Glad that I have the acumen to hold the thoughts of how dire and grim it is. The vast majority of humans run on autopilot and greed. Animals (who are often denigrated as stupid) are actually an innate part of the foiled system, because they are slaughtered in the trillions and a smallish number of these, but not all, actually collectively hold the ecosystem together. Individual animal rights is a related question, and I sure as hell would not prefer to be alive in today's world.
Here's the crux of it. Humans, especially first-world ones, have so refined their quality of life that sustainability has taken a secondary role. Humans yearn for sexual desires including those of procreation, as if it's a very cute thing, but it's devastating on a collective level. The amount of consumption and waste generated by most human lifestyles is exorbitant. A cap of 2.5 billion humans would be far better than today's 8.3 billion but would still cause widespread problems.
Good luck trying to teach those billions about ecology and animal rights. If it's not taught at the most elementary levels properly, it's often too late for humans by the age of 20.
Agreed. GBS said "Every man over 40 is a scoundrel." I'm well past 40 and long given up trying to climb the ladder, there were too many people shaking it.
Thank you for reviewing my comment. I think reputation is, however, something that's precious if you can get it anytime. My cap on the age 20 was about how parentage and education solidify our intentions and gear us toward all the wrong things too late to be changed: a nuclear family, the Great American and Australian Dreams, and contributing to every other ponzi scheme there might be.
You have given me hope, so please do keep writing. Feeding the algorithm is not quite a noble ambition, but honing yourself for those who actually understand could mean the world for those few. I know it means a great deal to me.
Neolliberalism is a theory of mass human behaviour but they do it entirely without a theory of individual behaviour. That means they don't have to give account of emotions, etc. although I've never seen one of them attempt to account for wars within their theories.
Glad that I have the acumen to hold the thoughts of how dire and grim it is. The vast majority of humans run on autopilot and greed. Animals (who are often denigrated as stupid) are actually an innate part of the foiled system, because they are slaughtered in the trillions and a smallish number of these, but not all, actually collectively hold the ecosystem together. Individual animal rights is a related question, and I sure as hell would not prefer to be alive in today's world.
Here's the crux of it. Humans, especially first-world ones, have so refined their quality of life that sustainability has taken a secondary role. Humans yearn for sexual desires including those of procreation, as if it's a very cute thing, but it's devastating on a collective level. The amount of consumption and waste generated by most human lifestyles is exorbitant. A cap of 2.5 billion humans would be far better than today's 8.3 billion but would still cause widespread problems.
Good luck trying to teach those billions about ecology and animal rights. If it's not taught at the most elementary levels properly, it's often too late for humans by the age of 20.
Agreed. GBS said "Every man over 40 is a scoundrel." I'm well past 40 and long given up trying to climb the ladder, there were too many people shaking it.
Thank you for reviewing my comment. I think reputation is, however, something that's precious if you can get it anytime. My cap on the age 20 was about how parentage and education solidify our intentions and gear us toward all the wrong things too late to be changed: a nuclear family, the Great American and Australian Dreams, and contributing to every other ponzi scheme there might be.
You have given me hope, so please do keep writing. Feeding the algorithm is not quite a noble ambition, but honing yourself for those who actually understand could mean the world for those few. I know it means a great deal to me.
That is a neat connection between neoliberalism and militarism
Neolliberalism is a theory of mass human behaviour but they do it entirely without a theory of individual behaviour. That means they don't have to give account of emotions, etc. although I've never seen one of them attempt to account for wars within their theories.