Leaders and political groups from around the world seem hell bent on choices that don’t make any sense. Even if you take into account stupidity, greed, narcissism, religion, rascim, hate, ect. there are constantly things happening that don’t fit.
If inst, you reframe the shit being done with the thought that while none of them may agree on a final destination, they all agree that a fast drop in population is the “fast and easy” solution, then suddenly it all starts to make a lot more sense. Then everything going on is a rush to secure power and position in the post apocalypse world. And things like antivax become their own filtering mechanism to self-select stupid people out of the gene pool.
Unfortunately, once you begin thinking about things with that mind set, then it also becomes really difficult not to see COVID as a test of the system, or at least the tipping point that pushed everything into high gear.
If inst, you reframe the shit being done with the thought that while none of them may agree on a final destination, they all agree that a fast drop in population is the “fast and easy” solution, then suddenly it all starts to make a lot more sense.
the data speaks otherwise. people like trump seem hellbent on people shitting out more children for some reason.
They want more of their children. Elon Musk allegedly told an old girlfriend that he wanted his “own legion of offspring”. They sure as shit don’t want any more poor people having kids than absolutely necessary (and depending on who you ask, that could mean “none at all”). As for the Trumps and Charlie Kirks out there, they want more white births because something something Great Displacement Brain Rot
They think wealth indicates better genetics and want to repopulate the earth with their spawn
the rich also is shielding thier own CHildren from the AI/ brainrot (social media youtube, isnta, tiktok)they have caused, so thier children wont be affected by the consequences when it bursts.
It isn’t just the ruling class. ALL conservatives are causing this.
Conservatives are the single greatest threat to all life on earth. If not for conservatives, the normal people would be permitted to address the climate change.
been saying this for decades. the civilian deaths caused by global climate change will only reduce the population to those that have the means of survival and those who are “lucky” enough to have survived.
the aftermath will provide a new playing board on which new leaders and government will administer and control the masses that are then a more manageable size.
not only do the choices made up to this point begin to make more sense but choices that have yet to be made also become more apparent.
why the push for AI? because it will supplement skilled labor and technical engineers that will be lost after the event.
why the push for automatic factories? robotic assembly will replace physical labor. you can even see this with the push for 3D printed homes.
skilled labor markets have been shrinking for decades. it’s impossible to find a skilled contractor to work on your home that isn’t a national corporate conglomerate, and if you do by some miracle find someone they’re over the age of 60.
btw, homeownership is abysmal because corporate interests have been gobbling up properties and keeping rent sky high.
it’s all related. all of it, and it’s not meant to kill you. it’s meant to distract you, to weaken you. just long enough that your poor environment kills you.
why else were they terrified when Luigi happened? they were terrified that an uprising was about to happen.
It’s ironically comforting to think that they have an ultimate plan and goal, even if it involves killing most of us, but it’s not true.
This is merely history repeating itself for the umpteenth time.
People who have all the money and power want more because they got into those positions in the first place due to the sociopathic, narcissistic mindsets.
The plan is and has always been no more complicated than, “I’m infinitely more important than you, I want it all, and you don’t matter.”
Yep. Obama once said in an interview how once he met super rich people he realized they’re just normal people and unfortunately that’s very true. They’re not special. They’re not a cult of baby blood drinkers, perverts and sycophants because they know something. It’s because they’re normal fuckers.
You know these fuckers. They panic to get one car ahead of you in traffic because mentally they don’t think they’ll get to the same place in basically the same amount of time, usually faster if they just respect traffic flow, they don’t even consider other people at all in their decisions. They buy all the Pokemon cards, concert tickets and game systems to scalp to get themselves ahead even if it isn’t a hobby they’re interested in at all. They take what isn’t nailed down cause they can not because they need it. They lie and cheat for their own personal feelings to avoid guilt and ever considering themselves negatively.
They’re just bad people, some are born bad I believe most are raised.
Next time you go into work look around at the bozos you work with. They’re in the CIA, they run the government, they handle your healthcare. Yes they are that incompetent and yes they are that rude. That’s just how some people are, it’s just how humans are.
Human nature arguments are dubious when the range of human behaviors is largely determined by the opportunities, obstacles, and incentives that arise from particular socioeconomic systems.
Capitalist societies value and incentivize the accumulation of wealth, which requires greedy and self-centered behavior, so we are surrounded by greedy and self-centered people.
