Removal of commercial media from peoples lives.

The world can't be fixed. Things are deliberately like this.

The only thing that could truly fix the world is the death of all humans.

What can make YOUR life better? Luck and connections. And maybe super powers. Without those, the only thing we can do is try to make life as bearable as possible and try our damnedest to hold onto the things we love as close to us as possible so we don't lose them.

As for other people, I guess respect them or something. It gets really complicated since people don't share the same beliefs or worries, so they sometimes go ahead and act like dickholes without a second thought for whatever stupid reason they have.

>>13648
>What can make YOUR life better? Luck and connections. And maybe super powers. Without those, the only thing we can do is try to make life as bearable as possible and try our damnedest to hold onto the things we love as close to us as possible so we don't lose them.

What does money and luck change? You will still have to fight hard to hold onto whatever you love. And most things can't be bought with money. Even when you are rich, you can get ill, get depressed or lose your money. You still have to work hard to not lose it. And in the end everybody dies, no amount of money can save you from that.

And super powers? Really? That would be awful, everybody would come to you and want you to help them. And when you take a day off, everybody would be on your ass for not helping them.

>>13650
I didn't mean money when I said "connections", I meant people who can help you because of their position and/or people that they know/are friends with

The super powers thing was a joke, but if I'm to answer seriously, it'd be something that you'd keep hidden and only use whenever you need it. Doing the "super hero" thing is something that shouldn't be done because it's a ton of problems, just as you said. It'd just be a neat thing that you can do, nothing more and nothing less. Also, by "super powers" I don't mean on the scale of Super Man, but on a lesser scale, although not entirely useless like changing the channel on the T.V with your mind and stuff.

Also, remember to never assume because it makes an ass out of 'U' and me.

>>13651
So what? Connections ultimately help you financially or in your career. It's not like life magically transforms from a dark place of death and doom into connection paradise. My point still stands. Life sucks with or without money, connections, luck or anything else.

I think about it from time to time, but realistically? we can't do anything. as bad as things are, people will want to keep things how they are becuase people are afraid of change and the people with the power and money to change things have no incentive to do so becuase they only care about their own well being.

You may want to watch this if you haven't already. Talks about how life is fucked up, and what would be ideal, but doesn't go much into how to actually get there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

The abundance and security of the resources that we need to survive-- food, water, shelter, etc-- would go a long way to making people civil, compassionate human beings. Of course, all resources are finite so it's not feasible to make this happen; even with 'renewable' resources, there's only so much available at any given moment. But if there was some way to make it so that no one ever worried about their basic survival needs, I do suspect that everyone would be healthier mentally and more well adjusted.

>>13653
>Talks about how life is fucked up, and what would be ideal, but doesn't go much into how to actually get there.
They never do. So what's the point of sowing dissatisfaction when the solution is no solution at all, merely an unattainable ideal? If there were some constructive action to take, some direction or outlet for the sentiments they're trying to stir up, that would be great. But to leave you stewing in them: what's the point? It's just a meaningless dose of negativity.

>>13656
Well to be fair, the first step in fixing any problem, is finding out what the problem is and most people don't even know anything is wrong in the first place. before we can change the way the world works, we need to educate people.

>>13655
While it's not possible to feed everyone on the planet with our current farming production, genetically modified food is going a long way to help feed millions of hungry people, as as the science improves we get that much closer to ending hunger.

Unfortunately there are tons of stupid self centered assholes out there that want to ban "frankin food" who don't even know what they're talking about and don't care about the people they indirectly kill when shit goes their way. Even if you get rid of those those 'organic food' fucktards, you've still got to deal with armed thugs in third world countries who boguard food and medical supply shipments.

Post edited on 21st Mar 2013, 7:41pm

>>13655

I was pretty sure that we had the resource/technological innovation in our day and age to feed everyone in modernized countries. I know for a fact that the US government has subsidized farmers to not grow the amount of food they could potentially in the US since the at least the 50s because if good was too cheap, there would be a lack of money going towards the market (demand and supply curve model), this is coming from high-school economics teacher though. Now 3rd world countries have major political/criminal discourse that prevents even international aid from assisting the populations, this is it's own issue though and I believe simple economic policies can fight starvation far better than crazy new technological food models. While I believe ending hunger has amazing positive affects for human psychology, genetically modified food has Some adverse affects on human health. That is the human body biologically, as adaptive as it is, is programmed to consume that of what our ancestors we're accustomed to eating, with an emphasis on fresh meat and produce, versus processed grains and synthetic additives, presertives, ingredients (there is an argument on how long back new agriculture has affected our modern diet for instance milk and wheat, but for the most part it seems likely that if we eat what our biological ancestors consumed, out body will better respond to the complex nutritional/calorific structures of such a diet. For instance refined (white) flour ramen noodles, fried in GMO palm/soybean oil (hexane based solvent extracted being the cheap standard), flavored with over half your daily intake of salt, might not be okay for your health. Genetically modified "franken food" has some truth to it when you consider that many plant specials are splices at the genetic level to alter things like lifespan, growth, lack of reproduction (because that would undermind copyright profit) weight, pesticide resistance, etc.. That would be cool if we did it with humans, but I'd rather eat healthy food than cheap sketchy food or food that is in less of it's natural state. For example any vegetable/seed/etc.. oil, you could drink a cup of it and get all the calories(energy) you would need in a day to survive, would your body feel satisfied, modern oil extraction is a newer dietary model. Oil has much nutrition, just like juicing something, but it's an imbalance and there is such a thing as too much of a good anything. The high amount of sugary products on the markets is proven a surge in diabetes and related health risks and I'm not even getting into high fructose corn syrup (other artificial sugars), trans fat, or the health affects of eating unhealthy animals and there eggs. Food in it's natural state as a healthy balance of fiber, minerals, nutrients, phytochemicals, anti-oxidants, fatty acid types, etc.... that we do not even have the science to fully understand. The checks and balances of the FDA is a joke like many politically connected-interest businesses where the industries are allowed to perform there own research on there products. Organic food is dumb marketing term, but the fact that food is very different now from 100, 50, even 20 years ago raises significant concerns. Then again it probably isn't going to affect your health anymore than regular exercise like humans performed in their natural state, probably even less important that psychological stress and health. In conclusions eat a little better, and you will soon be feeling a little better.

