Thoughts on what comes next...

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

If you are talking about a 100% Game B world then i would agree, But this game A world will eat itself up faster than 100 years.

There will still be some game A elements in the future, however a lot of game A system will start to collapse. Why do i say that?

This level of game A world will self terminate, i suspect in the next 30-35-40 years. (

Way too idealistic.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

• we are running out of oil and other natural resources,

No we aren't and by the time we run out of oil we will have better energy sources.

Energy on this planet is practically infinite.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

• we are completely destorying oceans,

Meh, they can be cleaned and resorted.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

• we are destroying animal life and the ecosystem,

A bit, but it can be resorted.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

• the nutritional value of our food is constantly declining - so we need even more food to get the same nutrients as we get from the past [we need about 9 oranges to get the same amount of nutritients as we got from the mid 20st century]

That's easy to solve.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

• water scarcity

The Earth basically has infinite water.

[puporing]

Well it was nice to see all the care-i-boos gathering. 

[Harikrishnan]

@Leo Gura So Sadhguru in actuality wanted to do something with his time, so took up save soil initiative. Do you think there is no need for initiatives like this? 

Isnt climate change a thing? Or do u think it will be fine

 

 

[Nilsi]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm not trying to save the world.

I'm not trying to save mankind from self-destruction.

Yes, and good for him. I'm just saying it won't save the world.

If he enjoys what he does, no problem.

Yes, exactly. And I don't think Ken Wilber's work is gonna save the world either.

I don't have contempt for him. I admire his work. I just said it won't save the world and it is not politically practical.

You can talk endlessly about Game B, but our world runs on Game A, and it will run that way for the next 100 years at least.

My point here is not contempt but to add some realism to the discussion. It's easy to get seduced and deluded into this Wilberian futurism where the whole world wakes up to Tier 2. That's not going to happen.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer  I think you and Schmachtenberger are more similar than you realize. He has clearly stated that the way to get to Game B ist through winning Game A; he has talked about the necessity to develop or train some kind of Alexander The Great type character; he has talked about Nietzsche. I'm just saying, I think there is a lot of common ground and things to be learned from one another in regards to your respective works.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Nilsi

[flyingguitarist]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't have contempt for him. I admire his work. I just said it won't save the world and it is not politically practical..

@Leo Gura in your mind , what kind of approaches would be feasible &  politically practical ones with the same intent as these guys(Daniel , Ken wilber , GameB members etc..)  

Edited May 6, 2022 by flyingguitarist

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Way too idealistic.

It might be, but one other thing that seems  really idealistic to me which isn't based on being tangible, is assuming that global systemic problems can be solved in a game A structure.

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No we aren't and by the time we run out of oil we will have better energy sources.

"According to the MAHB, the world's oil reserves will run out by 2052" Of course this can be slowed down, if we are making the oil consumption slower . But you are only considering using it as energy, but we are using oil for 100 different things which will be hard to be replaced, but of course not impossible.

One main thing we use oil for is making plastic. But to my suprise, we already have a solution for that "biobased plastic". ( But this implies an even greater need for food growing, and assumes that the soil degradation problem is solved )

But one other thing that will be interesting, is that the economy growth will need to stop for a while, because the energy usage and GPD is related. Transitioning to renewable energy will take a really big investment. (Countries are already using as much renewable energy as they can combining with using as much not renewable energy as they can)

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Meh, they can be cleaned and resorted.

All comes down to the question of when the world will actually start to care globally. (How far can we stretch this kind of living without any major systemic changes)

In this game A system there is so many different incentives and goals, it will be really interesting to see how soil degradation, ocean problems, destroying of the ecosystem, climate change will be solved, when you can only see rivalous dynamics everywhere.

It will be really fascinating to see, how different countries with completely different agendas and goals and incentives can come together to actually solve these global issues.

I don't want to get political here, but its hard to see that some conservative people don't even acknowledge the harsh realities of climate-change. ( They think that it is natural, and not caused by humans)

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's easy to solve.

