The Profound Stupidity of Psychologists

[Shane Hanlon]

32 minutes ago, aurum said:

Actually it does help.

Chasing Game B fantasies has a cost in terms of time, resources, mental energy and ego backlash / cultural blowback.

You could waste your entire life on this stuff.

Acknowledging that Game B can't work keeps you grounded in reality and on actual solutions.

You're right that we don't want to focus on objectives that are impossible. This is not one of those things. I don't like using these terms Game B and Game A because everyone has a different idea of what we are talking about so we end up talking past each other. If you think of game B as a utopian flawless destination then you'd have a point. But, it's not flawless and I don't think of it as a destination. Think of it as a direction towards a better world. Every ounce of effort working towards a better world is worth it. I'm not sure what your concept of game B is, but moving in a better direction collectively is absolutely possible and worthwhile. 

Examples of actual "game B" ideas:
- Post growth closed loop supply chains where waste becomes new inputs into the system

- Coordination mechanisms that allow transparent and trustworthy agreements between nations.

- Regenerative agriculture practices

- Forcing the internalizing of externalities

- Proving the safety of technologies before financializing them

- Holistic education systems

- Planetary Boundary Governance

etc....

None of these things are impossible. Just fucking hard. And doing some of them without completing all of them is still a good thing that is worth working towards. Doing none of them means collapse.

 

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Tell that to Putin, Jinping, or Trump. See how far you get.

LOL ya not very far. Point taken. Even still they are not representative of most people.

[Shane Hanlon]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm tired of progressives trying to convince everyone that mankind is good. Mankind is not good. Mankind is evil and stupid. Which why progressives keep failing. Progressives themselves are evil and stupid.

Humanity is obviously capable of both. Part of making a better world is creating structures that are intentionally designed to bring out our best. For example aligning incentives with the well-being of all life or reorganizing our living so that it is obvious how interconnected we are with every other life form. Right now our incentives are to fuck over a lot of the most beautiful things. (actual human connection for likes or Living breathing trees for lumber). Most of the current contexts we exist in accentuate our selfish and destructive tendencies.

[Ero]

@Tristan12  Leo explained it far better than I could. Note that when he says epistemology (i.e your system of knowledge and method of establishing it) is not grounded, he doesn’t mean all models are made equal. What he means is that you should never halt the process of refinement because it is fundamentally uncomputable (phrased in language of Algorithmic Information theory).

[Tristan12]

@Leo Gura Thank you 

[Ero]

 

13 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Humanity is obviously capable of both.

There are humans incapable of functioning in society. No matter how you try and incentivise a violent psychopath (atrophic limbic system), child predator or paranoid schizophrenic, if the underlying brain chemistry/architecture is not plastic, no carrot and stick can change it.

 

[Tristan12]

13 minutes ago, Ero said:

@Tristan12  Leo explained it far better than I could. Note that when he says epistemology (i.e your system of knowledge and method of establishing it) is not grounded, he doesn’t mean all models are made equal. What he means is that you should never halt the process of refinement because it is fundamentally uncomputable (phrased in language of Algorithmic Information theory).

I think I understand what you’re saying, you mean you should never stop looking for deception and illusion that could be getting in the way of truth, because ultimately you can’t know anything 100% and you will always end up reaching a state of not knowing? …I think?

What do you do if you can’t ever know anything? In that quote from my previous post, talking about atheism and religious beliefs, how could you even make a decision about what to believe in? How can you recognize errors in your epistemic process if you can’t know anything for sure at all?

Maybe watching the video Leo linked would explain it

[aurum]

27 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Examples of actual "game B" ideas:
- Post growth closed loop supply chains where waste becomes new inputs into the system

- Coordination mechanisms that allow transparent and trustworthy agreements between nations.

- Regenerative agriculture practices

- Forcing the internalizing of externalities

- Proving the safety of technologies before financializing them

- Holistic education systems

- Planetary Boundary Governance

etc....

