Veganism: low vs high perspective.

[Shane Hanlon]

13 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

I do share their opinion that our system will not change in time.

The anti-rivalrous omni-considerate dynamics necessary to escape the metacrisis unscathed requires that the majority of the global population develops SD tier-2 cognition. And if even a handful of powerful actors lag behind in tier-1 cognition, the scheme fails.

To make an important distinction Rend. It doesn't require the majority of the global population, it takes islands of coherence and power. Which is still unlikely, but possible.

 

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

System will of course change, but they will not change from the theorizing and hand-wringing from Tier 2, Game B hippie intellectuals obessing over the end of mankind.

I respect Schamatchenberger's intelligence very much, but if you zoom out and get real, his own project is not going to change the course of society. It strikes me as out of touch with our political and development social reality. While he is obsessing over ecological collapse and game theory, fascist clowns are piloting the plane into a mountain.

 

This is a conversation I am thrilled to have. Where we can move this understanding forward in a productive way.

I too believe we are unlikely to change systems for the better before the collapse. It doesn't take Einstein to see this.

but,

It can be improbable and at the same time, we should do everything we can to change our systems for the better.

 

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

his own project is not going to change the course of society. It strikes me as out of touch with our political and development social reality. While he is obsessing over ecological collapse and game theory, fascist clowns are piloting the plane into a mountain.

I want to double-click on this. I believe we should be trying everything we can to make a transition to a better world as wisely as possible. If you disagree with this premise let me know. But to build on top of that premise, How can small groups of strategic, informed, and caring people take the kind of action that has a higher chance of making a difference?

This is where I feel we should be engaging.

Edited Monday at 09:44 PM by Shane Hanlon

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I want to double-click on this.

Oh God

Quote

I believe we should be trying everything we can to make a transition to a better world as wisely as possible. If you disagree with this premise let me know. But to build on top of that premise, How can small groups of strategic, informed, and caring people take the kind of action that has a higher chance of making a difference?

This is where I feel we should be engaging.

Bottom line is, the solutions need to be more realistic. Game A, not Game B, because Game B does not exist in the political and business world.

The solutions need to understand and accept the following realities:

• Oil consumption will not go down
• Meat eating will not stop
• Nukes will not go away
• AI will not go away
• Wall Street will not go away
• Capitalism will not end
• Socialism will not happen
• Tier 2 will not happen in our lifetime
• Consumer consumption and endless growth will not stop

Now, invent practical solutions within those parameters. That would be a serious engagement with the matter.

Edited Monday at 10:03 PM by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

This Game B stuff sounds very wise and cool, but it is not how politics nor business works.

Something has to give though.

Of course, to play with sharks one has to become a shark (I agree with you that most hippies/progressives are in denial about this).

Question is how does one not become a full on shark, and maintain some degree of decency in the quest to turn things around?

[RendHeaven]

7 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

To make an important distinction Rend. It doesn't require the majority of the global population, it takes islands of coherence and power. Which is still unlikely, but possible.

I'm not so sure. Everything is so fiercely interconnected. Rot and corruption will ripple through the chain. The "good actors" lose on the game theory battlefield and get weeded out through survival of the fittest. The status quo being abuse and exploitation of the commons means that "islands of coherence and power" just means more for the taking from the especially greedy actors who will be thrilled to see their competition forfeit their slice of the pie.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that we just give up. It's moreso just encouragement to keep your expectations in check.

I suspect a Sisyphus rolling the boulder uphill esque future for people like you and I. Where we fight for the hell of it as opposed to some delusional sense of heroic duty.

Let me know if I'm overlooking something.

11 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

How can small groups of strategic, informed, and caring people take the kind of action that has a higher chance of making a difference?

This is where I feel we should be engaging.

Save yaself, save ya family, spread the love. Not much else you can do really.

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

• Oil consumption will not go down
• Meat eating will not stop
• Nukes will not go away
• AI will not go away
• Wall Street will not go away
• Capitalism will not end
• Socialism will not happen
• Tier 2 will not happen in our lifetime
• Consumer consumption and endless growth will not stop

Haha we're in for a ride.

Time to retreat into my cave and contemplate! no better way to pass time while the plane crashes

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Question is how does one not become a full on shark, and maintain some degree of decency in the quest to turn things around?

It's not so puzzling. Plenty of progressive politicians do it. Like AOC or Gavin Newsom or Bernie. Plenty of progressive business people do it too.

You don't have to be a rapacious oligarch to run a successful and useful business.