There should be less humans, more forest, more unknowns and more adventures with swords and friends.
I'd fancy that.

>>13663
>and more adventures with swords and friends.
I'd fence that.
I'd fence that as well.

>>13662
>genetically modified food has Some adverse affects on human health

might wanna check out the second half of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ejfGhDN5iM

I believe in state intervention and central planning. A lot of people say that big governments are inherently corrupt and inefficient, but I disagree. It's true that markets fluctuate too rapidly for any government agency to accurate predict what must be manufactured, when and for how much, but libertarians seem to be missing a couple things.

First of all some things don't change. Humans need a specific amount of calories per day to stay alive. By multiplying the amount of calories x population x day, you can calculate the amount of food that must be produced each year. If the quotas aren't met, it means you put the wrong people in charge of food production, and that heads have to start rolling. Clothing and housing last a long time, too. You don't throw them away after using them a couple times.

Second, governments don't have to be "big"
Most work is automated these days. The biggest problem with central planning -corruption and waste- won't exist 20 or 30 years from now because governments will be able to get things done with just a few dozen bureaucrats instead of thousands like they do now. As for nepotism, you can achieve higher government transparency with hidden cameras, microphones, wiretaps and other monitoring devices.

In my ideal world, the government controls everything. Every citizen will be given a personal ID card. They will have to use it to lock their doors, board public transportation, receive public health care, etc. This way, their activities will be logged by the state, allowing them to predict the needs of the population accurately and plan ahead. It also helps prevent crime. Say a person gets mugged- you can just search the log, figure out where their card was last used and can cross reference that information with local CCTV footage (there should be a security camera on every corner) and the usage of other ID cards in the same time frame and general location to find the criminal.

The government should also maintain a database detailing people's skills, abilities and current occupation, ending unemployment as we know it. In fact, in such a system most people wouldn't have to work at all, because the state would assign whatever jobs are available to the people who are best suited for them. There would be no salaries and thus no need to compete for employment- every household gets a bag of supplies (canned food, clothing, drinks) every semester. No ID card, no food. Whenever the State needs to get something done, they can just pull up the list and get unassigned people to work on it, relocating them if necessary. If a certain occupation is in high demand, unskilled people can be trained, increasing supply.

Of course things would get out of control if there were more people not working than working, increasing the demand for basic goods and services. This is where population control comes in. People should have to apply for a government issued license and undergo extensive medical and mental examinations before being allowed to reproduce. Afterwards their babies will be taken away by law enforcement agents and raised in special facilities by experts who will help them realize their full potential.

People caught reproducing without a license won't be jailed, but they will have to be sterilized and their babies aborted.

Overall I think this would help make the world a better place for everyone. At heart I really believe that people like Pol Pot were well intentioned but just didn't get enough time to finish what they started

Don't think too much about important stuff and pursue happiness.

I gave up thinking about the world.

>>13666
You'll have to forgive me if I want nothing to do with your ideal world.

>>13665
There's also this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ET7Xv2m9k

>>13666
You and me are very alike in one way and absolutely different in another.

I think big government is necessary too and the ID card stuff and all is good too. However I think people should have social freedoms. Basically they should be able to do anything that isn't obviously undermining the government or the similar rights of others.

Ideal government would be someone with unlimited power in government that is voted in by the people. To make it so it isn't a popularity contest like it currently is in most democracies though is that the current leader picks 3 candidates who he feels could succeed him in running the country.

Unfortunately both our ideas require a smart population and a just, smart government. We'll never see those in our lifetime, or ever.

>>13671
you should really try and ask yourself "how could this possibly go wrong"

>>13666
How do you not see how such a system would be ripe for exploitation and abuse? You seem to believe that giving it the title of 'government' prevents people from perverting it to their own selfish desires, but I highly doubt that. Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree that the government should take steps to ensure people's basic necessities are provided, but I would never want to be so dependent on any system. I don't trust the people running it that much; I couldn't trust anyone that much if I didn't know them quite well.

>>13658
>as the science improves we get that much closer to ending hunger
If only this were true. We'll be lucky if it allows us to keep pace with the world's ballooning population, much less actually reduce the level of malnutrition world-wide. There's also the issue of clean water to grow all these crops (and drink), but that's another matter.

