There are objective rules to life that can't be disputed.

[Leo Gura]

Don't assume shrinking is bad.

As humans becomes more conscious there will likely be much fewer of them.

Right now humanity is like a cancer. This of course must stop.

[Girzo]

When the environment can't sustain a population it shrinks natrurally. We should be thankful that people decide to have less kids by themselves.

There's so many people on the Earth right now that systems can't regenerate.

[The Don]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

There's so many people on the Earth right now that systems can't regenerate.

Is this true in the Western world?

[Xochiquetzal]

I highly disagree !

First, you say that your principles are "objective" to me, that's already a nonsense  . 

Secondly I would be way more nuanced about family values, I think they mostly exist to maintain social order, moreover, families can be detrimental for some individuals and you kind of seem to forget the existence of homosexual people . 

And as Leo said, less humans would be a great thing for earth, many young people those days just don't want to have children anymore because we start to realize that we are no good thing for the planet . 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Xochiquetzal

[Scholar]

52 minutes ago, The Don said:

Is this true in the Western world?

It is true especially in the western world. If the rest of the world will live by the same standard of living we do, there will be nothing of this planet left to exploit.

 

There are millions upon millions of people who seek refuge, that is more than enough to replace the few people who choose to have less children. What we need is more effective integration of different people from different cultures into the western world.

[The Don]

1 hour ago, Xochiquetzal said:

And as Leo said, less humans would be a great thing for earth, many young people those days just don't want to have children anymore because we start to realize that we are no good thing for the planet .

Human life is sacred. Human life is precious in infinite ways. Human life is not secondary compared to planet Earth or anything else.

You are fooling yourself with the idea that "Mother Earth is a Goddess" that is more important than us.

Ask yourself, how much of a threat to the Planet are those people under the rubble as the result of a violent earthquake?

Or, ask them, how much of a threat they feel they are to the planet today, as they're sitting under the rubble?

When we fail to understand that human life is not secondary to anything else, we wander off the right path and hell breaks loose.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't take care of our planet. Of course, we should. But who's dumping all the plastics in the ocean? Asian countries and underdeveloped countries as well.

48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

What we need is more effective integration of different people from different cultures into the western world.

Nope. Wrong. Click here to see why. We need to preserve every good culture. Neuroticism has nothing to do with a healthy culture. Those people who feel that our culture is rubbish, in part they are true; they are true because post-modernism has lost "it's mind". Take a look at what those leftists are doing. What kind of art they're producing. Poop, scatological art and nonsense. From Leonardo da Vinci (1) to leftism (2). It's really that bad, really.

We should celebrate every good culture and disregard everything bad.

To get my point of view, make sure to check the links above.

I'm in favor of human life, as Seneca would say: always decide in your own favor. We should let mother Earth take care if itself as it is a self correcting system.

Edited November 2, 2019 by The Don
To add a link an correct some phrases.

[Scholar]

12 minutes ago, The Don said:

Nope. Wrong. Click here to see why. We need to preserve every good culture. Neuroticism has nothing to do with a healthy culture. Those people who feel that our culture is rubbish, in part they are true; they are true because post-modernism has lost "it's mind". Take a look at what those leftists are doing. What kind of art they're producing. Poop, scatological art and nonsense. From Leonardo da Vinci (1) to leftism (2). It's really that bad, really.

We should celebrate every good culture and disregard everything bad.

To get my point of view, make sure to check the links above.

I never said that adopting better integration policy and structures will solve poverty. The integration policy is for the benefit of war-refugees and the countries which adopt these refugees. Don't forget that these refugees are cheap labor and benefit the economy of a lot of the countries which adopt them.

This has nothing to do with our culture being deconstructed by post-modernism. Solving the poverty of other countries requires far more systemic approaches and most likely great sacrifices to western economies which depend on the cheap and exploitative labor in third world countries.

 

However, you claimed western countries would benefit from an increase, or mitigation of a decrease, in population, and adopting refugees with effective integration would be a solution to that problem.

[Nak Khid]

The Donald?

[The Don]

3 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

The Donald?