Not that easy, but it is still solveable now. But thats why sadghuru's big tour around the world for the fight for soil.

Fucking up the soil completely will resort in lack of food for humans and for animals. 

But yeah its still solveable (if we act on it in time)

Edited May 6, 2022 by zurew

[BuddhistLover]

lol I love how Leo, is defending off every and all debates. The master of debates, keeper of truth. lmao that's fucking awesome how fends off every debate or argument everyone throws at him with ease. I think he just debates and argues with people for fun at this point. That's fucking great. I was watching his video about getting scammed and he talked about how he flew to Canada on a whim to get his money back in court, and he went there and won the case. That's skills

Edited May 6, 2022 by BuddhistLover

[TK2021]

On 06/05/2022 at 2:53 AM, Leo Gura said:

I'm not trying to save the world.

You are misunderstanding. Perhaps we are just talking past each other with these terse replies. Let me try once more.

It’s not about saving the world. It’s about EMBODYING the deeper level of Love and it permeating through to the relative world through all your actions. For an emotionally developed human, it would of course manifest as authentic, burning concern for your actual Self, which includes the world, which is a broader concern than just you as a human. This is quite different from indifference and also quite different from some sort of self-aggrandizing martyrdom which is usually seen.

@BuddhistLover
Bro.. it's chelation time for you.

Edited May 7, 2022 by TK2021

[Leo Gura]

On 5/5/2022 at 9:29 PM, Harikrishnan said:

@Leo Gura So Sadhguru in actuality wanted to do something with his time, so took up save soil initiative. Do you think there is no need for initiatives like this? 

Of course there is need for environmental initiatives. I'm all for stuff like that. We need more of that.

On 5/5/2022 at 9:29 PM, Harikrishnan said:

Isnt climate change a thing? Or do u think it will be fine

It is a thing, but also we have no choice but to solve it, so we will solve it. I have no doubt we will solve it. Of course plenty of people will suffer as we solve it so the sooner we solve it the fewer people will suffer. But also, we can't kid ourselves into thinking we can solve it too soon. It will take 50-100 years to solve. Something like that.

On 5/6/2022 at 1:40 AM, Nilsi said:

I think you and Schmachtenberger are more similar than you realize. .... I think there is a lot of common ground and things to be learned from one another in regards to your respective works.

I don't disagree. There is much to learn from him.

On 5/6/2022 at 2:06 AM, flyingguitarist said:

@Leo Gura in your mind , what kind of approaches would be feasible &  politically practical ones with the same intent as these guys(Daniel , Ken wilber , GameB members etc..)  

I gave a list in my Conscious Politics Part 4 video of all the practical policy solutions we need. So working towards those. Most important is getting money out of politics and other such structural reforms.

On 5/6/2022 at 2:26 AM, zurew said:

It might be, but one other thing that seems  really idealistic to me which isn't based on being tangible, is assuming that global systemic problems can be solved in a game A structure.

I think Game A can solve more global problems than is assumed. When a global problem threatens the survival of many actors, they will be forced to work together even if they otherwise hate each other and don't want to.

On 5/6/2022 at 2:26 AM, zurew said:

"According to the MAHB, the world's oil reserves will run out by 2052" Of course this can be slowed down, if we are making the oil consumption slower . But you are only considering using it as energy, but we are using oil for 100 different things which will be hard to be replaced, but of course not impossible.

I doubt the accuracy of validity of that estimate. Such estimates about oiling running out have been very wrong in the past. New ways of extracting oil can be developed. Plastics can be recycled.

On 5/6/2022 at 2:26 AM, zurew said:

One main thing we use oil for is making plastic. But to my suprise, we already have a solution for that "biobased plastic". ( But this implies an even greater need for food growing, and assumes that the soil degradation problem is solved )

New materials can and will be developed. Plastics are not exactly the healthiest materials. In the future we will probably reduce our reliance on plastics a lot.