None of these things are impossible. Just fucking hard. And doing some of them without completing all of them is still a good thing that is worth working towards.

They are all impossible with where humanity is at. 

This is what I mean by Game B fantasies. You say Game B is not a utopian project and is about incremental change, but you just listed a bunch of ideas that cannot be implemented.

Work towards them if you want. I do think bold visioning is important. But I predict you will not live to see the day where they are realized.

As long as you understand that, I think we are on the same page.

[RendHeaven]

@aurum I get a mild shot of dopamine whenever reading your posts. You always keep it real

[zazen]

What started as a great critique of psychologists has become something much more revealing: an expose of the Western psyche itself. The same binary, fatalistic thinking that has us talking past each other is the same mindset behind imperialism that the West has illustrated to the world so well.

Western fixation on binary thinking, where only one game can be played at a time is a trap. In reality, Game A and Game B dynamics coexist. Utopian progressives naively think we can get rid of Game A, or don't even acknowledge its existence all together.  The goal isn’t to eliminate inescapable Game A pressures but to cultivate systems where Game B principles guide long term strategy - while Game A tactics are reserved for survival. We should aim to shift the balance so that Game B principles -cooperation, trust, and mutual benefit - take precedence. 

BRICS offers a tangible example of this balance. These nations are working toward a multipolar world grounded in Game B values while still navigating the Game A pressures imposed by Western hegemony, and that we can never truly escape regardless. A zero-sum Game A mindset dismissing those efforts as naive reflects the West’s inability to imagine alternatives to its own predatory systems.

Being in a dominant position doesn't necessarily mean acting in a dominating or subjugating way - thus lashing out at other players on the board who are gaining in dominance / rising powers challenging the current hegemon.

In Geopolitics - acting out in a Game A way (aggressive), doesn't necessarily mean operating in a Game A way as a default (being the aggressor) - which is what the West actually does as a reflex. China and Russia act in Game A ways out of necessity rather than preference. There's a major difference between being in a dominant position, and behaving dominantly to get and stay there. That conflation causes misdiagnosis - misdiagnosing a nation acting in a Game A way in a certain context or scenario (primarily for survival) with how it operates in its totality. We swap the primary cause of its actions with the secondary and incidental gains it makes from those actions - in territory, power or resources - in effect framing them as an imperial actor which is only rational to resist, although they are reacting to imperial action themselves. Gaslighting wizardry at play.

In the past we could afford to have a uni-polar hegemonic power, because the power to destroy the world many times over didn't exist. But in a world with multiple powers with enough power to destroy the world many times over - there's no choice but to be multi-polar and share power with others, rather than have power over others.

Otherwise as the current hegemon starts to inevitably be challenged, as always happens in history (thucydides trap) - it won't be pleasant for much of the world if that hegemon arrogantly views those rising as needing to be checked back into place. Viewing anyone’s success anywhere in the world as a threat to your supremacy everywhere in the world - reflects a civilization running on a pure Game A operating system, rather than reserving Game A tactics for survival. And no, security isn’t securing your dominance and hegemony - which is another important distinction.

The choice before us isn’t whether to play Game A or Game B - it’s whether we continue defaulting to zero-sum domination or consciously nurture a world built on shared stability and cooperation. The faith point @Nivsch touched on and mentioned that is very much needed is correct. But it’s not an immature idea of faith in a celestial grandfather fixing things for us (which organized religion falls for) but the mature kind of faith in our ability to nurture the nature we’ve inherited towards better ends. Isn’t that what actualizing is partly about anyway..

More related on this that I've written before:

On 01/10/2024 at 9:56 AM, zazen said:

Often I write, as I think others do too, from the lens of international politics and justice (idealist - Sachs) because thats the cultural marinade of liberalism we're all swimming in. It's the liberal order we're trying to (and told to) build. It defers to justice before peace, rather than the game of power politics human nature finds it far too easy to default to (realist - Mearshimer).