Socialist societies value the collective good, so they promote altruistic and communally-minded people. Just look at interviews of people from former Soviet states. Almost universally they say that people got along better and had a real sense of solidarity and care for your neighbors.
Nah, the rich and the powerful are the rich and the powerful in every society because of a psychopathic ability to step on others.
In the Soviet Union, the average person wasn’t really much more prosocial than the average person in the US. The people with any sort of power ranged from skeevy fuckers to open psychos. Just like in the US.
This is ahistorical, and is exactly what the capitalist ruling class want you to think.
Capitalist ruling class or not, I’ve lived in the USSR and I’ve lived in the US. Same people in both places. Neighbors are generally decent folks, cops are insecure assholes, and rich/powerful people got there by screwing people over.
I really don’t think so. You’ll find people who will say the same thing about capitalism but doesn’t make it true. I’ve worked with people who are from Vietnam, China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela. That is not their sentiment. I dislike this idea that socialist societies will suddenly make everyone nice and kind and caring, it just isn’t true. Socialist policies are definitely beneficial but it is not a solution to the greater issue of human development which is that being a heartless, selfish psychopath probably resulted in a higher likelihood of survival for millions of years across all forms of systems and cultures.
I absolutely disagree. The reason our brains are so large is because we are an incredibly social species. Cooperating and altruism were the defining traits that enabled our species to develop civilization. We only stopped being altruistic when our socioeconomic system shifted to agriculture and suddenly there was property to hand down to descendants.
As for you working with people from socialist countries, if you want to find out how it really is, ask the people who stayed, not the small minority who didn’t like it and left.
That just isn’t true we have Neaderthal bodies with signs of violence on them, some societies were less hostile than others but that more depends on geography and resources. In Africa there was families who were clearly bound and beaten to death over 20,000 years ago. The idea of the peaceful hunter-gatherers just isn’t true, there was definitely places and cultures that were more peaceful but a lot of that was again just dependent on resources. Person to person today, regardless of what economic system you live in, people are actually less violent than they used to be.
I also would say we did not stop being altruistic, we built a system that makes it difficult to be. But people are exceptionally kind today in a lot of places.
I think you decided how you feel on this topic so there’s no point in going on. But you should look into it, you’re falling into a classic trap that doesn’t allow you to view the world complexly and you’re convinced all violence stems from capitalism or something. Overall, violence was a daily way of life for many people and cultures don’t suddenly just flop to violence, they develop it slowly over time. We have also over time developed better ways to interact and our population size shows that. While poverty is a problem and widespread, the base level of existing is far more comfortable than it used to be just look at the infant mortality rates and the average life span.
The basis of basically everything you’ve said in this chain is so egregiously wrong. I don’t even know where to begin.
First of all, everything collectively known about humanity shows our ancestors were largely not violent primitives, but instead they experimented with a wide array of different socials structures for millenia. Not all of them perfect, but violence wasn’t a “daily way of life”.
But sure socialism won’t magically make violence, psychopathy, or bad actors disappear. It won’t necessarily bring people closer together. The point is largely about who owns the means of production. But there are also absolutely forms that encourage and reward cooperation in stark contrast to what we have under capitalism.
In fact capitalism loves cooperation. They love monopolies and consolidation because they thrive under internal cooperation. Any attempts to the contrary have failed hilariously.
Cooperation is absolutely, and without doubt, one of humanity’s greatest strengths. It baffles me you’re trying to argue otherwise. In our current capitalist society, with how isolated we are, it may seem beneficial not to cooperate at another’s expense for the immediate advantages it brings you. But its short sighted, in the long term cooperation benefits more people, and it always has.
In the right social structure this would be rewarded and encouraged, and most everyone would be better for it. History shows it, game theory shows it, life on earth shows it, cooperative enterprises show it, and even internally capitalist enterprises show it (but who benefits?)
First of all. Calm down, chill out. Relax.
I didn’t once say anything negative about cooperation, I didn’t even use that word once. What are you talking about? Why are you building this strawman of cooperation and then dismantling it for me when it has little to do with what I said?
It is a false belief people have that ancient man was overall more altruistic, they weren’t. They did not experiment, they engaged with what worked. Cooperation is definitely key to our survival but bigger than that is our ability to weigh risk vs reward and more often than not the more important part of that is risk. Sometimes abandoning an injured ally, allowing the weaker individuals to perish, to abandon the place you call home and other selfish, sociopathic choices were the decision that would lend to one’s further survival. Which is probably why we have so much selfishness in our society, not in capitalistic society, but in all societies. It is part of the human condition, people are selfish and rude and protect their feelings more than anything else. Literally most of therapy is people learning to not engage with those knee jerk emotional/mental responses that reinforce these behaviors.