Edited Monday at 10:14 PM by Leo Gura

[aurum]

4 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

I agree. I never said it would.

There's a part 2 to my explanation above which is often better left unsaid since it's a personal speculation, and a grim one at that...

But I predict a majority of us will eat shit down the line - by which I mean, serious loss and suffering and yes, death.

Because likely nothing will change, and we have already established that the ship is headed directly towards an iceberg.

But all that grim stuff is my own conjecture. Metacrisis framework is very solid as far as diagnosing the problem.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have assumed that was your position.

I'm also not convinced collapse is inevitable though. I think the most likely outcome is that systems are not going to change and collapse will be local but not total.

Collapse is a spectrum.

Worrying too much about civilization collapse will have you do some very stupid things.

Edited yesterday at 01:49 AM by aurum

[RendHeaven]

Just now, aurum said:

Collapse is spectrum.

Worrying too much about civilization collapse will have you do some very stupid things.

This is true.

[Shane Hanlon]

 

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The solutions need to understand and accept the following realities:

• Oil consumption will not go down
• Meat eating will not stop
• Nukes will not go away
• AI will not go away
• Wall Street will not go away
• Capitalism will not end
• Socialism will not happen
• Tier 2 will not happen in our lifetime
• Consumer consumption and endless growth will not stop

Now, invent practical solutions within those parameters. That would be a serious engagement with the matter.

Are there solutions within those parameters though? That sounds like admitting defeat before even trying. I'm not dismissing. Just challenging. I'm interested in how you think we could thread that needle.

Can we work together to come up with real solutions that are better than what each of us comes up with on our own? For real.

[freddyteisen]

Not eating meat results in serious nutritional deficiencies; Vitamin A, B12, K2, taurine, creatine, anserine, carnosine and many more…

Higher perspective is understanding that for something to live, something must die, and that death is part of life. And Eating Ruminant animals is a natural part of life’s cycle.

and I’m talking Ruminants/live stock that was grass fed and grass finished and pasture raised. NOT factory farmed, fed corn and soy.

Including Meat, organs, eggs, Wild caught fish, Fruit, Honey, Potatoes, Rice AND Vegetables and salads in your nutrition is A higher Ecological Perspective.

You’re honoring your nutritional needs, you’re honoring ecology, including animals like Chicken, Hogs, Ruminants, Bees, Plants—and all different complex life forms.

Veganism is not higher perspective. It is restrictive and results in Serious Nutritional Deficiencies & paradigm locks.

But the same goes for carnivore. A more balanced diet approach, including High Wuality Sources of food, is a Higher Level Approach.

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Are there solutions within those parameters though?

Of course.

But they won't fit the ideals you're hoping for.

There will not be a solution where mankind averts climate change and ecological damage. That is already coming. What we must do is just make the best of it and then work to reverse it. That's where the serious solutions are.

You gotta face all the ugliness and suffering that comes from low stages of mankind's development: war, famine, flood, disease, inequality, poverty, slavery, corruption, factory farming, pollution, death.

No magic way around that.

Edited Monday at 10:49 PM by Leo Gura

[Shane Hanlon]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There will not be a solution where mankind averts climate change and ecological damage. That is already coming. What we must do is just make the best of it and then work to reverse it

Most of these ecological crises are irreversible. How do you refreeze ice sheets? How do you reforest the amazon? How do you restart the AMOC? You can't. At least not on human timescales.

 

But the rest of your response I hear. Even still, I think we have to do both. Prepare for post-collapse scenarios and ways to mitigate that damage as well as work to make systemic changes that prevent collapse and create a better world. Do you disagree with that?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Most of these ecological crises are irreversible. How do you refreeze ice sheets? How do you reforest the amazon? How do you restart the AMOC? You can't. At least not on human timescales.

I disagree. I think most of it can be reversed.

CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere. Sunlight can be blocked from reaching the Earth. Climate can be controlled and manipulated to suit mankind. Forests can easily be regrown. Animals can be cloned and farmed. Fisheries can be rebuilt. Corals can be regrown.

Ice sheets are a little harder, but mankind can adapt to that.

Quote

Prepare for post-collapse scenarios

I wouldn't even assume collapse. Climate change does not have to mean collapse. Society will adapt.

These predictions of collapse are highly speculative. So I suggest inventing solutions for a non-collapsed world because as of now that collapse is a fantasy.

Edited yesterday at 12:46 AM by Leo Gura

[Shane Hanlon]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I disagree. I think most of it can be reversed.

CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere. Sunlight can be blocked from reaching the Earth. Climate can be controlled and manipulated to suit mankind. Forests can easily be regrown. Animals can be cloned and farmed. Fisheries can be rebuilt. Corals can be regrown.

Ice sheets are a little harder, but mankind can adapt to that.

I would urge you to reconsider these views. Ecologies are so interdependent that you can't affect any one part of it, without affecting all of it. Which is why it is so dangerous in the first place to change these Earth systems.

And some of this doesn't have any substantiation. A forest like the Amazon will never grow back (on human time scales) to the richness and biodiversity it is at now if it collapses. CO2 cannot be removed at scale using any known technologies other than maintaining and nurturing existing ecosystems.

 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I wouldn't even assume collapse. Climate change does not have to mean collapse. Society will adapt.

These predictions of collapse are highly speculative. So I suggest inventing solutions for a non-collapsed world because as of now that collapse is a fantasy.

I sense you are still lacking a deep dive into the physics of our ecological realities and their relationships with one another. It is speculative as to how exactly societies would collapse, but I would argue (and can substantiate this further if needed) that it is highly likely that they will collapse if no incentive structures are changed.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Which is why it is so dangerous in the first place to change these Earth systems.

Dangerous or not it will be done.

Just because you are so risk averse does not mean your plans will work.

Yes it is dangerous, but nukes are more dangerous and we have gotten this far.

Quote

And some of this doesn't have any substantiation. A forest like the Amazon will never grow back (on human time scales) to the richness and biodiversity it is at now if it collapses. CO2 cannot be removed at scale using any known technologies other than maintaining and nurturing existing ecosystems.

Your thinking is too short-term. The repair will take 100-200 years. And that is fine. Does mankind have something better to do? You got somewhere to be?

We will burn oil for another 100 years. Then we will be developed enough to move onto something clean and repair the damage over the next 200 years. That's our situation. So buckle in.

Edited yesterday at 02:27 AM by Leo Gura

[Shane Hanlon]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Dangerous or not it will be done.

Perhaps, but it will likely make things worse than better.

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Your thinking is too short-term. The repair will take 100-200 years. And that is fine

Think more like millenia. And it only takes 30 days without food to die.

 

 

I would seriously urge you to do a deep dive into ecology and how the biosphere functions. There is so many insights to have in that field of study.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I would seriously urge you to do a deep dive into ecology and how the biosphere functions. There is so many insights to have in that field of study.

I have heard enough of these ecological people talk their utopian fantasies that I don't want to hear any more. These people have no serious vision of human civilization. These are hippie socialist eco-peasants and their ideas will fail.

Meta-crisis-group-think is what that is.

Edited yesterday at 02:30 AM by Leo Gura

[Shane Hanlon]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

have heard enough of these ecological people talk their utopian fantasies that I don't want to hear any more. These people have no serious vision of human civilization. These are hippie socialist eco-peasants and their ideas will fail.

Meta-crisis-group-think is what that is.

I think you are incredibly intelligent and have such a depth of wisdom and love to share. Absolutely no shade and no ill will. I think you are overlooking something important and profound here.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I think you are incredibly intelligent and have such a depth of wisdom and love to share. Absolutely no shade and no ill will. I think you are overlooking something important and profound here.

I get your position. It's not unreasonable. In the end we gotta pick some perspective to settle on. You picked yours, I picked mine. We'll see who was right in 30 years.

Edited yesterday at 02:43 AM by Leo Gura

[Buck Edwards]

4 hours ago, freddyteisen said:

Not eating meat results in serious nutritional deficiencies; Vitamin A, B12, K2, taurine, creatine, anserine, carnosine and many more…

Higher perspective is understanding that for something to live, something must die, and that death is part of life. And Eating Ruminant animals is a natural part of life’s cycle.

and I’m talking Ruminants/live stock that was grass fed and grass finished and pasture raised. NOT factory farmed, fed corn and soy.

Including Meat, organs, eggs, Wild caught fish, Fruit, Honey, Potatoes, Rice AND Vegetables and salads in your nutrition is A higher Ecological Perspective.

You’re honoring your nutritional needs, you’re honoring ecology, including animals like Chicken, Hogs, Ruminants, Bees, Plants—and all different complex life forms.

Veganism is not higher perspective. It is restrictive and results in Serious Nutritional Deficiencies & paradigm locks.

But the same goes for carnivore. A more balanced diet approach, including High Wuality Sources of food, is a Higher Level Approach.

[integral]

Veganism is understood at the end of veganism not at the beginning