We created psycho-political frameworks of laws and institutions so that we don't have to use the might makes right way of doing things which is often bloody and brutal. We went from managing our societies through raw physicality to refined psychology - doesn't the notion of us being civilised rest upon this shift? From raw to refined, from physical brawn to the psychological use of our brains to affect change and peacefully transfer positions of power.

 

On 01/10/2024 at 10:45 AM, zazen said:

Westerners celebrate the idea that their relatively peaceful and stable societies are the result of democracy and human rights. Western countries aren't only more peaceful and prosperous due to democracy (or the perception of it) but due to anti-democratic practices abroad.  The prosperity and peace they enjoy within their borders is underpinned by maintaining a inherently anti-democratic, hegemonic order beyond their borders.

The West speaks of principles but acts with power, to them power is the principle though they speak in opposing terms. The attitude is that peace and prosperity is attained through the existence of or imposition of power - even if it delays justice and prolongs current injustice. Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum - If You Want Peace, Prepare For War. The existence of power acts as a deterrence, which brings about peace so long as that power isn't abused or challenged.

Justice before peace is how we hope the world could work, grounded in law and principles (Sachs). The imposition of peace by positions of power is grounded in power dynamics and pragmatism and often how the world does work (Mearsheimer).

The world works on a spectrum between the two - between power and principle. We dance between the aspirational values our society claims to cherish but that our political class and state fails to embody - and who often default to what is already embodied in our base human nature which is raw power and survival. This causes a collective cognitive dissonance and a visible hypocrisy.

It's this hypocrisy of calling oneself civilised whilst the other barbaric and primitive that rubs a lot of the Global South the wrong way. The hypocrite stands on a pedestal of their own making, pontificating about virtues they fail to embody and casting others as evil, for sins they themselves commit and attempt to conceal through propaganda and linguistic gymnastics.

This lack of integrity, and gap between actions and words or between rhetoric and reality is what erodes the trust needed in a multipolar world. This is why the world is bifurcating between the East and West, and parallel systems (BRICS) are being built which the West now bemoans. The next decades will be heavily predicated along these lines.

 

On 24/10/2024 at 10:23 AM, zazen said:

The rules based order was born after WWII. Its a US led system of global governance to promote stability, trade, and economic growth which defo merely benefited China. The Bretton Woods system anchored currencies to the US dollar, which was backed by gold (US had the most gold and was the strongest most intact country after world war 2).

The deal was that countries would trade using the dollar in exchange for US security guarantees and access to markets. It reinforced US dominance in exchange for economic stability and protection, but has allowed the US to abuse that power with impunity. Majority of the world now seek to create a more just, fair system where US power and the dollar can’t be weaponised against them. That system is BRICS - a summits being held right now in Kazan, Russia which Western media won’t cover for obvious reasons. 

By Arnaud:

An interesting observation is that in many ways this war is the "rules-based order" vs "international law".

We're seeing a wholesale and unprecedented attack on all institutions meant to preserve international law: the UN (with even a physical destruction of their offices in Gaza, and I'm not even mentioning the 100+ UN workers killed so far!), the WHO, the ICJ, the ICC, etc. And of course on the very laws and principles they were set up to defend and represent (be it humanitarian law, the rights of the child, the law of war, etc.).

By who? By Israel and, ultimately, their backer the US who defend the "rules-based order", meaning a system outside of international law that essentially defends whatever the US judges is in its and its allies' interests at any moment in time. 

So if one takes a step back, that's a key aspect of the battle at play here. Which is of course immensely ironical because many of these institutions and principles under attack were set up by and within the rules-based order, often in order to preserve and entrench the interests of the order!

But the world has changed, many countries have adapted to the actual rules of the order and so respecting the rules, respecting international law, has evolved from being a burden on others to being a burden on those who created them... Which is why there's now such a huge gap between the actions of the proponents of the "rules-based order" and what they should be doing if they respected international law.