While you can say cooperation was a big part of humanity’s success it actually wasn’t the big one. The big one was risk vs reward being able to plan and just overall decision making. Which unfortunately psychopaths tend to have the edge over the regular person for, which is why they probably have been routinely successful at survival way back in ancient times and today. Game theory shows us that cheating actually can benefit you especially in the short term and most of human history, for a specific person, is short term. Game theory also shows us it is kind of full of shit, according to game theory the prisoner’s dilemma should end in disaster. In practice, it really doesn’t work that cleanly. Game theory relies on humans basically being heartless reptiles, which people aren’t because they like to cooperate and be liked and engage in kindness and respect.
So I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make or why you have an issue with what I said. History is messy, but what is clear is ancient man was not overall altruistic, it wasn’t paradise and people/society today is overall completely better.
I’m not saying that violence didn’t exist and hunter-gatherers were always peaceful, I’m saying that the socioeconomic structure of tribes incentivizes cooperation in a way that capitalism disincentivizes. Most of human history is that of cooperation punctuated by brief periods of violence perpetrated by a small minority of humans. The last 10,000 years of agriculture and private property are an insignificant fraction of human evolution, so I don’t think you can even say that people are less violent today than during our pre-agricultural evolution.
I don’t think I’m the one being dogmatic when you are saying that humans are innately violent and selfish. I think my view is actually more hopeful that we can build a society that disincentivizes those negative traits into rarity.
No, they always do this. A number of civilizations crashed in the past because the rich wouldn’t adjust to reality.
Why do you think they’re pushing for AI? They know the other people in their bunkers will revolt. They’ll either use AI to replace people or settle for Musk’s human-controlled robots so us poors can live far away while still acting like slaves.
Thanos used a statistical process for extermination outcomes. The ruling class tends to agree with Oil oligarchy because the latter helps keep them as the ruling class. Food scarcity deaths don’t apply to a random statistical selection. It is poverty/national poverty based. Flood/wind damage repair/insurance is actually a significant wealth drain for highest property value markets, but Oil oligarchy disinformation will always make for the best friend of ruling class. Weapons and Zionism can team up for war policy.
The worse the country, people’s lives, misery, anger get, the less focused any political debate is on improving lives/future, and simply on replacing the previous administration causing misery/anger.
Insatiable greed is a feature of the our species. It always has been, always will be, and there will always be a handful willing to destroy everything if it means they win.
I agree that the Epstein class are stupid, religious, racist, and hateful. I’ll also add that they’re cruel, pedophilic, egotistal, and manipulative. But I don’t see them being narcissistic. Narcissus just wanted to be left alone.
There is a million of them and 8 billion of us. We could take them. Let’s go global as one world and set things right!
That sounds good except for the fact that half of those 8 billion either worship the million or believe they can join them by following the rules hard enough.
Not saying I’m against lynching the lot, but you have to understand that you aren’t just fighting that minority, the drooling masses are going to fight on their behalf.
The perception of viability of the “Thanos solution” (snap your fingers and a literal random half of every population ceases to exist) depends almost entirely on which side of the snap you find yourself on. Those for are banking on their survival. They don’t care about yours.
There are, of course, a few who do want to be eliminated by the snap. They don’t want to be in the resulting world, and death by snap is completely painless by any account. You simply cease to be. The only issue is you see it coming, so you have a moment to reflect. But nobody seemed to suffer for it. Just the ones who were left mourned the lost.
There’s also the proposition made by The Leftovers (a TV show on HBO), that if you remove just 3% of the population, the world changes drastically. However, in that scenario, it was only on Earth, and it was only humans and, IIRC… birds? Every other population was not culled at all.
I comented here with pretty much the same thoughts.
Even if you take into account stupidity, greed, narcissism, religion, rascim, hate, ect. there are constantly things happening that don’t fit.
These things actually fit quite well, when you are greedy you want something and don’t care about these around you or the consequences.
I was going to say something similar. I was raised southern baptist and can say with confidence that religion reinforces stupidity, greed, narcissism, racism, hate, etc. People disconnect from reality to the point that they think this is all part of god’s plan.
But I do think the rich deliberately use religion and other tools to convince people to act against their own best interests. If it wasn’t being artificially protected, it probably would have died out long ago. Superstition is killing us.