>>13662
>I know for a fact that the US government has subsidized farmers to not grow the amount of food they could potentially in the US since the at least the 50s
I'm no econ teacher but I've been told that the 50's was when the government encouraged farmers to "go big or go home" (using this exact phrase) and plant crops as densely as they could to maximize yields. Currently, farming subsidies help to make domestic food competitive with foreign food. I find your teacher's claims dubious.

>genetically modified food has Some adverse affects on human health
>processed grains and synthetic additives, presertives, ingredients
You're conflating two entirely different concepts here. The latter list has nothing to do with GMOs; we've been creating those things since well before GMO produce came about. GMO grains are not grown in some preprocessed form, nor do they come preloaded with additives or preservatives.

>splices at the genetic level to alter things like lifespan, growth, lack of reproduction (because that would undermind copyright profit) weight, pesticide resistance, etc
So what? How does that pose a health risk? These are the sorts of changes that take place over many generations in nature. GMOs are subjected to an inordinate amount of testing before they see market, too. Your objection here seems to lack a rational basis.

Lastly, you keep referring to what is "natural" or how our diet would have been some number of millennia ago. If you were to talk to a nutritionist or biologist I suspect they'd tell you that you're underestimating the adaptability of the human physiology. Furthermore, you speak of that diet as though it was ideal for us at that point in time, but you don't even know that to be true (to say nothing of modern times). It may well have been lacking in one nutrient or another because we were subject to the whims of what nature provided, not what our bodies needed. There is no way we would have been "perfectly adapted" to this specific diet.

>>13677
>ballooning population
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Forget the organic non-organic debate.
I worked at a department grocery store. Do you know how much eatable food we throw out?

Enough to make me depressed just thinking about it. Especially meats, when you consider the whole animal lived a shitty and terrifying existence all for nothing.

>Why is life such a mess
What isn't a mess? I'd have to question anything that presented itself as orderly and flawless. Everything is ripe with failures and problems and it's just the way things are. Nothing can ever be perfect.

>What is it that could be done in your opinion for the world and life to become a better place
I can tell you that I don't agree with any ideal posted in this thread. People will always work towards making the world better - whether for the group or for themselves. But no matter what they do, it's always going to be fucked, simply because people of the polar opposite of your ideals will always exist, causing things to always work into new and different directions than initially intended. I don't think "changing the world" is as positive as it's made to sound since so many issues can pop up with any new idea. I think it's more important to react to events that pop up that could cause the world to become even more shit than its current state. Some changes are also just straight up bad ideas. Some changes are hard to keep in check or fly under the radar, and honestly, I think those are the most dangerous to the world.

>to become a better place for you
I don't even know what tangent I was going on anymore, because honestly I don't have a lot to complain about in terms of my current living situation. I don't think where I live is very bad. Any negative feelings I have are from my own faults, rather than the faults of my environment.

I've always been one to admire how things were done in the past though. I also admire homeless people and those who are forced through struggles that make them "scum of the Earth". Admire because of the shit they manage to live through and the way they find a means despite having nothing. So I guess my perspective is a bit skewed when it comes to things like this. As a shut-in with no real struggles that never had to put effort into anything and has the luxury to avoid all real responsibility, I have to say, any living situation that makes people too comfortable and helpless is definitely dangerous. While not ideal to most, I believe it's necessary people be kept on their toes. The idea of a complete complacent peace is kind of horrible to me. People should never turn out how I've turned out.

>What is it that could be done in your opinion for the world and life to become a better place for you and other people?

Everybody turns into a cute 2D girl and stops ageing.

>>13678
Did this guy even think about what he's saying? Yes, the growth rate as a percentage of the total population isn't growing, because measured in number of people born it's constant. But so what? Just because it takes longer and longer for the population to double is irrelevant. What is relevant is how many people the arable land in the world can feed, or how much clean drinkable water is available at any given moment. I'm not sure why he bothered with that explanation before getting to the point that the average number of children born per person is dropping, because that's what is actually relevant. Of course, that's probably a bit misleading because it fails to take into account falling infant mortality rates.

Honestly, if the world's population actually does peak and begin to shrink that's going to worry me even more than if it doesn't. It will be just another sign of John B. Calhoun's prophetic concept of the behavioral sink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink) bearing out as true for humans. Technological problems, we find ways to solve. Sociological ones, our track record is a great deal spottier.

>>13706
All good points. On top of that, in India and China especially the average person is consuming + wasting more. Even if the population stayed constant global demands are still climbing and the whole system is placed under even greater pressure.

It is what it is. I don't think any major problem has a quick fix really. Perhaps it's a test? There are many power interests that oppose changing the system which greatly benefits thems. Some of the noblest intentions and prettiest ideas on paper all turn out shit in practice due to the 'human' element too.

>>13648
>The world can't be fixed. Things are deliberately like this.
>The only thing that could truly fix the world is the death of all humans.

I disagree with your second point, sir. But that is only because I wish to expand upon your first point with my own view. The only thing that could truly fix the world is the death of Haruhidamn everything. Nature, is, at its core, corrupt and utterly irredeemable. There is no hope for the future. Everything about nature is based on competition for scarce resources. This means, opportunism is the one rule of nature. Aka, fucking others over for personal gain. We cannot overcome our nature. The only thing we can do is refuse to participate and choose death. Or at the very least, isolation.

I hate the Haruhidamn world. I hate my fucking life. I want to die.