The other immense irony is that countries of the global South - China, ASEAN countries, South American countries, African countries, etc. - have now become stronger advocates for those multilateral institutions defending international law than the West. Because they're the ones who adapted to those rules, in many cases much more successfully than the West.

All this to say that when you're told that global South countries seek to upend the "rules-based order", you need to be very clear about what you're speaking about. They seek to change the situation whereby the US and its allies can do whatever they want and thereby make a mockery of international law. In fact what they want is actual rules that everyone respects: they want international law! And those who really want to upend the rules and essentially do whatever the hell they want regardless of any rule - as we're witnessing right now in Gaza - are the West, those seeking to gaslight us into thinking THEY defend a "rules-based order".

How will this end? I know how I want it to end: I strongly believe we do need a set of international rules everyone needs to abide by, especially on matters of war and peace, sovereignty, meddling in other countries affairs, etc. I don't want a "might is right" world where you can just slaughter thousands of children in total impunity if you happen to be the stronger party.

But I am also a realist and I am afraid that the only way we'll ever get such a world is if the mightiest states want it to be like this. And I've totally lost any confidence in the US to ever do the right thing in that regard. Which is why I look forward to and encourage a world of reduced American influence and power where other wiser powers might succeed where America failed.

If the horrors that are happening in Gaza have any silver lining, it should be this: to impress on the peoples of the world the need to ditch the US's unhinged "rules-based order" in favor of international law.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:58 AM by zazen

[Scholar]

12 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Again, I’d go so far as to say the model should be more like guerrilla warfare - think Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Patrice Lumumba, Malcolm X, and the like. Honestly, even Osama Bin Laden had a point, if you ask me.

People just need to be mobilized to demand change, by whatever means available to them.

Lobbying, by comparison, is tedious and futile. There’s no need to be nice or play by the rules when so much is on the line.

I don’t buy into the fantasy of some ultimate resolution in a Game B utopia. Every generation has its conflicts and its liberators - that’s just life. But the world is fragile, and certain measures must be taken to prevent catastrophic collapse.

This will not work fundamentally, because like you describe yourself the incentives do not align. None of these individuals had a positive impact, because the system from which they operate does not appeal to reasonable and developed individuals, and it actively decivilizes individuals.

 

You are in this way as naive as you accuse the individuals in the video of being. If you are going to play this game (making it acceptable to engage in), it is not you, the reasonable and developed individuals, who are going to be able to exploit this dynamic to "win the game", but rather it will be the most common denominator of unconscious and primitive behavior.

 

What is and isn't on the line is completely unknowable. You think the world is on the line, but in the end none of what you say is actually provably a problem. That a few species die here and there? Who cares? Planetary boundaries? So what, we can adapt. AI superintelligence? There is literally no evidence that this will be a thing in the next century.

Yet you seem to not even mention actual systemic issues that make it virtually impossible to resolve all the problems mentioned above, namely the epistemic breakdown that has lead to the very delusional views that you hold as well. You don't notice that problem because it does not sound as fancy, but it is far more relevant because it renders solutions to all of the problems above virtually meaningless, given they cannot be intregrated into reality.

[Nilsi]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

China and Russia act in Game A ways out of necessity rather than preference.

That's pure fantasy. China's 100-Year Marathon is a meticulously crafted plan to achieve global hegemony by 2049. They are arguably the most strategically sophisticated nation when it comes to projecting an image of cooperation and peacefulness, all while quietly but inexorably consolidating power. Their actions are deeply rooted in the philosophical traditions of Lao Tzu and Confucius - principles of patience, subtlety, deception, and long-term strategy. Their so called "Communism" is just a convenient façade for a far older, more enduring civilizational ambition.

And Russia? Let’s not even begin to feign ignorance. Putin has openly published historical treatises outlining his blueprint for annexing Ukraine and reconstituting a neo-imperial Russian order. He doesn’t just dream of empire; he articulates it in cold, calculated prose.

