rare for an enlightened boomer shark to call one of *them* an incel instead of a fishist, altho he made the turn to orange fishler wink wink, I take my hat of to your youthful wit, let's hope for your sake it doesn't die with you and the whole thing that made you say it collapses or gets replaced by Idiocracy or fishslam, that would be too ironic.
Same claim as Idiocracy: that freedoms are an scheme to drive intellectual humanity downwards. I think it's seen as a thing that must be tried.
It's the inability for women (who want to) to return to the home that seals the problem: The economy has a problem, and it'll take a great effort to fix that back to a single-high-school breadwinner able to cover a comfortable home's needs. It's not competition either (too small), it must be corruption.
Freedom is not a scheme to drive humanity downwards. But new types of agency/freedom sometimes require new values -- and they can have unintended consequences.
The problem is not primarily economic. Our ancestors had 5+ children while living in caves or shacks, barely surviving as hunters or peasant farmers. Today, in the developed world, we are still very wealthy, even though the economy is somewhat dysfunctional.
Human sexuality has broken down because of the conditions of modern civilization: material abundance and sexual liberation, essentially. It's not that people are too poor to have children, or that men are too poor to find wives. People are making maladaptive choices, because they're not adapted to this environment.
We have blind spots and glare spots. We see problems that don't exist, and we don't see problems that do exist. Problems created by abundance and freedom are invisible to most people.
So, giving sharks bigger brains makes them woke? But being woke is dumb since it goes against their biological interests. And it’s not like it’s an accidental mistake—they know that being woke conflicts with their biological interests. So, becoming smarter makes them act dumber. Sounds like a paradox.
Sure, it's like the human paradox of low fertility. But, it's not really a paradox. Just hard for some people to understand.
Intelligence is just the ability to acquire knowledge and use it to solve problems. Intelligence is not the only property of the brain. Emotions, for example, are a necessary part of the brain, but not a component of intelligence.
Intelligence enables an organism to behave in more adaptive ways, but it also allows an organism to behave in less adaptive ways. A jellyfish has no intelligence, so it can be washed up on the beach. However, a jellyfish can't commit suicide or choose not to reproduce. Humans, with advanced intelligence, can make those maladaptive choices.
The sharks didn't become "woke". They became civilized. And they extended the principles of civilization in what seemed to be a logical way.
There's nothing in the story about the sharks being aware of having biological interests, or being concerned about them. That's true of most humans too.
Hopefully, and it definitely helps to assume that they could. What's the point in assuming anything else? Shit man, if enlightened sharks can't do it, we're shit out of luck. Them boyos been around for a hot minute.
Thanks for the analagy-centered take on your other essays. I've found your books to probably be the most philosophically influential things that I've ever read, so keep churning out content (please). I'm always wondering how best to explain these ideas to family and friends (most of whom are Christian or otherwise uninterested). I have a vision of ever-increasing human syntropy and I want to see it become real.
I share your vision for increasing human syntropy.
I don't have a simple answer for how to explain these ideas to others. I think they are only accessible to people above a certain level of intelligence, so I would focus your efforts on those who seem capable of abstract thought (science and philosophy). We need intellectual leadership, not just another ideology with mass appeal. If your friends and family are doing fine as Christians, and are not interested in such things, I would let them be.
Uh huh. Sure. THAT's why you're not getting any.
I wrote a poem just for you: https://jick.ca/?p=885
rare for an enlightened boomer shark to call one of *them* an incel instead of a fishist, altho he made the turn to orange fishler wink wink, I take my hat of to your youthful wit, let's hope for your sake it doesn't die with you and the whole thing that made you say it collapses or gets replaced by Idiocracy or fishslam, that would be too ironic.
Do you guys (leftoids) have any actual arguments?
Calling someone an "incel" is not an argument, and in many cases it's projection.
Try to think. Use that cerebral cortex for once.
Same claim as Idiocracy: that freedoms are an scheme to drive intellectual humanity downwards. I think it's seen as a thing that must be tried.
It's the inability for women (who want to) to return to the home that seals the problem: The economy has a problem, and it'll take a great effort to fix that back to a single-high-school breadwinner able to cover a comfortable home's needs. It's not competition either (too small), it must be corruption.
Freedom is not a scheme to drive humanity downwards. But new types of agency/freedom sometimes require new values -- and they can have unintended consequences.
The problem is not primarily economic. Our ancestors had 5+ children while living in caves or shacks, barely surviving as hunters or peasant farmers. Today, in the developed world, we are still very wealthy, even though the economy is somewhat dysfunctional.
Human sexuality has broken down because of the conditions of modern civilization: material abundance and sexual liberation, essentially. It's not that people are too poor to have children, or that men are too poor to find wives. People are making maladaptive choices, because they're not adapted to this environment.
We have blind spots and glare spots. We see problems that don't exist, and we don't see problems that do exist. Problems created by abundance and freedom are invisible to most people.
https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2022/07/bootnecking-modern-civilization.html
So, giving sharks bigger brains makes them woke? But being woke is dumb since it goes against their biological interests. And it’s not like it’s an accidental mistake—they know that being woke conflicts with their biological interests. So, becoming smarter makes them act dumber. Sounds like a paradox.
Sure, it's like the human paradox of low fertility. But, it's not really a paradox. Just hard for some people to understand.
Intelligence is just the ability to acquire knowledge and use it to solve problems. Intelligence is not the only property of the brain. Emotions, for example, are a necessary part of the brain, but not a component of intelligence.
Intelligence enables an organism to behave in more adaptive ways, but it also allows an organism to behave in less adaptive ways. A jellyfish has no intelligence, so it can be washed up on the beach. However, a jellyfish can't commit suicide or choose not to reproduce. Humans, with advanced intelligence, can make those maladaptive choices.
The sharks didn't become "woke". They became civilized. And they extended the principles of civilization in what seemed to be a logical way.
There's nothing in the story about the sharks being aware of having biological interests, or being concerned about them. That's true of most humans too.
Hopefully, and it definitely helps to assume that they could. What's the point in assuming anything else? Shit man, if enlightened sharks can't do it, we're shit out of luck. Them boyos been around for a hot minute.
Thanks for the analagy-centered take on your other essays. I've found your books to probably be the most philosophically influential things that I've ever read, so keep churning out content (please). I'm always wondering how best to explain these ideas to family and friends (most of whom are Christian or otherwise uninterested). I have a vision of ever-increasing human syntropy and I want to see it become real.
I share your vision for increasing human syntropy.
I don't have a simple answer for how to explain these ideas to others. I think they are only accessible to people above a certain level of intelligence, so I would focus your efforts on those who seem capable of abstract thought (science and philosophy). We need intellectual leadership, not just another ideology with mass appeal. If your friends and family are doing fine as Christians, and are not interested in such things, I would let them be.