From a utilitarian purpose (improvements for most people) I think all people need is a strong leader, a strong sense of unity and purpose, and a scapegoat/villain to crush. I guess that would make an effective authoritarian state or whatever but I think most people just want to believe that they're driven and the world is going somewhere and that most people agree with them. For some choosy dreamers or NEETs I guess the world would have to be tailor made so they can play hero. For some other people that were crushed too badly or born empty I guess it'd be hopeless...

>>17888
I wholeheartedly agree.

>>17888
Yeah I agree. Sometimes I think it would be fun to be born as an Aryan in Nazi Germany- everyone moving towards that utopia, unified, each person having their own purpose. Even if they did do bad things

>>17897
In the end it crushed them. Every one who didn't believe, and their great leader wouldn't shed a single tear for them. Was it worth it, for those few years of hopes and dreams, and hate?

Post edited on 7th Jul 2014, 8:17pm

>>17900
read >>17888 again.
He was talking about the political system behind such a society, not the racism and stuff that the Nazis came with.
Also, the Nazis were crushed because Hitler fucked up, but not because of their system.

>>17900
>their great leader wouldn't shed a single tear for them
you don't really know much about how he came to power do you?

>>17902
Yeah >17888 here, I think if an ideal dictator came up every generation, political systems wouldn't be so complicated and diverse, since following commands is more efficient than any other method of deliberation. I don't think I'd be involved too much in that let along wanting to be that great dictator myself, but even then if the system really is that convenient I think most people would support it...

Thought up of hypothetical situations in the shower. This dictator might unite all of humanity and the scapegoat might be aliens to conquer in outer space if his rhetoric was powerful enough. I personally would want to be an adventurer going out into space rather than improve domestic life for maximum efficiency, but in the end I suppose I'd still support the dictator as a benefactor that way... And then I'd likely get fucked over hard if we did end up meeting aliens as I'd try to be more curious and befriend them perhaps. Meh.

I think that's also the appeal of monotheistic religions and why they were able to become more organized and popular. One god taking care of people and righting their wrongs is much more appealing than random gods set up to explain the origins of unknown occurrences combined with the occasional mythology.

There's the democratic ideal of people actually taking responsibility and having organized communities that can tolerate dissent, but that ideal is less likely than just a great dictator and people following him. Of course, since such great dictatorships are unlikely you can also argue that the average dictatorship is worse than the average democracy and thus democracy is a safer bet for securing freedoms even if people can't move towards a single ideal.

>>17902
>He was talking about the political system behind such a society, not the racism and stuff that the Nazis came with.
What makes you say that? Below is the relevant snippet, and I perceived it in the context of the Aryan dream the other poster referred to.

>I think all people need is a strong leader, a strong sense of unity and purpose, and a scapegoat/villain to crush. (>>17888)
In Nazi Germany, that's what we got. In the same way you can talk up and down about the benefits of communism. Soviet is still what we got. "No, no. It's just that the execution was wrong, or this other thing" - with a mentality like that - tough luck. The point remains to be proven. It's selective information. The use of this information lies in where it brought us, not where we should have been. You have to excuse me, but it rustles me a bit - that certain kind of utopic dreaming and overall dissatisfaction. If we're going to talk politics, give me some politics.

>>17903
I do. Tell me your point, and drop the sass.

>>17905
Dude what? We weren't talking about racism or anything like that, that's why I said that. The one who brought it up was you.
The poster before you also posted about the nazis, but he was trying to imagine the nazis without the bad things they did.
Maybe I'm the only one with that impression, but I don't think we're really talking about politics. We're just fantasizing.

To clarify:
>I think all people need is a strong leader, a strong sense of unity and purpose, and a scapegoat/villain to crush.
When I read it I thought about humanity making progress, not about nazis or anything like that.
Strong leaders would just be a bunch of scientists who act as politicians and make decisions.
Sense of unity and purpose would be given by the fact that the people would be surrounded by the technology they built and developed.
The villain to crush would be the problems the humanity has to face in order to survive. Global warming and resources becoming rare would be one thing.

Post edited on 7th Jul 2014, 8:50pm

>>17905
Hmm, I'm sort of talking about what most people would desire rather than being too realistic on what would help. Even in the history of Communist states great leaders were desired and upheld, and throughout history people seemed to have wanted heroes to admire and leaders that would prevent chaos and anarchy.

>>17910
Yes, I have no problem with that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pick a fight.

>>17909
Bad things happened, and there would not be a Nazi Germany without the bad things. But if you just want to fantasize then I don't really have anything to add to that. You don't have to indulge the direction I took, and there's no unwritten rules that disallows branching a discussion in different paths.

>>17911
You weren't branching in a different path, you did a 180.

>>17913
Alright then.

Do you guys believe in human love and tenderness being able to make things better? I know it sounds lame and all, but I feel many people watch anime because they share those idealistic sentiments. Unless you really go full hipster and only enjoy dark cyberpunk stuff.

I feel like people are too busy with what's popular to bother to give up time and listen to each other.

>>17962
>Do you guys believe in human love and tenderness being able to make things better?
I think if I had someone who loved me I'd be able to do much better than I do right now, just for the sake of making this person happy.

>I know it sounds lame and all, but I feel many people watch anime because they share those idealistic sentiments.
I most certainly do. ;_;

>>17962

Video related:
>I don't think that man can love.
>Inadequacies of reality always set in.