To believe otherwise is to indulge in dangerous naivety.

Edited Saturday at 11:49 AM by Nilsi

[Alex M]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's hard for someone as advanced as Schmach to appreciate how average people live -- like animals.

He needs to watch a bit of 'PoliceActivity' on YouTube 

[gambler]

3 minutes ago, Alex M said:

He needs to watch a bit of 'PoliceActivity' on YouTube 

Leo should do some live streaming on YouTube and we can do a policeactivity watch party

🥹 👉👈 

Edited Saturday at 11:57 AM by gambler

[Shane Hanlon]

8 hours ago, aurum said:

Work towards them if you want. I do think bold visioning is important. But I predict you will not live to see the day where they are realized.

As long as you understand that, I think we are on the same page

I understand this. And I tend to predict the same thing. However, we don't need everyone to be at an integral stage of development in order to implement these things. We need those who are capable of heralding this change to lead others. That means you. So it is frustrating when I see people capable of leading others into a more loving world decide they've got better things to do.

 

8 hours ago, Ero said:

There are humans incapable of functioning in society. No matter how you try and incentivise a violent psychopath (atrophic limbic system), child predator or paranoid schizophrenic, if the underlying brain chemistry/architecture is not plastic, no carrot and stick can change it.

100% agreed. However, these people and better systems can coexist. And better systems will lead to less of these people. It's a trap to believe everyone within a system has to be at the level of development at which it is created.

[Shane Hanlon]

A small, aligned group acting with coherence can shift the trajectory of entire systems, even when the majority remains unchanged.
 

Examples:

The Aboliton of Slavery:
A relatively small group of abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, William Wilberforce, and their allies, worked relentlessly to shift societal values and laws, despite initially facing overwhelming opposition.

The Scientific Revolution:
Revolutionary ideas from a handful of thinkers like Galileo, Newton, and Copernicus shifted the paradigm of science, eventually transforming society’s understanding of the universe.

Keystone Species in Ecology:
A single keystone species in an ecosystem (like wolves in Yellowstone) can dramatically shift the entire system’s dynamics. Islands of coherence act as the 'keystone species' in human systems, fostering stability and change simultaneously

Open Source Movements:
A few committed individuals and groups created Linux and other open-source platforms, which now underpin vast portions of the global digital infrastructure.

Tech Startups:
Small, highly aligned teams like those at the forefront of the tech revolution (e.g., early Apple, Google) have reshaped entire industries, showing how coherence can scale influence exponentially.

 

For those of you capable, please help herald a better world.

Edited Saturday at 02:02 PM by Shane Hanlon

[JTL]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Tell that to Putin, Jinping, or Trump. See how far you get.

I'm tired of progressives trying to convince everyone that mankind is good. Mankind is not good. Mankind is evil and stupid. Which why progressives keep failing. Progressives themselves are evil and stupid.

 some are good

Edited Saturday at 02:34 PM by JTL

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

None of these individuals had a positive impact, because the system from which they operate does not appeal to reasonable and developed individuals, and it actively decivilizes individuals.

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

You are in this way as naive as you accuse the individuals in the video of being. If you are going to play this game (making it acceptable to engage in), it is not you, the reasonable and developed individuals, who are going to be able to exploit this dynamic to "win the game", but rather it will be the most common denominator of unconscious and primitive behavior.

That’s bullshit. These leaders were undeniably successful, achieving remarkable victories for liberation and leaving lasting positive impacts, but they were systematically undermined and destroyed by the same imperialist forces they fought against.

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

What is and isn't on the line is completely unknowable. You think the world is on the line, but in the end none of what you say is actually provably a problem. That a few species die here and there? Who cares? Planetary boundaries? So what, we can adapt. AI superintelligence? There is literally no evidence that this will be a thing in the next century.