On 5/6/2022 at 2:26 AM, zurew said:

All comes down to the question of when the world will actually start to care globally. (How far can we stretch this kind of living without any major systemic changes)

The world will start to care when it has no other option. So I'm not worried about that.

On 5/6/2022 at 2:26 AM, zurew said:

when you can only see rivalous dynamics everywhere.

There are many cooperative dynamics too.

On 5/6/2022 at 2:26 AM, zurew said:

I don't want to get political here, but its hard to see that some conservative people don't even acknowledge the harsh realities of climate-change.

That view will quickly die off. It's already happening.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, TK2021 said:

You are misunderstanding. Perhaps we are just talking past each other with these terse replies. Let me try once more.

It’s not about saving the world. It’s about EMBODYING the deeper level of Love and it permeating through to the relative world through all your actions. For an emotionally developed human, it would of course manifest as authentic, burning concern for your actual Self, which includes the world, which is a broader concern than just you as a human. This is quite different from indifference and also quite different from some sort of self-aggrandizing martyrdom which is usually seen.

Of course there needs to be broader concern for the planet and mankind as a whole.

My point is that mankind will handle itself and it will develop only at the pace it is ready for. You're not going to rush the process along with fancy Game B theory.

"Burning concern" could backfire so I'd be careful about that.

[TK2021]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course there needs to be broader concern for the planet and mankind as a whole.

My point is that mankind will handle itself and it will develop only at the pace it is ready for. You're not going to rush the process along with fancy Game B theory.

"Burning concern" could backfire so I'd be careful about that.

I don’t mean burning in the sense of blind passion or w/e, more just the intensity of the situation.

Well of course mankind will handle itself. But we are mankind. So we have to handle it. But it’s getting exponentially harder to handle it with exponentially increasing technology, which we have very little grip on. I could go very in depth here, but one should intuitively feel why such exponential growth in material power simply cannot be handled without an exponential growth spiritually, socially, and governmentally.

Game B is just one of those movements that realizes this fact, which we like to shy away from. Of course the solution won’t be mental masturbation. But even this theorizing of Game B has breathed life into many qualified, smart people who were previously quite disillusioned. Unfortunately these things have to start out with theorizing. Let's keep an open mind.

 

[Loba]

Probably the rapture, but Tibetan book of the dead style.

At least you're something wonderful
I find you're something wonderful
At least you're something wonderful
I find you're something wonderful
At least you're something wonderful
I find you're something wonderful
At least you're something wonderful
I find you're something wonderful
At least you're something
At least you're something
At least you're something
At least you're something
At least you're something

I find you're something

I find, I find
I find you're something wonderful

I find, I find
I find you're something

Everything you feel
I can feel stronger

Everything you feel
I can feel stronger

Pulma Gary Payton, live in your rotation
All your plexy clad I'm snapping back upon your station
Keep style elevating, you feelin' this sensation
You're higher zone, you're not alone
I know no perimeters, frequency, no limiters
We multiply integers, we back and forth so limitless
I'm positive, negative combined with infinity
You can grab a line on a line this is synergy

Everything you feel
I can feel stronger

Everything you feel
I can feel stronger

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by Loba

[zurew]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I think Game A can solve more global problems than is assumed. When a global problem threatens the survival of many actors, they will be forced to work together even if they otherwise hate each other and don't want to.

I think you could be right.

The only problem i see with this is the 'recognition of problems' part. Different countries with different political developments and with educational levels see complex problems differently. To add to that, we can even see highly educated people who have "interesting" worldviews like the Earth Creationists who believe that the World was created 6-7 thousand years ago. And they add to that, that global warming doesn't exist (caused by humans).

And of course, the Earth Creationists group is not the only one i could add here, but in general we can say that when it comes to complex problems drawing the lines and making sense of the problem is pretty hard, and even if you have evidence and great arguments there will be a bunch of people who won't agree with you. 