>Do you guys believe in human love and tenderness being able to make things better?
Used to. Then I dated a 3dpd and realized how goddamn miserable that type of interaction is, at least for someone like me. Tenderness in the real world is a lie. Well, at least for me. What I mean by that is that maybe if I were attractive, smart, clever, quick, funny, confident, or some other valued trait, someone might find it worthwhile to be kind to me. I can't really blame people for refusing to want to understand me; I don't want to understand me. I'm miserable and will just make them miserable, and there is no endgame. There is no purpose to suffering. It does not make one deep, unless perhaps you are intelligent or creative enough to extract some sort of value from it. The suffering itself is worthless and will never be comforted away. Even if someone is kind enough to comfort you, it will not end the vague bullshit we all feel.

The purpose of a relationship is to extract value from the other person for your own benefit, and that is what I hate most about relationships. It's about pragmatic tradeoffs like that; there is no deeper understanding to be gained of each-other, or trust to find. It's all about what you can get. Why should the other person forgive you if you screw up? What will they get out of it? Why not just fucking tell you you're a piece of shit for fucking up and that you're way too fucking sensitive. Why are you always scared? Be fucking assertive! Why can't you just make a goddamn decision?! What do you mean you just want to hang out! That is an unacceptable decision! No, I don't want to go to the movies, you suggested that last time! Can't you think of anything fun to do?! What do you mean you want to just play fucking videogames instead of be with me?! What could have possibly provoked that sort of avoidance?! Do you like games more than me?!

Sorry, I remembered the bullshit and just started raging. TLDR: nobody cares about your bullshit. Unless you are hot.

Whoever invented the concept of "unconditional love" is a master troll. The idea is just so completely ludicrous, I'm seeing red just thinking about it and I don't even want to go into it.

>I know it sounds lame and all, but I feel many people watch anime because they share those idealistic sentiments.
I don't watch much anime, but this is the reason I liked Lain. It caused overwhelming feelings of warmth, tenderness, wonder, acceptance, forgiveness, serenity, and love. But each time I watch it, the feeling fades more and more. I feel that show is the only thing I've truly loved, and I've almost completely lost it. I fear the issue isn't only that I'm getting tired of it, but that I'm too jaded to feel those warm feelings anymore.

>I feel like people are too busy with what's popular to bother to give up time and listen to each other.
I agree, people do seem to be too busy. And they brag about it by complaining. "Oh, I'd love to, but I'm just so busy, I don't have time for that! (oh god, I'm so important! look how much I'm needed! I'm far too important to waste my time by enjoying myself!)" But it's not their fault, society conditions us that we should always be busy. How many times have you declined something, and the person condescendingly asks if you're busy? As if that when you're not busy, you are obligated to immerse yourself in that person's bullshit because you don't have the right to spend time the way you see fit.

Post edited on 8th Jul 2014, 9:17pm

>>17968
Well not be be gay but I didn't really mean human love as having to be a romantic relationship, it could just be another person taking interest and really wanting to help you. I guess with parents there's a big problem in that they're still stuck in the mindset of trying to raise you so you have "good values" and all.

That 3DPD sounds pretty shit. For some reason I feel that people will act aggressive like that instead of actually negotiating if they're allowed to, and our culture sort of condones that behavior from women because the media usually depicts the man as the problem in the relationship and if it's the other way around oh it's misogyny, and if the man's the problem and the women acts bitchy she's just standing up for herself.

>>17969
>Well not be be gay but I didn't really mean human love as having to be a romantic relationship, it could just be another person taking interest and really wanting to help you.

Ah, fair enough. I don't believe in that either for pretty much the same reasons: the only reason people connect with others is because they want something out of it. So, I guess if you have something to offer, you might be able to get love and tenderness out of them.

>>17971
I guess it's rather silly when all you can offer in the end are fellow complaints in a board on a chan... Maybe ideally, those at the bottom can find someone to work with and improve their talents and strive for their goals together, but friends still leave each other a bit too easily.

I think nothing more than chaos, destruction and then rebirth would be proper and ideal. In order to create something, you have to destroy something. Nothing short of this can ever fix the world. Define your own reality by wiping everything out to a blank slate, and then recreate it and define your life. I really want to see all this suburbia replaced by forests and woodlands filled with wild beasts.

>>17968
The very idea of how someone can love another sounds like romanticist bullshit. Most people are selfish and always want something out of a relationship. If people can love each other through unconditional love, only a strong, objectively good religion with strong morals and values can accomplish it.

No one will ever help you other than your family. But even your family would have objections.

Adventure

>>13642
>for you and other people?
>other people

I think that's one of the problems right here. Western societal values have changed and selfish, mindless consumerism is being fetishized and family values have been destroyed. Really just money worship. For those in the 20's and 30's, just look at MTV for the 'culture' side and have a good puke. Society also affords selfish jerks high social standing including but not limited to the type that caused the financial meltdown back in '08. You want to be one of those best and brightest to screw others like that! On top of all of that, competition has really become more intense just to survive. IMO that mutual caring and sharing stuff is only going to be less and less given the current way society is. It's not just you that's tumbling down.