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Yet you seem to not even mention actual systemic issues that make it virtually impossible to resolve all the problems mentioned above, namely the epistemic breakdown that has lead to the very delusional views that you hold as well. You don't notice that problem because it does not sound as fancy, but it is far more relevant because it renders solutions to all of the problems above virtually meaningless, given they cannot be intregrated into reality.

This is textbook bourgeois deflection: inventing vague, abstract "problems" to distract from the real, material issues at hand, all while discouraging meaningful action against the status quo. People like you have always been propped up by the system to make apathy and inaction seem intellectual. Spare me the charade - I’m not buying it.

Edited Saturday at 02:45 PM by Nilsi

[zazen]

3 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I understand this. And I tend to predict the same thing. However, we don't need everyone to be at an integral stage of development in order to implement these things. We need those who are capable of heralding this change to lead others. That means you. So it is frustrating when I see people capable of leading others into a more loving world decide they've got better things to do.

 

100% agreed. However, these people and better systems can coexist. And better systems will lead to less of these people. It's a trap to believe everyone within a system has to be at the level of development at which it is created.

That's brilliant. 

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

That's pure fantasy. China's 100-Year Marathon is a meticulously crafted plan to achieve global hegemony by 2049. They are arguably the most strategically sophisticated nation when it comes to projecting an image of cooperation and peacefulness, all while quietly but inexorably consolidating power. Their actions are deeply rooted in the philosophical traditions of Lao Tzu and Confucius - principles of patience, subtlety, deception, and long-term strategy. Their so called "Communism" is just a convenient façade for a far older, more enduring civilizational ambition.

And Russia? Let’s not even begin to feign ignorance. Putin has openly published historical treatises outlining his blueprint for annexing Ukraine and reconstituting a neo-imperial Russian order. He doesn’t just dream of empire; he articulates it in cold, calculated prose.

To believe otherwise is to indulge in dangerous naivety.

That's the point bro - conflating hegemony with imperialism and power with domination. Hegemony or power isn't inherently bad - a hegemonic nation isn't the same as a imperial one, not all power is abused or exercised in the same way. Like I said or was trying to: being the dominant player is different to being a dominating player where you subjugate or exploit others - hallmarks of imperialism that we should all resist and that the US was correct in resisting in the past during the Soviet era.

But the tide has turned in that China/Russia are now resisting US imperial power and encirclement / containment within their own neighborhood - and modern day Russia is different to its Soviet Imperialist past. What matters is how power is gained, used, and maintained. If China and Russia are addressing security concerns or building economic partnerships, that can't be equated to being imperial. Every country should have a long term strategy on how to gain power and grow - nothing wrong with that, its in the how that makes it imperial or not.

Theirs a tendency to assume that any pursuit of power outside the Western model must be imperial or malevolent. But it's the Western way of pursuing power that has historically been imperial and is so even today. China, emphasizes non-interference and economic cooperation - core tenets of the very philosophies you mentioned, like Lao Tzu and Confucius. If their focus is on infrastructure, trade, and development rather than military conquest or corporate vulture funds leeching off nations - its false to frame them as imperial offenders.

With Russia, Putin’s rhetoric about national pride and historical significance is no different from Western nations invoking their past glories - whether it’s “Make America Great Again” or Brexit’s appeal to Britain’s former influence. Nations aspire to greatness which isn't in and of itself a issue. The issue is how greatness is pursued. It's also extremely rare for a nation to be expansionist / imperial when it has a aging and declining population - being imperial usually goes hand in hand with the demographics needed for it. In the case of Russia - it's also already the most resource rich nation on earth by a margin, with one of the longest borders that needs defending, that requires more men it doesn't have to defend it.

I think for now it's implausible to label Russia as imperialist or expansionist - until it goes beyond buffer zones to areas that pose no risk to its heartland. Its actions in Ukraine are not a reflection of imperial preference but rather a response driven by the necessity of ensuring its security. Them deploying a Game A tactic or behavior, isn't them operating a Game A mentality in its totality and operating from that ethos.