Yes.

[Forestluv]

On 11/2/2019 at 11:30 AM, The Don said:

Human life is sacred. Human life is precious in infinite ways. Human life is not secondary compared to planet Earth or anything else.

It’s not that human life is secondary. What you are doing is placing human life as primary. This is a very human-centric biased view. You are arguing for humans. Why aren’t you arguing for for the sacredness of dung beetle life? Why aren’t you arguing that butterfly life is not secondary compared to humans or anything else? . . . Humans are not secondary to anything else, yet they are not primary to anything else. Human extinction is a concern to humans. Yet from a trans-human perspective, human extinction is no more worrisome than extinction of ants. Who cares if humans go extinct. Most of Earth’s history had no humans and in many ways, Earth would be better off without humans. . . 

[Nak Khid]

3 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

The Donald?

3 hours ago, The Don said:

Yes.

 

The Romanian Trump?

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nak Khid

[The Don]

2 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

 

The Romanian Trump?

Sort of.

[Nak Khid]

9 hours ago, The Don said:

Is this true in the Western world?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says

U.S. Military Could Collapse Within 20 Years Due to Climate Change, Report Commissioned By Pentagon Says

The report says a combination of global starvation, war, disease, drought, and a fragile power grid could have cascading, devastating effects.

by Nafeez Ahmed

Oct 24 2019, 9:00am

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says

The report was commissioned by General Mark Milley, Trump's new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, making him the highest-ranking military officer in the country (the report also puts him at odds with Trump, who does not take climate change seriously.)

The report, titled Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army, was launched by the U.S. Army War College in partnership with NASA in May at the Wilson Center in Washington DC. The report was commissioned by Gen. Milley during his previous role as the Army’s Chief of Staff. It was made publicly available in August via the Center for Climate and Security, but didn't get a lot of attention at the time.

The two most prominent scenarios in the report focus on the risk of a collapse of the power grid within “the next 20 years,” and the danger of disease epidemics. Both could be triggered by climate change in the near-term, it notes.

“If the power grid infrastructure were to collapse, the United States would experience significant:

[tenta]

No those rules aren't objective, but at least what you're saying is definitely a step up from most people who've said "humans are social creatures"

[Ferus Animi]

On 11/1/2019 at 10:02 AM, The Don said:

1. People are not basically good which is why we need to make people good.

I'm curious how we "make people good". Who does that, if people are not basically good?

[The Don]

13 minutes ago, Ferus Animi said:

I'm curious how we "make people good".

Good families have good kids. It all starts with a good family and a healthy way of thinking. Parents have the role of teaching the kids what human nature is and the importance of goodness in the world.

[roar]

We need to teach them muricanism...

[silene]

3 hours ago, roar said:

We need to teach them muricanism...

what's that? 

@The Don I agree with you in general, but fear the devil is in the detail. There are many versions of 'goodness' out there, mine could be totally different to yours. 

[roar]

@silene The Don believes in murica

 

[Matt8800]

On 11/1/2019 at 7:02 AM, The Don said:

Hello.

It's okay to have your own way in life; nobody disrespects that.

But when it comes to life, there are some objective rules to follow.

There is a path in life... and when we wander off the path, hell breaks loose.

Rules that sane human beings adopt:

1. People are not basically good which is why we need to make people good.

2. The family value is the cornerstone of human progress. Father, mother, and children.

3. The pursuit of happiness is absolutely crucial to every human being.

You can be whatever you want and do whatever you want after you understand that goodness, the family value, and happiness are the building block of life.

When people and societies drop those values, hell breaks loose.

When people fail to see what wisdom stands for, societies die.

@The Don When you say people are "good", what exactly is the definition of "good" to you? What things would they do to be outside of the category of "good"?

Btw, I agree with that for the most part. Im just curious if you thought much about how you determine what is "good" and when something is not "good". Notice how "good" doesnt have much meaning outside of a human perspective. Its tempting to think that the human world is the whole world but that is just like Chimpanzees thinking their chimpanzee world is the whole world. Chimpanzees and humans may disagree about what is "good".