The other day at work, I saw this dude, a customer, emotionally abuse his 3dpd every time she talked. It was hilarious. It was mesmerizing and majestic, like watching a martial arts master. He would deftly block her nagging, calmly turn it around and tell her to shut the fuck up. The best part is that he was nice to us employees. That is how to handle a 3dpd. But like fighting, I prefer to just avoid it to begin with.

>>18058
Is it really abuse if he's just properly defending himself?

While on the subject of 3DPD, would the world be better if it lacked women and sex drive?

>>18059
The obvious answer is yes, but it simply doesn't work on a biological level.

>>18062
Get out.

>>18063
Artificial wombs? Maybe some DNA randomizers to maintain biodiversity.

>>18065
>DNA randomizers
I guess these would turn out to be cancer generators at best.

>>18072
I'm pretty sure a world with artificial wombs and DNA scramblers would have the whole cancer thing solved already.

>>18073
Touché.

>>18059
>Is it really abuse if he's just properly defending himself?

Good point.

>>18073
It's already solved, at least theoretically. Cancer is simply propagation of genetic error - all that is necessary for its pacification is a means to either prevent this error from occurring, or to manage its proliferation. Chemo-therapy was an initial response due to its comparative accuracy/operational scale at the time of its implementation. In the existence of sophisticated nano-machine and physical modelling technologies, cancer is basically trivialized.

Post edited on 14th Jul 2014, 8:49pm

>>18095
Hurray for the future!

Every affliction already has a cure: death.

>>13663
>more unknowns and more adventures with swords and friends
This.
I still have my childhood dream of becoming an explorer and I know it'll never happen.

Why can't life be interesting and unique? I'd rather live in a fantasy realm and end up dead by a dragon or a roaming dark knight working for the evil queen than live in this boring world where every crevice and creature but the most hard to reach are mapped and catalogued to near perfection.

>>18237
Yeah, and going to space or deep underwater with sufficient technology requires much more than just bravery and a sense of adventure. (Nevermind that space is mainly just empty and full of chemicals) I guess you can travel to Eurasia and just run across the landmass until you're away from the cities and people. If you bump into weird tribes or animals it might get interesting even if there's no magic, I guess.

>>18267
Don't forget cosmic rays.
Mmmm, cancer.

>>18237
>every crevice and creature but the most hard to reach are mapped and catalogued to near perfection.
Then we have a fucking lot of creatures and crevices that are the most hard to reach.

>every crevice and creature but the most hard to reach
So you'd rather have something that's unique, interesting and easy to reach? Get into gardening, seriously.

>>13663
>There should be less humans, more forest, more unknowns and more adventures with swords and friends.
Dwarf Fortress is for you.

>>18267
>space is mainly just empty and full of chemicals
Damnit quantum mechanics, what have you done?

I like to think that the distinctive characteristic of this world is, it Breaks. Everything "breaks" in this world/reality, there is nothing perfect, all things no matter how good or evil they are, eventually break.
Basically, destroying in this world is easy, no matter what. Everything is breakable, so you must learn to accept it, and take advantage of it.

I think the main problem with life is because the heights of our experiences are at our passionate peaks, and yet passion destroys, collapses, and violates reason as much as it makes life valuable and worth living. Thus we simply attempt to restrain our passions through use of reason, but even then, there's a large part of all of our desires that aren't really satisfied. Then we live half-assed lives and have to put up with so much bullshit just to make some spare time for those true passions, which just crave more and more.

Hunter-gatherer lifestyles show that their peoples need to require less hours of work throughout the week since they only live for sustenance. They're ignorant of many human accomplishments and creations in the world, but at the same time they don't crave the newest material good either. However, the mortality rate is higher and life expectancy is probably generally lower due to disease and more murder... And so, for a better guarantee of safety, we ended up putting so much effort and sacrifice into advancing civilization, even if that safe life was full of bullshit.

Post edited on 3rd Aug 2014, 4:18pm

Another thing is that life is ridiculously unfair. I don't just mean that some people are better at things than others and that there are sprinkles of geniuses and retards or wealth inequality, but there are so many pointless birth defects and genetic diseases, not to mention personality disorders (which most of this board would be more familiar with). It only makes things interesting up to a certain level, and beyond that fascination with all of these different sorts of needless suffering becomes sadistic. Guess that's where religion gets its appeal for offering compensation.

I would consider myself fairly lucky except the ronery part though, my social skills used to border on autism maybe 5-6 years back but now I'm just awkward and quiet and can handle non-rational discussions as long as I can direct them to a more rational train of thought.

>>13680
It's sad how it's illegal in most countries to take this thrown food, since it's usually not gone bad or anything.

>>13680
>>18529
In the end, food has to be bought I guess. It's just another commodity to be organized and fought over and not a natural right, especially because more mouths need to be fed if the population continues increasing. In addition it also serves as motivation to contribute to society (haha...).

I think a smaller population would fix a lot of problems.

Would simply everything looking like anime (not changing how things worked/people were on the inside) help for a lot of you? Just curious here.

>>18580
a bit I think. people would still be shit but at least I wouldn't find them disgusting to look at.

>>18580

I think it'd actually make things worse. It'd feel like I was betrayed in a way.

Post edited on 28th Aug 2014, 10:24pm

>>18580
Nothing would change because real, living humans are absolute shit, so much so that a change in visual appearance wouldn't even come close to making them acceptable.

The reason 2D is preferred is because it is an idea, an idea that can be as close to being objectively perfect because it is nothing more than an idea and can remain as such as an idea is far more than what reality can ever hope to be.