A fun but illustrative analogy on the distinction between being dominant vs a dominating player:

Lets say I'm the largest diner at a dining table with others - I'm big, well fed, clearly dominant. Depending on the context, that doesn't mean I am dominating others at the table by gorging all the food for myself. How did I get to that size and maintain it? If I stole food off others plates and stopped them from having their own share - that's bad and naughty of me. If I got big by tending my own garden and eating my own food, then when I got to the table I acted civilly by sharing food and passing the mains around to others at the table - that's a good boy. Not every big player is so and remains so through not playing nice with others.

 

[sholomar]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Tell that to Putin, Jinping, or Trump. See how far you get.

I'm tired of progressives trying to convince everyone that mankind is good. Mankind is not good. Mankind is evil and stupid. Which why progressives keep failing. Progressives themselves are evil and stupid.

Mankind are not good or evil, we just are. We act based on our evolutionary impulses derived over a couple million years of evolution. The fact we can conceptualize good and evil and define morality is an amazing trait, but not everyone is going to share that morality because for example, a certain percentage of the population are born psychopaths, or with the drive to kill (not a fan of using TV series as example of life but everyone loves Dexter, the serial killer who kills other serial killers) .. why are crime dramas the most popular TV series out there?

The real solution to the problems of our species will come from science and genetic engineering, in my opinion. That assumes you can trust the people doing the engineering, and trust those in charge to do it properly. We need to re-wire the DNA of our hardware programming first. Otherwise we have too many neurotic animal traits left within our genetic makeup.  That or massive cultural brainwashing from birth in a sort of autocratic system where people are forced brainwashed with "utopian values" but good luck with that. That or time, thousands of years more evolution, but with the way technology is progressing we are going to break this simulation before that happens.

Overall I'd say you will never save everyone... the best you can hope for is a society that works best for the most individuals, which western society mostly does okay. I've often thought about visiting China and spending time there just to see how a supposedly better managed dictatorship functions. My exposure to China is limited to watching "The China Show" and then watching people like "Because I'm lizzy" who show the positive side. Autocracy is really leadership dependent more than other systems, and they can't be a stage green because as morally nice as greens are, a society run by them would collapse. Green values can't work in a vacuum. They violate the laws of nature.

That aside, I agree with you... mankind is not inherently "good" ... then again no species acts out of "goodness" they do it because it benefits the propagation of their DNA in some way.  "Good" can do this, but it doesn't mean everyone is programmed to do this.  Nature is perfect balance to keep any one species from dominating, until humans came along that is.  Nature is also full of suffering and competition along with death... it's everywhere if you care to look. It's amazing we've managed the level of self regulation that we have given how we used to behave even 50 years ago much less 150 when we'd move into an area and shoot every animal we saw.  Progressives have done a good job making sure our base nature doesn't totally rape this planet, but even then that's because it's within our DNA to behave this way. Still have a ways to go because we still have a consumption driven society where central bankers want people to buy new things because economic activity is necessary to keep economic systems from imploding with all their unfunded liabilities (social security, paid maternity leave, "free" health care, etc)

That said a lot of the geopolitical talk in this thread is outside my scope of understanding.   It's all just our genetic programming acting itself out on the global stage.  I asked the AI chatbot Gemini the other day whether an alien species would be compassionate and share our morality or not and got an interesting response I agreed with.  Everyone here assumes morality is a trait inherit to life when it really isn't. Good thing interstellar travel is so difficult. I guess the creators/engineers of this video game knew what they were doing in that regard. Lots of different planets each inaccessible to one another in which we can try out a different "game" with infinite variety, infinite diversity, but not necessarily morality. Assuming an alcubierre drive is even possible, an alien species would probably have mastered their base impulses and genetic engineering before they ever had the ability to invent one and probably not go out with a goal to conquer other planets with sentient species, given how many planets they'd have to choose from that are uninhabited by sentient life. (99.9% of them)

Edited Saturday at 03:50 PM by sholomar

[Nilsi]

Just now, zazen said:

That's brilliant. 