So at the end of the day even if shit gets real, and the burning starts ,there will be a bunch of people who won't even agree that the problem came from x reasons, so they won't agree on the x solutions (cause they think that the root needs to be discovered somewhere else). 

So we have a situation where there is a disagreement about:

• If there is a problem at all
• what are the causality factors of the problems
• when will shit gets real and apocalyptic where there is no coming back.

So having those three premises the solution making and acting on the solution part is really fucking hard.

So when there is a disagreement about the "when will shit get real" part, then we have a dynamic where all the actors will wait as much as they possibly can, before they will be willing to make a sacrifice to start acting for the planet to survive.

Just look at our conversation, we have somewhat a disagreement about when when will shit gets real so the action taking is really hard to agree on especially hard: when to start taking actions, what actions and at what costs.

Edited May 8, 2022 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

On 5/7/2022 at 3:02 PM, TK2021 said:

Well of course mankind will handle itself. But we are mankind. So we have to handle it.

I don't think it will be handled through Game B. If Game B is required then we truly are fucked. Getting widespread adoption of Game B is harder than reversing climate change via Game A material methods.

To me, trying to use Game B to solve climate change is like telling someone who can't afford to buy a house that the solution is to become a billionaire first.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Different countries with different political developments and with educational levels see complex problems differently.

Yeah, but that's always been the case. It all gets averaged out and settled in the marketplace of war and ideas.

[Razard86]

On 5/2/2022 at 1:38 AM, Gidiot said:

@puporing yea as leo and many other can intuit, you have to come to god or unity, it’s not going to force you to submit, it may gently nudge you or whisper to you, in my experience it’s very gentle and clever but I don’t think it’s going to drag you there, that’s the egos job lmao.

idk about your contemplations, things can move rapidly or stagnate depending on events or fate or how the process goes, at least politically you see a bit of a quick movement socially towards inclusion and unity, but lifestyle wise it may take a while to integrate, I still haven’t had enlightenment or that shift in consciousness, I still feel like a separate individual, and if I’m in the 1% percent of people actually doing practices from time to time than we may in fact have a long way to go as a collective.

 

but it’s kind of a mindfuck, sometimes I think my progress and intensity of practice has a direct impact on the “outside world” since I believe I’m imagining it, it’s quite the intuitive experience, it may be off topic but I guess it relates, for some reason the Ramana Maharishi quote comes to mind-

“The greatest thing you can do for the world is your own self realization”

I do agree with everything but one part....there is one part where Your Higher Self becomes forceful.....when you activate the Dark Night of the Soul Process. That was the only time my Higher Self was forceful with me. 

[TK2021]

22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think it will be handled through Game B. If Game B is required then we truly are fucked. Getting widespread adoption of Game B is harder than reversing climate change via Game A material methods.

To me, trying to use Game B to solve climate change is like telling someone who can't afford to buy a house that the solution is to become a billionaire first.

Solving climate change will be just one problem. Implementing "Game B" will be almost unimaginably harder. But we can’t keep playing whack-a-mole with all these existential risks forever. Especially when the moles are exponentially increasing and we aint getting any better at whacking with our Game A approach. Of course recent moles will have to be whacked with the Game A approach, but climate change is just one glaringly obvious, huge and slow mole and we’re already fumbling over ourselves trying to whack it.

In fact, even this analogy is giving too much credit to Game A, because when you are whacking a mole in whack-a-mole, it just goes down. In Game A whack-a-mole, every time you manage to whack a mole down, the whacking itself creates new moles in the game, because the technologies etc. to solve the problems will themselves be used to create new and more complex problems. So in a way it's like "Trying to kill Hydra by cutting its head + Whack-A-Mole on steroids" which we are now playing. That is the severity of the situation. You warned me of idiot compassion earlier, so I'll return the favor and warn you of idiot optimism in terms of Game A.

Edited May 9, 2022 by TK2021