Eh. My mindset now is try not to see so much the "good" things in people but rather how they might entertain or interest me. That way their bad traits can be turned into interesting things too even if they aren't particularly funny -- that's how I put up with them. That mentality may or may not work for a lot of you here. I guess if I had to describe exactly how I do it, I try to figure out why they act the way they do. Don't think I'll ever have the skills of a born extrovert though, I'm still more of a listener.

The issue with many of you here are that people are shit in many, many ways. For the sake of conversation, is there a specific problem within human psychology whose elimination would benefit humanity? I would probably say it's humanity's narrow-mindedness and inability/laziness to see other people for what they really are, but maybe that's just my perspective.

Thinking about changing human nature is pretty unrealistic though, evolution only creates what is necessary to survive and technology always comes with trade-offs.

>>18606
Greed.

It's just a lack of empathy, across races, nations, the sexes, ages, etc.

One group looks at another group and says "You don't deserve to be angry about that. That's nothing to get upset about. But the things that make ME upset/angry are totally rational and justified."

And then tension builds because we're discounting one another's feelings. But the thing is, if we lived in a perfectly empathetical world, nobody would be able to get anything done for fear of hurting feelings.

>>18606

If I had to pick one I'd say willful ignorance.

Normals look down on us but they're really sad people. They'll go work their ass off spewing mantras like "At least I have a job.". When they come home they'll sit down and ingest whatever hate filled garbage the news is spewing this week. They'll spend all their time watching TV but never take an interest in the history of film, what the greats are, etc. They just sit, turn their brain off and watch whats on without thinking. Then a few times a month they'll gather with family/friends and discuss what people have been doing to get attention lately.

Anyone who doesn't conform to this gets looked at as a no life weirdo. If you show even the slightest bit of interest/competency in an academic field that isn't related to getting a job they hold you in extremely high esteem. Like you're some kind of genius. These people have no capacity to think so when they encounter someone/something different they just have a primitive gut reaction to it that usually amounts to "kill it".

I used to just think people misunderstood me, that I was inadvertently making myself seem smarter than I actually am. As time goes on I can't help but see normals as inferior since they're little more than apes and are perfectly fine remaining that. It sounds really fucking douchy to put it that way, I can't help feeling it though.

>>18615
this sounds really pretentious bro.
>These people have no capacity to think
>making myself seem smarter than I actually am
i bet you think you're better than everyone else, even if it's just subconsciously. and calling them normals like it's a slur creates a very us vs them mentality.

>>18614
More empathy might be even more problematic, everyone suffers and you can't rationalize a decision. I do admire those geniunely tough people that take their problems reasonably and without flinching and think that they're allowed to preach stoicism, but as you said most people always think their problems are more important than others.

>>18615
Can you really call it willful ignorance the way you describe them though? In my eyes, not everyone has the capacity to enjoy great art or literature.

>>18617

>i bet you think you're better than everyone else, even if it's just subconsciously.

All my life for whatever reason I've been told how smart I supposedly am. I humbly denied for ages knowing that I'm not. It feels nice to let myself sit atop the tower people have built for me and look down on them for once.

Honestly I'm not smart, but they don't know that so I might as well use them to boost my own ego. It's a bit dickish but being nice just means people will shit on you in life.

>>18619

They don't have any hobbies or interests, they seem happy living the way they do. Even if they have a hobby as simple as stamp collecting theres at least something there. Something they think about and have an interest in. So many people around me in life just seem to be empty shells. Work, come home, watch tv (usually reruns of shitty reality tv they've watched countless times) until tired, repeat. They're somehow happy that way. I can't understand it. It's like they're mindless robots.

>>18620

What's the difference between them and people here? We're all just filling the time before we expire.

I like moe anime and electronic music. I couldn't give a stuff about the history of film or reading novels.

>>18620
>Honestly I'm not smart, but they don't know that so I might as well use them to boost my own ego.
But doesn't that work only when you're acknowledged by people that you conversely consider smart? being taken for smart by relative dumbs you surround yourself with has no merit. I at least couldn't take any pride on that.

>>18642

TC users don't delude themselves into thinking they're happy. You also have things you know you like, when you ask these people what they like they usually respond with some non-answer like "you know, stuff.".

>>18644

Its less that it makes me feel smart and more that it lets me feel superior and in charge. Sure its not hard to impress them but it makes me feel like I'm not the lowliest person in the world.

>>18645
> it lets me feel superior and in charge.
At work I was forced to be in charge of the IT stuff for several months because everyone else left. It was terrible and ruined my health because of stress. I resigned some time after they hired someone new. Everyone treated me as smart and praised. I didn't care one bit.

> it makes me feel like I'm not the lowliest person in the world.
I'm generally feeling above others at least half my life since the moment I started to notice differences from them. Because of my serious attitude everyone treats me the same, as intelligent person. Parents can't talk back to me, and not because I'm arrogant or anything, it's the opposite. Now, that I left the work and sit in my room for some years, left with net only, I usually see through general behavioral patterns of people online and that makes talking to them extremely predictable and boring. If I say something unusual it's always treated as trolling. There's literally no one to talk to in the entire world. No way in hell this state of affairs can be pleasant.

