Carl-Richard

It will be a part of my series on vitality and resilience

People who fear getting myocarditis from the vaccine when you're 5x more likely to get it from the virus

Ok good luck!

I don't think it's just about smartphones either . The general point is that there are certain things we want to avoid (e.g. bad concentration ability, procrastination etc.). It's not so much about exactly what causes them, because that's a complex equation. What if the smartphone is just a symptom of an underlying problem? What if it's possible to have a smartphone and also be a functional human being? The question you can ask is: what is the source of concentration ability and work ethic? Can this be tapped into and optimized despite peripheral factors?

Wtf why the fuck would you need to do nofap then?

"Live in the now", "achievement is ego" *gets stoned 24 hours a day 7 days a week, skips class, gives up on all future ambitions, lies to friends and family, steals money and drugs from friends and family, blocks out any thought resembling a conscience* True story

The real question is: what do we do about procrastination?

It's fine to be passionate about these issues, but let's keep it civil.

May I ask how often you usually fap?

What is the difference?

The danger is lessened when, like you said, one is authentic about wanting change. We're not stagnant. We want to expand. It's only human. Self-acceptance and self-honesty mostly works to eliminate noise. Most of Tier 1 discourse is just noise: virtue signalling, optics, misinformation, bad faith, smear tactics, power games. Acceptance, honesty, understanding and empathy is the path towards mutual growth. Green is half-way there, but gets stuck on "why should we empathize with the least empathetic of us?", not understanding how this is the most crucial hurdle. It's like a parent who refuses to empathize with their child for simply being a child. It shows a lack of understanding and denies the child's right to growth, and in a way, it makes them into a child as well.

Surely there is a reason why he wanted to speak to us

Why speak?

I see a pattern in your posts where you try to find contradictions to SD using specific anomalous examples (e.g. "this" specific aspect of "this" specific country). I think this is the wrong approach. All models generalize at some level, and therefore there will always be inconsistencies on the level of single examples. SD is used to understand large trends of societal development across nations and ideologies, which is a very wide lens. There is always a trade-off between having a wide vs. narrow lens (generalizability vs. specificity). What you should do instead is to look at a large collection of examples, establish a pattern and see if it fits.

It's hard to say. The West has had a very different developmental path to the UAE which is correlated with wealth but not fully explained by it. There have been extremely wealthy empires in the past, but they didn't suddenly develop democracy over the course of 50 years.

Their wealth is a recent phenomena.

You say there are dead ends but also that there are no ends.

Brahman and Maya are one.

They're too young.

It's obvious that humans and other animals are different. The question is if those differences justify how we treat them. Why are you bringing up what other people think? It's you who are having the discussion. We have to outgrow the value systems and social systems that make people hate pedophiles.

You were specifically talking about qualia (what experience is like from the inside), not whether humans or animals look different from the outside. What is the point of factoring out these things?

Sounds great. About the job, as long as you see the value in having a higher-order purpose, things will work itself out. Your goals and the way you pursue them may change, but the important part is having a goal in the first place. Goals, purpose and meaning facilitates movement through the environment, which exposes you to different challenges and leads to growth. Cool

That's an assumption.

The point is that if you're an anthropocentric sadist that wants to argue why animal suffering is somehow different from human suffering, then you for example say that it's because animals lack the cognitive complexity of humans, then you take a human with the cognitive complexity of an animal (a baby or a mentally disabled person) and realize that you still want to claim that their suffering is different and that your argument is bunk