Matt8800

There are many temporary solutions. What they all do is keep the environment such that people can keep breeding. Eventually, there simply wont be enough resources. Whether we run out of resources at 10 billion, 20 billion, 50 billion, etc, its irrelevant in the end because something will snap eventually.

We can but we wont. If you are in doubt, go to your nearest Walmart and think of what you can say to get the people that you see that clearly cannot afford to have children to stop breeding. You are living in a world of shoulds rather than the world as it is. Everybody could meditate but they wont. Everybody could eat healthy, exercise and be at an optimal weight but they wont......and so on, and so on...

People would say we should stop digging but we wont. We will continue to act according to our animal instinct and mate/breed until the environment can no longer support it.

That is a mistake most people make. I suppose other apes would also consider the same species as "us" and other species as different. In that way, we are not different. We are more intelligent but all species have varying degrees of intelligence without putting their "animal" status in question. People associate shoulds and shouldnts with human behavior even though they realize other animals dont have free-will. The illusion that humans have free will, unlike the other animals, is persistent. You might feel humans should act a certain way but they will largely continue to act according to their animal hard-wiring and continue to mate/breed until the environment can no longer support it.

Unfortunately, data doesnt support that theory. The trend in the last 100 years (the most educated time in human history) has exploded. https://fruitworldmedia.com/index.php/featured/2602/ Life relationships and their importance are not relevant to the rate at which humans breed. Animals have sex drives. They have sex and reproduce. If the environment is favorable to survival, they continue to breed unimpeded. Its as simple as that. Yes, the educated minority may be choosing to have less children but the majority are breeding at a fast clip. If you're not sure about that, just walk into any Walmart and just observe. No, Im not underestimating adaptation. Evolution/adaptation has been happening since life first appeared on this planet and will continue. Humans will once again come under evolutionary pressure of survival of the fittest. Most will not be able to adapt and a few will. I suspect that it will be the minority that are more educated and wealthy. They will go on to evolve. The majority of the population that lives around the equator doesnt have a lot of options. When you think of the human race, the world economy and civilization in general, think of impermanence and how it might apply to this. The feeling that somehow it is all permanent is a delusion.

During the Oxygenation Event, did the bacteria overpopulate due to conflict/corruption/dysfunction/division? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Regarding research, here are some articles you can review: https://sciencing.com/effects-animal-overpopulation-8249633.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161207091852.htm Without environmental pressures, all species will continue to multiply until they overpopulate their environment until it cant support them. This is far from new information. This is a major factor of evolution. Evolution resumes when environmental pressures resume.

I suppose we could debate the root cause of overpopulation but overpopulation is what is causing climate change. The earth cannot support an infinite amount of humans. There is no solution that will be enacted. Climate change will happen and billions of people will suffer. Populations will be reduced, they will adapt and go on to flourish once again just how evolution has always worked.

Change will come when the environment is radically changed and the population is greatly reduced. Then the survivors will adapt to their environment and eventually flourish again.

The point is that if we make "positive" changes, then the environment can sustain life longer. If the environment can sustain life, humans continue to reproduce. Eventually, it reaches the breaking point. There is not enough that can be done to avoid climate change indefinitely unless humans start mandating sterilization to control populations and I doubt that will happen.

Can 10 billion humans have a harmonious relationship with the earth? 20 billion? 50 billion? 200 billion? Are you saying that technology will allow an infinite amount of humans to flourish on the planet? Who is going to pay for it? Where are they going to get the money from? Why would you think they would pay for it?

@cammy It is a hard wired genetic predisposition. Introversion and extroversion both have their strengths and weaknesses. Introversion can be evolved to confidence in social situations but they still drain energy as opposed to an extrovert who gets energy from social interactions.

I dont think that psychedelics can complete the journey by themselves but they sure can start it. I smoked some DMT about 3 years ago. I saw in a new way that love is the most important thing, the present moment is the only place we exist, suffering is an illusion caused by thoughts and concepts, immense beauty always exists but sometimes we just dont perceive it and that I need to meditate daily. I have meditated every day since. I now meditate about 1.5 hours a day and read about 2 hours a day. I combine meditation and psychedelics once to twice a week for the last 3 years and it has been absolute rocket fuel for my spiritual development. There is no way I could have done what I have done without it. I heard Ken Wilber state once that people that meditate and take psychedelics tend to grow much faster than people that do either by themselves. The con is a possible bad trip but that can be an useful learning experience also in itself. Start small and learn to accept and let go. Increase from there.

@daniel695 Children that socialize in ways that cause them to become repulsive to others tend to grow up to be adults that socialize with others in ways that repulse others. Life is not kind to repulsive people.

@Charlotte People that feel the need to always disagree are unpleasant to others. Relationships are always about how you make others feel. You could tell a 8 year old that their drawings suck compared to real artists but why would you? Telling the truth when necessary out of love and for their benefit is a lot different than telling the truth to prove you are right. Usually the latter is coming from a weak ego to make itself feel better about itself. Investigate carefully what you get out of telling the "truth" and you will see for yourself.

