Carl-Richard

I don't think people appreciate how profound conflict can break your health. People with schizophrenia have a ~15 years shorter livespan on average (granted like 70% of them smoke, but still). Actually, adjusting for suicide, smoking and obesity, probably 5-10 years lifespan reduction remains [AI]. That's on a similar level as lifelong smoking and severe obesity. But that's just an average, and the thing is people aren't usually in a state of conflict all the time, people are actually quite resilient, those who survive of course. Those who get truly stuck in conflict I think deterioate very quickly and die, but those cases are extremely rare.

Your genetics do not stand alone. If somebody forgot to feed Einstein enough when he was younger, no big brain. And if he hadn't received aristocratic tutoring, he would've most likely had less exceptional math skills (being tutored has been linked to being better than 98% of non-tutored students).

"If you can't find 12 examples on the top of your head, ChatGPT will". Jking.

Sometimes your feet need a break from stomping the juice.

You're making the case that meat makes you bigger, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean longer life.

That requires the body working as a coordinated unit.

Calorie restriction is associated with living longer.

It's in the first sentence: free of mental conflict. Read up on neurosis, psychological flexibility, factors that predict resilience.

Don't think of mental in the dualistic sense. Think of it like your bodily units are working in a coordinated fashion. Even if you have good genes and good environment but you somehow put your bodily units against each other, your body becomes a battleground. It's true that some genes and some environments, or karma, makes this more or less likely (or more or less impossible). But it's like if you're the richest country in the world with the highest average IQ but there is an insurrection and toppling of the government and collective hysteria and lawlessness, that suddenly doesn't matter as much. Maybe "richest" and "highest" are generalizations that belie a more complicated reality, but nevertheless, the master regulator, or the umbrella term for when genes and environment are leading to favorable outcomes, is the existence of harmony or conflict. The larger point is to not look at just one factor but all the factors, and the experience of mental conflict is an indicator of that (because mental conflict is a conflict of all the factors and is reflected in the physical; there is no true dualistic divide; if you're in mental conflict, there is a fight or fight response in the body, resource expenditure increases, oxidation products and age-related markers increase). If you want to be very dualistic, then you can say chronic fight or flight, chronic stress, that's the big killer. (But remember that we're talking about "stress" and not "eustress"; the former is destabilizing and chronic, the other is self-consistent and short-lasting — the body is working as a unit, and this difference can be felt, experienced, hence the mental side is a good indicator; see the CATS model).

You have discovered the gas pedal, the executive functioning. Now you should re-integrate the brakes, the limbic system (or the gas and the brakes can be flipped depending on how you interpret the metaphor). Why does watching the YouTube video feel compelling? Maybe it's something you want to do or feel like doing? What is that feeling that you just want to do it for the sake of doing it? Maybe that is not just a valuable resource but fundamentally the basis and point of your life? The trick is to not just do what you don't feel like doing but getting to the point where doing the right thing is what you feel like doing. Then the inspiration and wonder of the YouTube video is what drives your action. That requires getting a sense for what your values are like @Miguel1 mentioned.

I ask because vegans are 3-4x more likely to be single.

And as for deconstruction of your worldview, I think deconstruction can go both ways: not through just less reading, but more. That's how Thomas Kuhn did it. The horseshoe theory of deconstruction. "It'S a sTrAngE lOop". The more you read, the more perspectives you get, the more biases you become aware of, the more traps you uncover. The more layers you find, the more you realize layerlessness is absolute. But you might get lost in the layers, but that I believe is just an intermediate thing, just like the normie philosophy readers are bottom feeders, the top are the producers. The producers become the destroyers, uniting the opposites, through diversity, not through reclusivity.

@Eskilon You know it's a good topic when nobody answers 😆

I like em loose, in the bowel movements.

There is a case to be made that if you're a normal reader of philosophy, you become a kind of bottom feeder that swallows whatever somebody else has found out. But if you're a leading expert in the field, you can push the field beyond what is currently known. For example, I just heard Bernardo Kastrup say that the next step for Integrated Information Theory would be to integrate it with Markov blankets, or in other words to find ways to compute self-organizing/autopoetic fault lines of integrated information, not just spontaneous ones. That's not something a "non-conformist" person can find out, but it's nevertheless new knowledge, not conforming to earlier knowledge. When you're a "conformist" who reads other people's work, you have the problem of pushing the knowledge further. But if you're a supposed non-conformist, you have the problem of constructing entirely non-conformist knowledge from the ground up. And in a world with 8 billion people, that's in my estimation virtually impossible. You can only build so much, and odds are that someone will have the same insight as you merely by mistake, despite being steeped in a more "conformist" situation. And odds are that someone had that insight 1000 years ago and shared it with others and built upon it for 1000 years, way more than you ever could on your own in one lifetime. And if you somehow had the insight and managed to get further than those who built on it for 1000 years, odds are you just learned about them and you're just a conformist who forgot their own history. In other words, the choice is between being a leader of a massive field with tons of work behind it, or being a leader of a tiny little field that actually most likely is not your own field, you're just ironically too isolated (socially or cognitively with respect to your own past) to know.

How does veganism do on the dating market?

When I think about it, I eat a lot of plants. I calculated that only ~18% of my meal today is meat in weight. The rest is potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, red bell pepper, onion, garlic, extra illegal olive oil, cilantro and some parmesan cheese 😂

Look at how many are into spirituality here and how little that helps 😂

We're talking about one guy here just to be clear 😂

I'm a hoarder, I can't do that 🤡

Dahel is dat

Grandfather 🫠

You have to disclose when using AI and preferably your sources in general. Using a guy who died from cancer and resisted modern medical treatment as evidence against a diet is a horrible line of argumentation. My grandfather died of colorectal cancer at 53 and he ate meat and was fit, smart and wealthy. We know meat is associated with colorectal cancer, but this does not make the case that "nobody can pull off" an omnivorous diet.

Like wut. He could have had severe genetic disposition, environmental stress or toxins.

So if you die, it means your diet is not good? Ok.