture for it. The west is too independent minded to even consider it without interpreting it as a kind of failure.

The average person doesn't agree with mass migration or transitioning kids, propaganda or not.

I'm speaking from a top down kind of perspective. I'm myself a young adult dependent on my parents due to economic circumstances. If something dysfunctional is crystalizing into bad results then we have an opportunity to seriously discuss the solutions. You should become more economically strong personally, but why do you assume that independence should be the end goal of that? Consider that independence isn't inherently a virtue and that there is a lot of social goodies that comes from an intentional multi-generational living situation that provides society a lot of value that can't be provided by simply dumping resources into some institution or organization. The underlying principle that I'm trying to communicate is that the populace should take a greater degree of responsibility for their survival and that being wholly dependent on the government isn't sufficient for survival or for happiness. Greater independence on a societal scale just means that your dependent on the government for social resources to help you survive to a greater degree, like childcare, education, elder care, health care (to a certain degree), social development, etc. Another underlying principle that I base my idea on is that nature tends to be functionally superior to technology and bureaucratic practice. A lab meat factory requires expensive machines, maintain constant sterility and hire a bunch of skilled experts to produce what pigs do effortlessly while eating trash and rolling around in the mud. Artificial processes tend to be more expensive and complicated than natural ones. The idea of intentional multi-generational living is that it reintroduces some human nature, based on the assumption that it works.

I'm not arguing for economic codependency but for cooperation and intentionally building a community. What I am questioning is if the economic and social independence that we have now since the post-war is sustainable or even desirable. If atomization causes social and financial strain, both personally and societally, then greater cooperation could not only help solve that but also prevent future issues.

To clarify one of my arguments, I think too much social atomization is dysfunctional societally and politically. It strains resources and makes people lonelier. It's antithetical to how humans are built.

That's just the economic reality of it currently and a bit besides the point. Being able to afford your own house is a luxury. It's a cultural expectancy based on post-war economics that made it normative to buy your own home. The more time passes, the further we move away from the economic golden age of the boomers. You expect and value independence maximally like it's a given. There's a good chance that's your culture speaking. Just try to consider the benefits for second. A lot of our social problems are due to a lack of social connections.

Walks like cope, swims like cope, and quacks like cope. Probably cope.

Ignore the will of the people at your own peril.

The rise of nazism was in part due to democratic decline. Your missing the point.

The issue with self-diagnosing is that it's difficult to account for differentials. Like for example CPTSD can give similar symptoms to autism relative to socializing. Things can be more complex than a simple check list of symptoms. Checking symptoms is the easy part, so to speak. It's also true for diagnosing others, which I think is mildly unethical as well. The point of a diagnosis is so professionals can better treat you. It is generally better to make statements about certain behaviors being in line with certain symptoms of autism than a blanket statement "X person is autistic". Like, how would you know?

This is an issue of the system itself undermining democracy. Tampering is minor compared to that.

I think it is interesting how in this sorts of discussions nobody really thinks about what the populace wants. People did vote for politicians like Trump because he gives them a sense of agency over a political system that seems obtuse and unmanageable while at the same being angry over policy that didn't get their consent, like immigration. More technocracy isn't going to solve anything without also addressing a fundamental distrust in institutions. Civic consent is an issue that a lot of liberal types tend to gloss over, but it is fundamental to a healthy democracy. A lot of "wokiesm" and culture wars is in part about policy being implemented without civic consent, like immigration or trans stuff.

China is a capitalist country.

Legit CIA-worthy resume shit LOL. That's really cool. I bet you could use those skills working for some kind of agency, if your a little "morally flexible".

29/36 ✌️😎 I think I did that test once before. When you try to "figure it out" instead of just going with the flow your more likely going to get it wrong. Could use less obscure wording though. Who the fuck uses "incredulous" to describe someone? Bro's feeling a little discombobulated.

I saw a video once of an elderly Sonic living in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by Deviant Art OCs. He was being accosted by the diaper gang. They where crawling on walls and shit. I think about that sometimes.

I'm pretty sure Trump is neurodivergent.

How? The reason it didn't catch on unlike AI is because it didn't provide any tangible value besides being an avenue for degenerate speculation. What's the point in introducing scarcity to one of the few mediums where scarcity is inherently absent? The only NFT-like thing that is successful that I can come up with is Counter Strike skins, but that is in large part about gambling and speculation.

Jumping to conclusions the thread.

An addiction psychologically is thinking you'll miss out on something if you don't partake. If you can build a strong emotionally compelling case why your not missing out by not partaking then you remove that underlying psychological foundation for your compulsion.