That's the point bro - conflating hegemony with imperialism and power with domination. Hegemony or power isn't inherently bad - a hegemonic nation isn't the same as a imperial one, not all power is abused or exercised in the same way. Like I said or was trying to: being the dominant player is different to being a dominating player where you subjugate or exploit others - hallmarks of imperialism that we should all resist and that the US was correct in resisting in the past during the Soviet era.

But the tide has turned in that China/Russia are now resisting US imperial power and encirclement / containment within their own neighborhood - and modern day Russia is different to its Soviet Imperialist past. What matters is how power is gained, used, and maintained. If China and Russia are addressing security concerns or building economic partnerships, that can't be equated to being imperial. Every country should have a long term strategy on how to gain power and grow - nothing wrong with that, its in the how that makes it imperial or not.

Theirs a tendency to assume that any pursuit of power outside the Western model must be imperial or malevolent. But it's the Western way of pursuing power that has historically been imperial and is so even today. China, emphasizes non-interference and economic cooperation - core tenets of the very philosophies you mentioned, like Lao Tzu and Confucius. If their focus is on infrastructure, trade, and development rather than military conquest or corporate vulture funds leeching off nations - its false to frame them as imperial offenders.

With Russia, Putin’s rhetoric about national pride and historical significance is no different from Western nations invoking their past glories - whether it’s “Make America Great Again” or Brexit’s appeal to Britain’s former influence. Nations aspire to greatness which isn't in and of itself a issue. The issue is how greatness is pursued. It's also extremely rare for a nation to be expansionist / imperial when it has a aging and declining population - being imperial usually goes hand in hand with the demographics needed for it. In the case of Russia - it's also already the most resource rich nation on earth by a margin, with one of the longest borders that needs defending, that requires more men it doesn't have to defend it.

I think for now it's implausible to label Russia as imperialist or expansionist - until it goes beyond buffer zones to areas that pose no risk to its heartland. Its actions in Ukraine are not a reflection of imperial preference but rather a response driven by the necessity of ensuring its security. Them deploying a Game A tactic or behavior, isn't them operating a Game A mentality in its totality and operating from that ethos.

A fun but illustrative analogy on the distinction between being dominant vs a dominating player:

Lets say I'm the largest diner at a dining table with others - I'm big, well fed, clearly dominant. Depending on the context, that doesn't mean I am dominating others at the table by gorging all the food for myself. How did I get to that size and maintain it? If I stole food off others plates and stopped them from having their own share - that's bad and naughty of me. If I got big by tending my own garden and eating my own food, then when I got to the table I acted civilly by sharing food and passing the mains around to others at the table - that's a good boy. Not every big player is so and remains so through not playing nice with others.

 

I see your point that not all power is inherently illegitimate, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking China or Russia are engaged in some noble liberation struggle against the West. These are regimes driven by raw, cynical power grabs, with no higher purpose than domination.

China’s economic rise is built on espionage, intellectual property theft, and exploitation. Their infrastructure projects in Africa shackle nations with debt, enforcing subservience to serve their own trade ambitions. This is underpinned by a brutal genocide against the Uyghurs and an Orwellian surveillance state designed to crush dissent and maintain absolute control.

Russia, meanwhile, functions like a mafia state. Beyond its aggression in Ukraine, it aligns with brutal regimes, escalates proxy wars with the U.S., and brutalizes its own population through oligarchic exploitation. Their state-sponsored Wagner operations in Central Africa enslave locals and strip resources like diamonds to fuel their imperial ambitions.

These actions are not rooted in principle or justice - they are deliberate strategies of oppression and exploitation, driven solely by an insatiable hunger for power.

None of this is to excuse the West or U.S. hegemony - historically, their exploits have often been even worse. But that’s not the point here.