Eventually, you will realize the ego state is irrelevant. If life brings pleasure, that is ok. If life brings pain, that is ok. Life is like a movie to be watched and learned from.

Buddhists and Advaita Vedantins see that a bit differently. Many Buddhists believe in reincarnation but they cant resolve that paradox. Vedantins believe the Atman is the True self, which is reincarnated. The duality is resolved because Atman is fundamentally Brahman.

Many people have a hard time with accepting that there is no such thing as objective meaning. The only "thing" that can attribute value to something is consciousness. Consciousness is pure subjectivity so anything that attributes value to meaning can only be subjective. But that doesnt matter because fundamentally, we are "god". The "purpose" of life it to evolve. That is the nature of the universe. Whatever you dont get done this lifetime, you'll be incarnated into another life. Once we are done with physical existence, the evolution continues in a different way for infinity. My subjective highest values are love, beauty, truth and being present to embody those attributes. I cant think of any more values that are more meaningful than those.

@Outer sounds good to me

@Viking When you meditate, investigate yourself for feelings of attachment and let go. The practice of letting go of attachments is something that continually needs to be exercised until it becomes natural.

@Serotoninluv 1. People's "lens", schizophrenia, psychedelics, etc has no bearing on whether a claim is factual or not. 2. You have pointed out a couple times that JP believes in an objective morality yet seem to ignore that green also believes in an objective morality. Its just a different objective morality. 3. General sanity or delusion has no bearing on whether an individual claim is factual or not. (If a schizophrenic claims that water boils at 100C at sea level, he would be correct) 4. Green, like orange, rejects truths that conflict with its bias. While green's bias may be more evolved, it is still a bias and bias promotes delusion. The level of delusion of orange has no bearing on the level of delusion of green. 5. Green is more evolved overall than orange but that does not change the fact that green rejects truths that orange understands. That does not infer, in any way, that orange doesnt reject truths that green understands. 6. JP's motivation has no bearing on whether an individual claim is factual or not. Rejecting a truth claim simply because of a perceived motivation of the claimant is contrary to solid epistemology.

@Serotoninluv Im not referring to understanding, motivation, comprehension, etc. Im referring to simple claims about how reality is now without assumptions and opinions. If we cant be honest about what is real now, a true higher consciousness solution cannot be realized. JP's level of evolution has no bearing on whether claims are true or false. It only has bearing on interpretation and proposed solutions. JP has made some correct claims but misses the mark on proposed solutions. Green has plenty of proposed solutions but has not yet grown out of rejecting truth that conflicts with his/her bias. Solutions based in fantasy about how reality is now are less than optimal. Lets not forget that green needs to continue to evolve also. Sounds like we just see things differently from a different perspective and will have to agree to disagree

Read the below according to what the words precisely say without any assumptions: Orange could make a statement, "Generally speaking, men and women tend to have differently structured brains which has a tendency to cause a predisposition to different behavior, strengths and weaknesses". Yellow could make a statement, "Generally speaking, men and women tend to have differently structured brains which has a tendency to cause a predisposition to different behavior, strengths and weaknesses". That statement could be supported by neuroscience and green would still, in many cases, have a strong aversion or rejection to that statement. The aversion would be to an equal degree because it is the same statement. My point is this - There are many things that JP says that are foundationally correct that green irrationally reacts against due to their strong bias. Ignoring the bias mechanism when one forms beliefs is a yellow trait IMO. Regarding your point that JP believes in an objective morality - Yes, JP believes in the existence of an objective morality but that is not what green rejects. People seem to forget that humans are animals. They reject it when some of those animals act according to animal drives. Some of the controversy surrounding JP stems from green's expectation to live in the world as it should be, rather than what it is.

Green is more evolved overall than orange but they only understand subjectivism when it doesnt conflict with their own ideology. With that said, I agree with you that green has a more complete understanding subjectivism. JP is obviously orange but he points out facts that green rejects when it contradicts their beliefs, which is also a short-coming of green. Yellow could just as easily say that men and women are different, with different natural strengths and weaknesses, and many green people would react to yellow in the exact same way they react to orange on many levels.

@Serotoninluv You have no problem pointing out JPs attachment to objective morality but seem to completely miss green's attachment to their own ideas of objective morality. Try telling social justice warriors that their ideas of shoulds and shouldnts are not objectively true and see what happens Lets clean up our own backyard before we start judging our neighbors. I am just interested in factual claims and what I am pointing out is that green people reject facts that dont support their ideas of shoulds and shouldnts. While orange may do the same, that does not mean it is not also true of green.

@Serotoninluv I have never heard him say that people should not identify with a non-biological identity. What I have heard him say is that people's expectation that everyone understands and affirms their identification is irrational. Why? Because humans are animals with particular hard-wiring that has causal effects on ideas about sexuality. Whether that is "right" or "wrong", that is the way it is. Gorillas have certain mores that are expected from the males and females. Some gorillas may behave outside those customs which may cause a rejection by the rest of the gorillas. Is that "wrong"? Please provide a direct JP quote so we can discuss that. Otherwise, I get the strong impression that people are just reacting from their own ideological standpoint, which is simply more ideology.