Looking at you all, innocently craving for this useless trifles, I wonder, what a happy people you are, comfortably cuddling with each other while desiring things same as every normal person out there.

Right now, the leading solution that's resulted from my pondering is that all people's mind should become connected. Every single conflict is caused merely by misunderstandings. If all humans could just understand each other completely, there'd be total peace.

However, this would effectively turn all humans into a single entity of humanity. On the good side, advancements in matters of thought, like science, arts and philosophy, would speed up immensely. However, would we be able to even call ourselves humans by then? We would lose our individuality, which is what defines us as humans in the first place. The whole matter is similar to the main plot of Evangelion, and many other stories as well probably.

This is the best solution I can think of to solve all the world's problems as humankind, if we can disregard the cost for it. But honestly, I doubt there is any real solution at all, unless we could somehow rewrite reality.

Sorry for the pseudo-intellectual discourse, I'm just hoping to hear other's thoughts on this.

>>18663
>science, arts and philosophy
art and philosophy have pretty damn subjective values to me -- in my opinion a truly great piece of art captures the artist's subjectivity, whether the artist is putting forth something physically beautiful but still dependent on cultural-social norms for its deeper value or is putting forward his own experience, no matter how factually inaccurate it might be. Similarly, even if philosophy held absolute analytical truths and judgments, I don't think philosophy is worth much when it doesn't contain opposing viewpoints through discourse -- philosophies are great because they rationally explain subjective interpretations and perceptions of the world.

>>18706
>philosophies are great because they rationally explain subjective interpretations and perceptions of the world.

Thats just like your philosophy man.

/polite sage

>>18723
Sage is always polite.

>>18725

>>18663
Is mind connection necessary? If people were somehow connected in a more friend-like way, wouldn't that also work? I mean, I'd never want to wage war against my neighbor country much less since it's a country I know and feel for. Instead I'd want to help them if needed. Culture clashes are of course inevitable and opposing ideologies as well, but complete assimilation shouldn't have to be the only way.
But then again, feelings change and people get stupid (or greedy or desperate).

>>18663
I'm sure new yet to be imagined ways of conflict would be discovered with the collective power of every jerk in the world.

>>13648
>The only thing that could truly fix the world is the death of all humans.
This point hit my eye scrolling back up and today in particular I've been annoyed with the universally popular hippie misanthrope attitude of "humans are the devil in a double Hitler costume".
All animals are basically assholes. Otters kill anything unfortunate enough to get close enough to be drowned by them and ceaselessly rape the corpses, pandas enslave humans only to mock their hugely expensive efforts to conserve their useless and poorly dapted species, hamsters eat each other and their own children for shits and giggles...
Life is nasty brutish and short for everyone and everything that lives, mostly because of everyone and everything that lives.
But at least we're in the unique position of being able to understand it to an—as far as we know—unprecedented degree. Not that we'd be capable of caring if we weren't, or that being smart enough to infer the consequences of our actions to a much broader degree than any other species has actually gone terribly far toward eliminating any of the usual downsides of being life.

>>18898
>I'm sure new yet to be imagined ways of conflict would be discovered with the collective power of every jerk in the world.

I can't imagine that happening because their intentions would be found out before they even get to do anything. But remnants of individuality like having personal intentions would eventually disappear as everyone's minds continue to develop into a single consciousness.

Maybe becoming a single consciousness is inevitably the next step for us. Like how microorganisms long ago merged together to form more and more complex organisms. Maybe after humanity becomes one, we'd find other sentient species that became single consciousnesses and the merging would continue on.

>>18913
>their intentions would be found out before they even get to do anything
What if an intention that you as an individual would have vehemently disagreed with came out on top as a pan-human concensus? What if all of humanity somehow linked together like telepathic pigs in a mental sausage skin or melted into some kind of mind soup would just be an even more dysfunctional and self-destructive a mess than humanity as a collection of individuals ever was?

Would it have to be only the "best and brightest" as chosen by "society at large"—whatever that means—through some ultimately arbitrary criteria for the mind-meld, or would those deemed anti-social be expected to be socialized and bent to the will of those with a desire for a particular kind of order? And if so, would that not just be the greatest, most mercilessly all-encompassing and intimately oppressive fascist regime conceivable?

Of course, it's kind of impossible to even imagine what a telepathic link between all people would be like, but I Definitely err on the side of "Doesn't seem like living to me." on that particular sci-fi notion.

Except for maybe some more abstract extrasensory bond, like half-betazoid empathy.
But even then, what if there arose individuals who would just use their extrasensory empathy to be more efficient con-men?

I guess I'm at this point more or less just arguing that life probably can't be "fixed" by any magic bullet solution. That life—as Jurassic Park taught us—finds a way. A way to screw over other life for its own benefit.
And isn't that just a jolly, cheery thought?

>>18929
Nicely said. Way more precise than I could hope to write.

>>18929
I like to think that the whole single-consciousness idea isn't all bad if somehow we'd retain individuality in how we perceive things. We'd be sharing all of our thoughts but our every one would still have his own emotions and feelings on those thoughts.

I don't really believe there's a solution either. The laws of the world just can't allow it. For anything positive, there has to be a negative. I just hate it.

>>18645
I don't think it is fair to lump all TC users into the same pot. If someone asked me what I liked, I would give them a non-answer, because it is none of their business. Not everyone is an openbook, I feel like many TC users would do the same.